By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | January 24, 2024
What is unfolding today in West Asia — the Gaza war and its regional expansion — cannot be viewed separately from the international transformations that have grown in momentum over the past few years. Today, the transition to multipolarity is the underlying factor shaping the decisions and policies of most countries, particularly those of the great powers.
The timing of Israel’s devastating military assault on Gaza coincides with heightened US attention on its great power competition for Washington, this conflict has much wider geopolitical significance beyond West Asia. In this context, the US has assumed, and will continue to play, a pivotal role in Gaza and its environs, unlike its powerful peers in China and Russia.
According to statistics published by the China Society for Human Rights Studies, the US initiated 201 of the 248 armed conflicts that took place since the end of World War II, often engaging in these wars via US-led alliances and/or proxies.
For decades, Washington has led these conflicts by very ably forming, then leading, and directing broad alliances to achieve its political and military objectives. But that ability notably shifted in December 2023, signaling a sharp decline in this capability.
In response to Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces’ Red Sea blockade of Israeli-linked vessels, the US Department of Defense announced the formation of “Operation Guardian of Prosperity … to uphold the foundational principle of freedom of navigation” in those waters, initially consisting of a coalition of ten countries, most of them insignificant partners.
Protecting Israel or maintaining maritime dominance?
The coalition proved shaky from the get-go, with only the US and Britain actively involved in military strikes on Yemen. The reluctance of key European countries France, Spain, and Italy to join the naval alliance indicated a growing skepticism among the US’s traditional partners — both western and West Asian — about Washington’s commitment and capability to defend its allies in any impactful way.
Interestingly, more than eight further countries reportedly joined the coalition, but demanded anonymity, given the potential political fallout from associating with Washington and Tel Aviv.
Crucially, the Pentagon’s stated purpose of securing navigation in the Red Sea does not align with the actual threat presented, revealing ulterior motives behind US actions. The Yemenis have repeatedly confirmed that they only intend to inhibit the passage of Israeli-owned or destined vessels — and that all other ships are free to pass.
In short, the US/UK-led coalition is acting as a naval arm for Israeli military forces, seeking specifically to ensure unimpeded access for ships heading to Israeli ports via the Bab al-Mandab Strait. That’s not a position many other states will get behind if they want to maintain freedom of transport for their own shipping vessels.
Ultimately, the American show of force in these waterways seeks to consolidate US naval dominance, which war-torn Yemen, West Asia’s poorest country, has contested.
As outlined in the National Security Strategy for 2022:
The US “will not allow foreign or regional powers to jeopardize freedom of navigation through the Middle East’s (West Asia) waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al Mandab, nor tolerate efforts by any country to dominate another — or the region — through military buildups, incursions, or threats.”
According to media reports following massive US airstrikes against Iraqi targets on 23 January, Iraqi resistance factions will now also follow Yemen’s suit by implementing a blockade of Israeli ports in the Mediterranean Sea.
Current events are spiraling out of Washington’s control as onlookers increasingly question the utility and competence of US naval leadership in the world’s important waterways. Equally, there is recognition that other formidable forces and states have emerged, challenging US control over key global straits. In the words of British politician and writer Walter Raleigh, “Who rules the seas rules the world.” Under Sanaa’s watch, the US no longer can claim rule over the Red Sea or even its adjacent waterways.
Great power competition amid the Gaza war
The current scenario in West Asia, particularly post-Al-Aqsa Flood and the Gaza war that followed, coincides with a shift in Washington’s focus toward competition with China and its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. As outlined in the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment last year, this transition has already affected strategic goals, leading to a sharp decline in western support, especially from the US, for Ukraine. The Biden administration faced challenges in securing Congressional approval for a new aid package for Kiev, which directly competed for dollars against Tel Aviv’s military campaign in Gaza.
Despite assurances from western leaders during visits to Ukraine in October, their statements came without tangible material support, leaving President Volodymyr Zelensky in the proverbial dust. Quite unexpectedly, China has emerged as a potential peacemaker in this European conflict, with Kiev openly requesting Beijing’s involvement in mediation talks, and the US itself open to Chinese mediation to mitigate the escalation in West Asia.
The Chinese are well aware that there are no simple, face-saving exits for the US from the Gaza war it has championed and that the conflict’s metamorphosis into a regional one mires the US deeper into West Asia — and away from the Asia-Pacific.
Although China seeks to increase its presence in West Asia, it is very careful not to bog itself down in the region’s many issues. But Washington’s request that Beijing use its influence to sway Iran from conflict escalation makes clear that the US is no longer “the biggest power” in the region.
