Hamas in Lebanon 'fully committed' to Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Why are people protesting against the Boston Consulting Group?
In San Francisco, Boston, Dallas and other cities around the country, protesters have marched and chanted outside the offices of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The demonstrators were demanding accountability for BCG's role in creating a deadly new aid distribution system backed by the US and Israel that a United Nations official described as using starvation as a bargaining chip. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, BCG is one of the most prominent consulting firms in the United States and advises clients on a large number of topics, including security and humanitarian issues. BCG is one of the world's three largest management consulting firms by revenue and is no stranger to controversy. It has been reported to have worked with Isabel dos Santos, who was accused of exploiting Angola's natural resources. It is also reported to have been one of the firm's "critical" in helping Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman consolidate his grip on power in the kingdom. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Middle East Eye examines the BCG's role in Gaza's humanitarian crisis and efforts to hold the consulting firm accountable. Collaboration with Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Between October 2024 and May 2025, BCG helped establish the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF began to invite increased scrutiny in early June as evidence of massacres at GHF aid sites emerged, prompting BCG to cancel its contracts with GHF and describe their previous cooperation as 'unapproved'. 'Two former partners initiated this work, even though the lead partner was categorically told not to. This work was not a BCG project. It was orchestrated and run secretly outside any BCG scope or approvals. We fully disavow this work. BCG was not paid for any of this work,' BCG wrote on their website. But a Financial Times (FT) investigation revealed that BCG's cooperation with the GHF was extensive and discussed with senior BCG figures, while the Washington Post's reporting showed that BCG was filing monthly invoices of over $1m a month. The FT investigation found that BCG was originally contacted by Orbis, an American security company working on behalf of an Israeli think tank, to do a feasibility study for a new Gaza aid operation. Senior partners at BCG 'step down over Gaza humanitarian controversy' Read More » BCG then helped create Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), a mercenary firm that would provide security at aid sites, along with GHF. At one point, SRS reportedly chastised a contractor under its command for refusing to shoot Palestinian children. GHF's executive director resigned hours before GHF's public launch in May, claiming it was impossible to implement GHF's Gaza aid plan 'while also strictly adhering to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence'. UN aid chief Tom Fletcher also criticised the GHF, describing it as 'a fig leaf for further violence and displacement'. BCG planned to bill GHF around $4m for work that included developing financial models of what the UN described as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza. The model included 'voluntary relocation', where Palestinians in Gaza would have been given $5,000, rent subsidies for four years and subsidised food for a year. The model predicted that a quarter of the population would leave, and three-fourths of them would never return, according to FT. As Israeli air strikes indiscriminately kill Palestinians and children starve to death under Israel's suffocating siege, such an offer could hardly be considered voluntary and was widely condemned by rights groups. Why is the GHF controversial? Set up to bypass UN aid distribution networks that have been in place for decades, but that Israel alleges are now linked to Hamas, GHF sites have proven deadly for Palestinians seeking aid. Israeli soldiers have admitted to deliberately killing unarmed Palestinian aid seekers at GHF distribution sites, with one Israeli soldier describing the aid centres as 'killing fields'. Over a thousand Palestinian aid-seekers have been killed, mostly at GHF sites, since May, according to the UN. Yet as malnutrition spreads across Gaza, hungry Palestinians have little choice but to brave Israeli bullets to search for aid. Israel alleges that violence at the aid sites is necessary to stop the aid from being stolen by Hamas. However, an internal US review examined 156 instances of stolen or lost aid and found no evidence that Hamas was stealing it. Rather, Israel directly or indirectly caused the loss or theft of aid in 44 instances, according to the findings. Meanwhile, Israel has admitted that it supports anti-Hamas gangs notorious for stealing aid. How other aid organisations reacted to BCG On 13 June, Save the Children International became the first charity to pause cooperation with BCG over its role in the GHF. Save the Children CEO Inger Ashing said BCG's modelling of a plan for the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza 'disregards fundamental rights and dignity, and raises serious ethical and legal questions' - and that Save the Children would suspend work with BCG pending the outcome of an external investigation. Several days later, BCG's chief risk officer and the leader of its social-impact practice resigned from their roles. Yet despite the international outcry against GHF, some humanitarian aid organisations have been hesitant to cut ties with GHF. Although the World Food Programme told The New Humanitarian that it planned to review its ties with BCG, other humanitarian aid organisations, including some that decried the GHF, did not indicate that they were considering ending their relationship with BCG. What protests have there been against BCG? Some protesters have found BCG, with dozens of locations across the US, an accessible target to protest against the killing of aid seekers in Gaza. On 25 July, demonstrators banged pots and pans outside BCG's headquarters in the Seaport district of Boston. GHF chief attacks UN and media, avoids saying 'Palestinians' when referring to Gaza Read More » A security guard at the building seriously injured one protester when he pushed the protester into a metal pole, breaking several ribs. 'Very quickly, a security guard ran from within the building without me noticing him, and slammed into me and pushed me away from the door with all his strength,' the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, told Middle East Eye. Multiple witnesses corroborated the account, and the protester was later taken by ambulance to a hospital with a trauma centre. On 25 July, at least a dozen protesters were arrested when demonstrators staged a sit-in at a BCG facility in Dallas. Protesters also demonstrated outside a BCG office in Dallas on Thursday. On the west coast of the United States, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) organised protests outside of BCG's offices in San Francisco and San Diego. 'The time to act is now! The genocide in Gaza had reached a critical moment with thousands facing starvation due to the brutal siege on the strip… we will make ourselves heard,' a statement from the San Diego chapter of PYM said.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Lebanese cabinet expected to pass executive order asserting sole state control over weapons