Why Israel opposes multipolarity
Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, US financial and military support for Israel has reached a critical stage, presenting two options for Washington. The first involves imposing some control on Israeli actions, given that the war’s timing has been unfavorable to US strategic interests, particularly in a critical election year. The second option, favored by the Washington elite, is to continue its unwavering support to Tel Aviv, even at the risk of damage to its global image.
Sustained global outrage over the Gaza war, coupled with the landmark genocide case filed against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), shows that Washington’s ability to cover for Israel is diminishing rapidly. Again, this reflects the global shift in the balance of power toward multipolarity, which is marked by the widespread decline of American influence.
But the US support for the Gaza genocide has had dramatic domestic repercussions, too. Polls show a major shift in the attitudes of young Americans, especially university youth, who will make up the ranks of America’s future leaders.
A Harvard-Harris poll published on 17 January reveals that 46 percent of respondents aged 18-24 believe that Hamas’ actions on 7 October can be justified because of the injustice to which the Palestinians are subjected. The same poll shows that 43 percent of the same group support Hamas in this war, and that 57 percent believe that Israel is carrying out massacres in Gaza. The most staggering poll result of all, though, has to be the one in December (conducted by the same pollsters) in which 51 percent of young Americans believe a final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to end and be given to Hamas and the Palestinians.
While Israel remains a direct US interest in West Asia, Washington’s commitment to Tel Aviv’s security has already become a growing burden and increasingly difficult to justify. As the region’s Axis of Resistance expands its battle with Israel on new, multiple frontlines, the US will need to reallocate ever-expanding resources and focus on matching its international rivals in further-flung geographies.
Ukraine was a test run compared to this Gaza war and the immense, direct toll it is taking on US alliances, domestic politics, and the American image globally. For Israel, this presents an existential crisis beyond measure, as Washington is forced to compete with other great powers, none of whom are ideologically driven to support Zionism as part of their foreign policies.
By Binoy Kampmark | MEMO | January 16, 2024
There is something distinctly revolting and authoritarian about the royal prerogative. It reeks of clandestine assumption, unwarranted self-confidence and, most of all, a blithe indifference to accountability before elected representatives. That prerogative, in other words, is the last reminder of divine right, the fiction that a ruler can have powers vested by an unsubstantiated deity, the invisible God, and a punishing force beyond the reach of human control. And that such powers can in turn be vested in the government of the day. It is anathema to democracy, a stain on republican models of government, a joke on any political system that has some claim on representing what might be called the broader citizenry.
The UK government, in league with the US and with support from a number of other countries, attacked Houthi positions in Yemen on 11 January. The decision was made without recourse to parliament and was justified by reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter as “limited, necessary and proportionate in self-defence”.
In his statement on the attacks, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pointed to the Houthi’s role in staging “a series of dangerous and destabilising attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea, threatening UK and other international ships, causing major disruption to a vital trade route and driving up commodity prices.” He made no mention of the Houthis’ own justification for the attacks as necessary measures to disrupt Israeli shipping and interests in response to their systematic, bloodcurdling razing of the Gaza Strip.
Lip service has been paid by the executive within Westminster to parliament’s importance in deciding whether the country commits to military action or not.
The stark problem is that the action is always decided upon in advance, and no dissent among parliamentarians will necessarily sway the issue. Motions can be proposed and rejected but remain non-binding on the executive emboldened by the royal prerogative.
The British decision to commit to the egregious invasion of Iraq in 2003 was already a foregone conclusion, despite preliminary debates in the House of Commons and huge public protests against the measure. On 18 March, 2011, the then British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the Commons of his intention to attack Libya, leading to a government motion on 21 March that the chamber “supports Her Majesty’s Government… in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-protected measures.”
That same year, the then Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK acknowledged that a convention had crystallised in parliament that the House of Commons should be availed of “an opportunity to debate the matter [of committing troops] and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”
The broadly worded nature of the caveats – in cases of emergency or when it would not be appropriate – have made something of a nonsense of the convention. In April 2016, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon made much of the “exception”, arguing that it was “important to ensure that this and future Governments can use their judgment about how best to protect the security and interests of the UK.”
Parliament, in short, should be put in its place when necessary. Governments, it is reasoned, know best when it comes to matters of national security; parliamentarians less so. “In observing the Convention,” Fallon goes on to explain, “we must ensure that the ability of our Armed Forces is to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.” In such cases, matters could be dealt with retrospectively, with the government of the day subsequently informing parliament after the fact.
An example of this absurd policy was played out in the decision by the UK government in April 2018 to target the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Hiding behind the weasel claim of humanitarianism, the explanation for avoiding parliament was shoddy and leaden. “It was necessary,” came the explanation from the PM’s office, “to strike with speed so we could allow our Armed Forces to act decisively, maintain the vital security of their operations, and protect the security and interests of the UK.”
The Yemen strikes eschew humanitarianism (the humanitarian justifications advanced by the Houthis in protecting Palestinian civilians has been rejected), but, in any case, shipping interests take priority. Armed Forces Minister James Heappey, apparently, was satisfied that an exception to the convention to consult parliament had presented itself. “The prime minister,” the minister parroted, “needs to make decisions such as these based on the military, strategic and operational requirements. That led to the timing.”
With the horse having bolted merrily out of the stable, Heappey remarked with all due condescension that parliament would, in time, be able to respond to the decision to strike Yemen. An “opportunity” would be made available “when parliament returns for these things to be fully discussed and debated.” The sheer redundancy of parliament’s role in matters of state, and that of MPs, could thereby be affirmed.
Much agitated by this state of affairs, former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell opined that no military action should take place without parliament’s approval. “If we have learnt anything in recent years it’s that military intervention in the Middle East always has dangerous and often unforeseen consequences,” said McDonnell. “There is a risk of setting the region alight.”
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran was of the view that parliament should not be bypassed in matters of war, yet opted for the rather fatuous formula arising out of the 2011 convention. “Rishi Sunak must announce a retrospective vote in the House of Commons on these strikes, and recall parliament this weekend,” she said.
The use of the royal prerogative in authorising military action remains one of those British perversions that makes for good common room conversation but offends the sensibilities of the democratically minded elector. A far better practice would be to make the PM of the day accountable to that most essential body of all: parliament. That same principle would be extended to other constitutional monarchies, which are similarly weighed down by the all too liberal use of the prerogative when shedding blood. If a country’s citizens are to go to war to kill and be killed, surely their elected representatives should have a say in that most vital of decisions?
Sputnik – 16.01.2024
“The US, which is pouring fuel on the fire in the Israel-Palestine conflict, also wants to play the role of fireman,” read an article in Chinese media criticizing America’s “unconditional support for Israel.”
China released a joint statement with Arab League nations Sunday urging a ceasefire in Gaza and advocating a two-state solution to resolve the long running Palestine-Israel conflict.
The resolution emerged after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul-Gheit in Cairo, Egypt.
The statement called for dialogue with Palestinian groups and a global peace conference to move towards implementing a two-state solution, advocating a “government of Palestine for the Palestinians.” The leaders urged the full implementation of resolutions passed by the United Nations which have long criticized the Israeli occupation of internationally-recognized Palestinian territory. The United States typically uses its influence and position on the UN Security Council to block and undermine resolutions criticizing Israel’s conduct.
The leaders also promoted the resumption of direct peace talks between the Israeli and Palestinian sides.
The statement then touched on recent US and UK-backed airstrikes against the Houthi movement in Yemen, which Chinese media criticized as an “escalation” of the situation and an attempt to distract from the broader conflict. Chinese media called for the respect of the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yemen,” a critique of the airstrikes that it noted lacked authorization by the UN.
Finally, China called for the sending of humanitarian aid to Palestinians, which it labeled an “imperative moral responsibility.” China insisted that the only way to ultimately safeguard commercial interests in the Red Sea is to achieve “a just settlement of the Palestinian issue.”
“We have a common responsibility to ensure the security of the Red Sea, and we will not be deceived by the US to fuel such tensions,” said Li Weijian, a researcher at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies.
China and Arab League countries also vowed to move forward on economic cooperation via China’s Belt and Road initiative during the meeting.
The Cradle | January 15, 2024
The US is set to send 1,500 soldiers to Syria and Iraq, ostensibly in order to join the fight against ISIS, CBS Philadelphia reports on 14 January.
The soldiers will be sent from the New Jersey Army National Guard in its largest deployment of soldiers to the area since 2008.
“We have the people we need. We have the training that we need. We have the equipment that we need to fight and win,” Lt Colonel Omar Minott, who is among the 1,500 to be deployed, said.
The deployment of troops to Syria and Iraq falls under Operation Inherent Resolve, the US military campaign against the Islamic State across Iraq, Libya, and Syria, which calls for combating ISIS and defending US bases against resistance groups in the region.
The military operation caused a large number of US personnel deployments to the region this year.
Within the latter half of 2023, the US sent a wave of 2,500 soldiers to Syria and deployed over 900 soldiers to Iraq on two separate occasions. The deployment of these soldiers was to protect US interests against “Iran-affiliated forces.”
According to Axios, the US military presence in the region reached about 45,400 as of October 2023. The majority is in Kuwait, with 13,500; followed by Bahrain at 9,000; and Qatar at 8,000.
The US deployment into Syria and Iraq to combat ISIS raises questions. According to the US State Department, ISIS attacks in Syria have decreased by 68 percent and 80 percent in Iraq when comparing 2023 to 2022.
The Cradle’s Robert Inlakesh has said that this push by the US is to keep hold of its dominance in the region.
“To maintain the dominance of the collective west over the region, the immediate hurdle is overcoming the influences of Iran and Russia. This is why the occupation of roughly a third of Syrian territory by the US and its proxies, along with the imposition of deadly sanctions on Damascus, has become crucial in undermining the strength of its adversaries,” Inlakesh said.
Iranian and Russian forces in Syria have been coordinating with the specific aim of forcing Washington’s troops to eventually withdraw from the country.
Meanwhile, various Iraqi resistance forces have said they will continue to fight the US until they withdraw from their nation’s borders.
Kataib Hezbollah spokesman Abu Ali al-Askari has previously said that the group’s operations against the US occupation will continue until the last soldier is removed from Iraq.
Global Times | January 13, 2024
China opposes any forcible transfer of the Palestinian people from the Gaza Strip, and all measures must be taken to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe and make a cease-fire the most urgent task of the moment, China’s permanent representative to the UN Zhang Jun said during a UN Security Council conference on Friday local time.
An immediate ceasefire has become the overwhelming call of the international community, but a permanent member of UN Security Council (UNSC) has vetoed the consensus reached by the UNSC in this regard on various grounds, which is a blatant defiance of international fairness, justice and the authority of UNSC, Zhang said.
The UNSC failed to adopt a draft resolution on December 8, 2023 that would have demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza due to a veto cast by the US. Many countries expressed disappointment over the US veto of the Gaza-related draft.
It is a blatant double standard for some people to talk about the protection of human rights and the prevention of genocide while pretending to be deaf and dumb, covering up and diverting attention from the tragic situation in Gaza, Zhang remarked, “We must remove all interference and take vigorous action to quell the war, save lives and restore peace.”
In addition, Zhang stressed that that any forcible transfer of the Palestinian people must be firmly rejected.
Over the past three months, millions of Palestinian people have been forced to relocate repeatedly and were under constant threat to their lives, said Zhang, noting that China is gravely concerned about the “voluntary emigration” of Gaza people, which has been advocated by some Israeli politicians.
The horrific idea of displacing two million people from Gaza and turning it into a “safe zone” devoid of human habitation, if implemented, would constitute a grave crime under international law and completely destroy prospects for the “Two-State solution,” Zhang remarked.
The Chinese envoy called for all measures to be taken to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip.
Zhang said it was totally unacceptable for Israel to accuse the UN of not having the will and capacity to provide humanitarian relief when it was clear that Israel was accountable for the continued bombing and striking in Gaza and setting obstacles to the entry of humanitarian supplies.
He urged Israel to immediately cease its indiscriminate military attacks and destruction of Gaza.
UNSC resolutions 2712 and 2720 must be fully implemented, and Israel must fulfil its obligations as the occupying party to guarantee the safety of humanitarian workers and provide full cooperation with humanitarian relief efforts, Zhang said.
The envoy reiterated that a ceasefire must be implemented with the utmost urgency. “Only a ceasefire can prevent greater civilian casualties and humanitarian disasters and create conditions for the early release of all hostages; only a ceasefire can prevent the complete destruction of the basis of the Two-State solution; and only a ceasefire can prevent the entire Middle East region from being drawn into a catastrophe.”
Regarding the recent attacks launched by US and UK on Yemen against the Houthi rebels, which targeted Israeli-linked ships in the Red Sea, Zhang expressed concerns about the spillover effects of the Gaza crisis.
Zhang said at a UNSC emergency conference on the Red Sea situation on the same day that the UNSC has never authorized any country to use force against Yemen. The military action taken by the related countries runs counter to the UN resolution 2722, which the Security Council has just adopted.
The envoy warned that the Middle East region is on the brink of extreme danger, and what should be avoided now is reckless military adventurism. He added that what is needed most of all is calm and restraint to prevent further expansion of the conflict.
China urges all parties concerned, especially the influential powers, to abide by the Charter of the UN and international law, adhere to the direction of dialogue and consultation, and make practical efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Red Sea and the Middle East region, Zhang said.
The US carried out further strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen on Friday night a day after launching a coordinated multi-nation attack on nearly 30 Houthi locations.
Press TV – January 11, 2024
Henry Kissinger was one of the most influential US statesmen of the 20th century, who shamelessly used his position to manipulate the United States into providing unequivocal support to Israel.
As a hardcore Zionist, Kissinger was incredibly Machiavellian, but unlike his modern-day equivalents, he was not stupid and he certainly was not demented. Kissinger was also the architect of some of the 20th century’s worst human rights abuses and war crimes.
Henry Kissinger, his life and legacy
The passing of a war criminal, the death of Henry Kissinger at 100 years old marks the end of a bloody life.
Kissinger is well known for his role in engineering the coup that brought General Pinochet to power in Chile and overthrowing the democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende.
Kissinger’s fingerprints were all over the wars from Vietnam to Cambodia to East Timor to Bangladesh.
Less well known though, is Kissinger’s role in the neutralization of Egypt as an effective actor in the struggle against Zionism and the marginalization of Palestinians by regional allies.
It’s fair to say you would not have the same level of Egyptian complicity that you have today, including the genocidal blockade on Gaza at the Rafah crossing, without Kissinger’s work to subvert the powerful Arab state.
As Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, Kissinger was intimately involved in saving Israel in the 1973 war of attrition fought by Syria, Egypt, and Libya against the settler entity.
When the Zionists suffered consecutive losses, Kissinger and Nixon organized the emergency supply of weapons to the entity in a move known as Operation Nickel Grass.
The operation consisted of the US Air Force Military Airlift Command, delivering 22,325 tons of tanks, ammunition, and military equipment, over 32 days, directly to the battlefield.
Following the war, Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat sent a secret message to Zionist Prime Minister Golda Meir: “When I threatened war, I meant it; when I talk of peace now, I mean it. We have never had contact before, We now have the services of Dr. Kissinger. Let us use him and talk to each other through him”, asserted Sadat.
It was Kissinger who took Sadat under his wing and convinced him of the benefit of normalizing with the temporary entity. This work culminated with the visit of the Egyptian leader to the Israeli parliament, where he addressed the Israeli political elite, stating his desire for peace with the entity.
The infrastructure of collaboration that was set up during his time remains in place. When marking the death of Kissinger, Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, credited the former US Secretary of State with laying the cornerstone of the peace agreement between Egypt and the Zionist entity.
Israel lobbyist and former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, wrote a book about Kissinger’s political career with a special concentration on his services to Israel in 1981.
In reference to his diplomatic work in the Middle East, Kissinger asserted that his main objective was to isolate the Palestinians.
The truth is that Palestinians are not isolated, and support for them has outlived Henry Kissinger.
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | JANUARY 11, 2024
The diplomatic arena of the Middle East was dominated in the past week by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s regional tour to Türkiye, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank and Egypt. It was a ‘road show’ to rally the leaders of the Arab countries behind the US but culminated in an acrimonious meeting in the West Bank between Blinken and the Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas marred by “quarrels and arguments,” according to Sky News Arabia.
The region is gripped by angst that Israel may provoke a fateful expansion of the conflict in the Gaza Strip to Lebanon and Iran after the assassination of a number of senior military figures from Hamas and Hezbollah in the recent days, which overlapped Blinken’s presence in the region and underscored Tel Aviv’s disdain toward diplomatic niceties. Two videos from the West Bank showed Israeli troops shooting a 17-year-old boy and repeatedly running over the dead body of a man they had shot last Friday.
The US fears the expansion of the conflict in the Middle East. Yet, Blinken was burdened with the contradiction that the rhetoric of Washington’s continued support for the Israeli operation is so visibly at odds with the words of President Joe Biden last week that he was doing “quiet” work with the Israeli government “to get them to significantly reduce their presence and largely withdraw from the Gaza Strip.”
Blinken claimed that “the (Arab) countries agreed to work together to help the Gaza Strip stabilise, chart a political path for the Palestinians and work towards long-term peace, security and stability in the region.” At the same time, he conceded that to do this, it is necessary to end the conflict in Gaza and identify a concrete path to the creation of a Palestinian state. Blinken flagged that the countries of the region are still interested in normalising relations with Israel, but only on the terms of a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Arguably, these could be incipient signs of a road map emerging.
The killing of senior Hamas and Hezbollah officials indicates that Israel is not making significant progress on the battlefield and the leadership is under compulsion to gather ‘trophies’ and claim ‘victory’. In a hybrid war, such killings will not significantly weaken the resistance movement. An effective leader was appointed overnight to head the IRGC’S Quds Force when the legendary Iranian general Qassem Soleimani was assassinated in 2020.
That said, the probability of a direct conflict between Israel and Hezbollah should not be overestimated, since the latter is well aware that an outbreak of hostilities is precisely what suits Tel Aviv. Iran also sizes up Israel’s calculus to drag the US into the war. According to reports, Iran has supplied cruise missiles to Hezbollah.
Against such a tumultuous backdrop, in a carefully choreographed sideshow, the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell also appeared in the region at the same time as Blinken. Borrell’s destinations were Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. The EU announcement said that Borrell’s mission “will be an occasion to discuss all aspects of the situation in and around Gaza, including its impact on the region, especially the situation at the Israeli-Lebanese border, as well as the importance of avoiding regional escalation and of sustaining the flow of humanitarian assistance to civilians.”
While speaking to the media in Beirut, Borrell was highly critical of Israel’s war in Gaza and called for a pause “that could become a permanent one.” He also said, “It is imperative to avoid a regional escalation. It is absolutely necessary to avoid Lebanon being dragged into a regional conflict.” Borrell saw his mission as one to take stock of the situation and “to contribute to a way out of the crisis.”
Borrell met with the Head of Mission and Force Commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) General Aroldo Lazaro, a compatriot from Spain. Indeed, there has been some talk of deploying a peacekeeping force on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reported, citing a government source in Beirut, that Borrell also had an unpublicised meeting with a delegation from Hezbollah led by Mohammad Raad, a member of the Lebanese legislature. Conceivably, this might have been a key item on his itinerary in Beirut.
While the US and several European countries, including Germany, the UK, Czech Republic, Austria, among others, regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, the EU restricted itself to merely adding Hezbollah’s so-called “military wing” to its terror list, leaving the door open to interact with the movement’s political leadership if need arises.
That came in the wake of the group’s alleged 2012 suicide bus bombing in Burgas, Bulgaria, which killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian driver. During a debate on the crisis situation in Lebanon last July, the European Parliament, for the first time, adopted a resolution calling for the EU to add the whole of Hezbollah to its list of banned terrorist organisations, but that hasn’t yet been acted upon.
Borrell’s meeting with the Hezbollah delegation would only have been with the knowledge of the Biden administration — it could even be providing a thinkable (and actionable) leitmotif of Borrell’s trip to Lebanon. BBC had reported a week ago on secret contacts between Israel and Hezbollah as well.
At any rate, by a coincidence, Borrell happened to be in Saudi Arabia when Blinken arrived there, and the two of them had a meeting. Later, in a prepared statement to the media after talks in Saudi Arabia with foreign minister Prince Faisal, Borrell also took a nuanced stance apropos Hamas, saying,
“And now we have to stop the killing of civilians in Gaza. We have to stop this great number of casualties. Hamas has to be eradicated. But Hamas is an idea, it represents an idea, and you cannot kill an idea. The only way of killing an idea –- a bad idea — is to propose a better one, to give a horizon to the Palestinian people, to their dignity, to their freedom, to their security, which has to go hand in hand with the security of Israel.”
Clearly, Borrell strove to break the ice by engaging with Hezbollah. Considering that the EU has been the US’ junior partner on major international issues, Borrell’s mission can be considered as substantive aimed at opening a diplomatic track to ease the Israel-Lebanon border tensions.
Equally, Borrell and Prince Faisal rekindled the so-called Peace Day Effort launched in September last year jointly by the EU with Saudi Arabia, the League of Arab States, Egypt and Jordan as an initiative “to reinvigorate the peace process in the Middle East.”
A joint statement issued at that time on the sidelines of the 78th session of the UN General Assembly, in the presence of almost fifty Foreign Ministers from around the world sought “to produce a “Peace Supporting Package” that will maximise peace dividends for the Palestinians and Israelis once they reach a peace agreement, … thus incentivising earnest efforts to reach it.”
As EU foreign policy chief, Borrell navigated international turbulence and divisions within the 28-member bloc to make Europe more united and turn it into a diplomatic heavyweight, but with patchy success. Of course, Ukraine spoiled the party. Palestine could well be Borrell’s last waltz. Borrell’s five-year term in Brussels ends in December.
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | JANUARY 9, 2024
The expectation raised by the United States in allowing a UN Security Council resolution on Gaza pass through on December 22, 2023 without having to exercise its veto — albeit a watered-down one that stopped short of calling for ceasefire — was that the manifest international isolation facing Washington and Tel Aviv would inevitably impact Israel’s options going forward.
However, there are contrarian trends. Israel started the new year by ordering the withdrawal of part of its military forces from Gaza, but the spokesman of the IDF Daniel Hagari emphasised that the war will continue in 2024 and called this withdrawal in line with the renewal of forces and new organisation of Israeli army. Speaking on New Year’s Eve, Hagari said, “Tonight, 2024 begins and our goals require a long war, and we are preparing ourselves accordingly. We have a smart plan to manage our deployments, taking into account reserves, the economy, families, and resupply, as well as the continuation of combat and training.”
Hagari’s ambivalent hint that the military has wrapped up major combat in northern Gaza was buttressed with the claim that the forces would “continue to deepen the achievement” in northern Gaza, strengthen defences along the Israel-Gaza border fence and focus on the central and southern parts of the territory.
On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant also presented a plan of a shift toward less intense military operations. The minister’s office said in a statement, “In the northern region of the Gaza strip, we will transition to a new combat approach in accordance with military achievements on the ground.” But Gallant added, “It will continue for as long as is deemed necessary.” Under Gallant’s plan, the war in Gaza will continue until all of the hostages are released and remaining military threats are neutralised.
Basically, Hagari’s remarks and Gallant’s plan can be seen as a nod to the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who is expected in Israel later this week after visiting Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Israel has, typically, also ratcheted up tensions by a series of belligerent acts in the recent days.
There has been a new escalation of cross-border fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Besides, the targeted killing of a top Hamas political leader Saleh al-Arouri in a Hezbollah stronghold of Beirut last week; the killing of a senior IRGC commander and four others in the suburbs of Damascus; terrorist attacks in Kerman (Iran); killing of the commander of the elite Radwan forces of Hezbollah; — all these within the space of the past week are attributable to Israeli intelligence one way or another.
These events in turn have added to the resurgent fears lately that an Israel-Hamas war could erupt into a broader conflict. Earlier today, Hezbollah deputy leader Naim Qassem, said in a televised speech his group did not want to expand the war from Lebanon, “but if Israel expands, the response is inevitable to the maximum extent required to deter Israel.”
The pattern of Israeli behaviour needs to be understood from different angles. This is an incredibly complicated matrix. First and foremost, the Israeli operation in Gaza so far has been a failure. It turned the world opinion, especially in the Global South, heavily against Israel — South Africa’s petition to the International Criminal Court over war crimes in Gaza being the most telling evidence of it — while the Israeli military came a cropper in terms of its agenda to decimate Hamas.
Tel Aviv has reached none of its stated goals in the Gaza war, which are annihilation of Hamas or disarming of Hamas and release of captives held by Palestinians in Gaza. That brings the security and military establishment in Tel Aviv, whose reputation has been seriously dented following the October 7 attack, under immense pressure. On the other hand, there has been a cover-up of the heavy casualties suffered by Israeli troops in the Gaza operation. The Kerman terrorist attack and the killing of Saleh al-Arouri actually betray a high level of frustration.
In political terms, there is a convergence between the security and military establishment and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (whose political future hangs by a thread) and the ultra-rightist fascist forces aligned with him, whose interests lie in an extended war.
The only external force capable of pressuring Israel is of course the US administration. But it is too much to expect President Biden to draw the ‘red line’ to Israel — that is, even assuming that he has the political will to do so — given the Israel Lobby’s control of the Congress and its seamless capacity for making or destroying the careers of US politicians.
Washington has not changed the intensity of Israeli military operations. On the other hand, the US has shipped to Israel 10,000 tons of arms to Israel in the recent period alone. In fact, it cannot be a coincidence that every single Blinken visit to the region since October 7 has witnessed a particularly brutal Israeli attack to up the ante. In effect, the US is broadly in support of the Israeli policy and a commitment to the destruction of Hamas, in particular.
Therefore, Biden’s interest narrows down to prevent the war from spreading in the region lest direct American military intervention becomes necessary. The US rhetoric and diplomatic posturing largely aims at damage control in Washington’s relations with its erstwhile allies in the region. Quintessentially, Blinken’s mission comes down to cheap window dressing — viz., to bringing the regional states to the same page that Israel is facing an existential crisis. But it does not take into account that the region has changed radically.
What truly distinguishes the present crisis is that the Arab world is profoundly concerned and feels outraged by the barbaric Israeli behaviour toward hapless Palestinians — ‘animals,’ as Israeli politicians have described them. The Arab psyche is convinced that an enduring final settlement of the Palestine problem cannot be postponed indefinitely. Something has fundamentally changed even for Saudi Arabia which had clandestine dealings with Israel for decades and was inching toward establishing formal relations with it.
A Saudi statement said that while receiving Blinken in Al ‘Ula on Monday, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “stressed the importance of stopping military operations, intensifying humanitarian action, and working to create conditions for restoring stability and for a peace process that ensures that the Palestinian people gain their legitimate rights and achieve a just and lasting peace.” The Saudi statement is at sharp variance with the readout by the US state department.
Interestingly, an article in the Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat focused on Blinken’s forthcoming visit highlighted fundamental differences between Riyadh and Washington on a range of issues — ceasefire in Gaza (“not just a humanitarian truce or exchange of prisoners, but rather a comprehensive halt”); security of the Red Sea (“the responsibility for security in the Red Sea lies with the riparian countries first, and with a UN-international responsibility in the second place”); Israel’s culpability for “expanding the scope of the war”; futility of “talk about post-war phase” at this point.
The article ended on a sombre note: “If the American administration wants Blinken’s visit to Saudi Arabia and the region to succeed, and if it wants to maintain its partnerships in the region, and preserve its role as a sponsor of peace in the Middle East at a time when international forces hostile to Washington are searching for a foothold in the region, it must adhere to neutrality, and not use the region’s interests and future as a card in the upcoming American elections. It must deal with the disease and not with the symptom as it is doing now.”
By Lucas Leiroz | January 9, 2024
In recent days there has been a major escalation in the Middle Eastern conflict. Israel has launched a series of attacks against targets outside Palestine, including Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of key members of anti-Zionist organizations. Israel’s targeted assassinations have been seen as an affront to Lebanese national sovereignty, increasing the risks of an open war between the Zionist state and Hezbollah.
Israel has been bombing its neighboring countries since the war began in October. However, the frequency and brutality of these raids has grown significantly in recent weeks. Lebanon has become one of the main targets of Israeli attacks, especially in strikes targeting strategic public figures. In one of these operations, Wissam al-Tawil, deputy head of the Radwan group, a special unit of the Shiite militia, was murdered. Al-Tawil was a high-ranking member of Hezbollah, which means there will certainly be a retaliation.
A few days earlier, a brutal Israeli attack in Beirut had left six high-ranking Hamas members dead, including the Palestinian organization’s deputy head, Saleh al-Arouri. At the time members of Hezbollah were not targeted, and the strike was aimed at killing Hamas militants gathered in Beirut. However, the fact that the attack was carried out on Lebanese soil obviously generated outrage among members of the Shiite militia, who promised retaliation for the violation of Lebanese sovereignty.
Hassan Nasrallah, general secretary of Hezbollah, made two statements about these events. According to him, Hezbollah is already fighting Israel, but is using only a small percentage of its combat potential. The militia’s involvement is “limited”, being focused on neutralizing Israeli intelligence targets on the border. For now, the objectives of these operations are, according to Nasrallah, to generate military pressure against Israel and help the Palestinians by eliminating IDF’s resources. However, Nasrallah made it clear that if Israel continues to violate Lebanese sovereignty, the group will launch a “war without restrictions”, using full power against Zionist troops.
Apparently, Israel is not interested in de-escalation. The attacks on Lebanon have continued even after Nasrallah’s warnings – and more targeted killings of Hezbollah members could happen at any time. In fact, Tel Aviv is currently in a complicated military situation. The war in Gaza has become “unwinnable”, as the debris from the bombings have severely damaged the IDF itself, preventing the flow of armored vehicles and creating a network of hiding places and barricades that favor Hamas.
There is currently a guerrilla war in Gaza, with members of the Palestinian Resistance having the advantage, as they know the terrain better and are skilled at carrying out surprise attacks and hiding among the debris of buildings and tunnel networks. Although Israel has managed to destroy the physical structure of Gaza, the consequences of its attacks have mainly affected civilian people and have not been extremely effective in neutralizing Hamas and other Palestinian militias. The result is an uncomfortable situation, with Israel involved in a permanent war of attrition.
Given this, Israel is betting on the internationalization of the conflict as a way of “winning” the war. Since it is not being successful in Gaza, the Israeli government hopes to generate new outbreaks of hostilities by launching attacks against Lebanon and Syria. The aim is to bring new actors into the war, creating a situation of total regional conflict that makes intervention by Israel’s Western partners “inevitable”.
The main problem with this Israeli “strategy” is that the consequences could be devastating. It will not be easy to garner Western support and justify an intervention in the conflict, as global public opinion is outraged by Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza. Furthermore, Hezbollah is showing patience and strategic mentality by avoiding symmetrical responses to Israeli attacks. The group is trying not to engage in an all-out war, as the IDF is already in a delicate situation and there is no need to open a new front. Hezbollah’s focus appears to be to launch surgical strikes across the border, delaying more involvement as long as possible.
To get a strong reaction from Hezbollah, Israel will have to further increase the brutality of its raids against Lebanon. And this will be a serious problem in the Zionist strategy, since by doing this Tel Aviv will be justifying Hezbollah’s reactions, and there will therefore be no legal arguments for the West to mobilize collectively to support Israel. In fact, without full Western support, Israel will not be able to fight a two-front war, being a real catastrophe for the IDF itself.
This is further evidence of how Israel took wrong actions at the beginning of the conflict. Instead of only responding to Hamas’ “Operation Al Aqsa Flood”, Tel Aviv chose to launch a campaign of genocide and territorial expansion, sinking into a prolonged war that will not be won so easily.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 