Lebanon's Cabinet is expected to pass an executive order next week that enshrines the state's commitment to maintaining exclusive control of weapons nationwide, political sources told The National on Friday. An executive order would formalise into policy what Lebanese leaders have been trying to achieve since a November ceasefire officially put an end to fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah party and paramilitary organisation. The expected move follows reports that the US has ramped up pressure on Lebanon's leaders to issue a formal cabinet decision committing to disarm Hezbollah – a position also taken by the US-backed Lebanese Forces party, a rival of Hezbollah. The LF has accused the state's top leadership – the President, Prime Minister and Parliament Speaker – of negotiating on behalf of Lebanon without the collective input of the government. 'Our position has been very clear since the beginning,' said Ghassan Hasbani, an LF member of parliament. 'We're demanding from the government, which we're part of, to take a collective decision to put a timeline for the implementation of removal of arms, and the dismantling of militant armed groups by the end of this year.' But a Lebanese political source, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed scepticism that the executive order would amount to a major political decision. 'The order will probably condition disarmament on Israel's withdrawal,' said the source. Another political source close to the LF told The National that they were lobbying for a majority vote at the cabinet meeting. 'We're not observers or spectators. We are part of this government and we're going to push for a decision.' The November ceasefire, which ended 14 months of war, required Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon, Hezbollah's disarmament starting with the area south of Lebanon's Litani river, and the eventual deployment of the Lebanese army throughout the entirety of the state. But Israel has refused to withdraw from five Lebanese points of territory it occupied during the war and continues to attack Lebanon almost daily, while Hezbollah has conditioned its disarmament on Israel's withdrawal – putting Lebanon's leaders in a difficult position. Next week's cabinet meeting to enshrine the state's monopoly on arms follows a forceful speech from President Joseph Aoun, the former army chief, in which he made explicit mention of Hezbollah's arsenal for the first time. Mr Aoun reiterated Lebanon's commitment to reclaiming weapons from all paramilitary groups, 'including those of Hezbollah'. The President's speech was also an indirect response to Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem, who earlier this week accused the US and Israel of employing 'intimidation and threats', and said the November ceasefire was meant 'exclusively for the south Litani area' and not the whole of Lebanon. 'Anyone calling today for the surrender of weapons, whether internally or externally, on the Arab or the international stage, is serving the Israeli project,' Mr Qassem said on Wednesday. Hezbollah is believed to still have a superior military capability to the Lebanese army, despite suffering major losses in its leadership and arsenal during its war with Israel, which began on October 8, 2023, in support of its ally Hamas in the Gaza strip. The group – along with its allies – also form a political bloc that wields the power to paralyse parliamentary endeavours. 'We're hoping that after what we heard from the President, this can be translated into a government decision to give clear orders to the Lebanese Armed Forces to put out a plan with a timeline to start its execution,' Mr Hasbani told The National. 'There will be some kind of executive order coming out on Tuesday, but it's one thing to say we want it to happen as a prerequisite, and another for it to actually be implemented. 'This way it becomes an official government position rather than the political views of the political leaders.' Hezbollah has publicly remained staunch in its demand that Israel withdraw from Lebanese territory and cease its attacks before it will disarm, but it has thus far refrained from responding to Israeli attacks. Another political source close to the Lebanese Forces said that passing executive order would be 'just another attempt to move forward on paper'. 'Israel's presence in Lebanon suits both Hezbollah and Israel. Israel won't leave unless Hezbollah disarms and Hezbollah won't disarm unless Israel withdraws. They're both buying and selling time.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
I lost my brother in the Beirut port explosion. Where is the justice?
The people of Lebanon are marking five years since the Beirut port explosion of August 4, 2020 – a blast that has been described as one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. The detonation pulverised the port, ruined vast sections of the city and was felt as far away as Cyprus. It also claimed the lives of more than 220 people, injured more than 7,000 more and left more than 300,000 homeless. The horror of that day is beyond words – the force of the explosion, the shattered city and the wounded and the dead scattered across and beyond the port. But even that devastation pales in comparison to the nightmare of searching through hospitals the evening of the blast for my brother, who worked at a private company operating inside the port. We searched all night, hospital after hospital, and returned home around 5am, devastated and empty-handed. None of us could sleep. At dawn, we resumed the search, until we eventually found him in the morgue at Rafik Hariri University Hospital. We were forced to bury him without even a final goodbye. Not seeing his face one last time is a pain that words cannot describe. The explosion resulted from the detonation of 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, with a nitrogen grade of 33.5 per cent. This had been stocked illegally under the supervision of high-level security officials, and with the full knowledge of five different security agencies, despite the danger it posed and in violation of Lebanese law. This clearly suggests a deep level of corruption. It is difficult to assign liability with certainty at this stage. But, in breaking the relevant laws and regulations, a crime was certainly committed. Therefore, legal responsibility must be established for all those implicated in the events that led to the explosion. If these people had done their duty, the storm resulting from the nitrate explosion would not have swept through the city Although the investigation into this crime has faced many challenges and obstructions, Judge Tarek Bitar, who took over in early 2021 after his predecessor Fadi Sawan was dismissed, is perseverant. Since his appointment, he has been the target of several baseless complaints demanding his recusal from the investigation. Judges examining the recusal lawsuits have, in turn, been confronted by recusal lawsuits themselves. This is in addition to claims against the state of purported gross misconduct by investigating judges. The number of such complaints, intended to derail the investigation, has potentially reached more than 40 so far. Several politicians and their allies have used all sort of tactics to hinder the investigation. These have included running campaigns to undermine the probe and daily attempts to discredit judges and generally escape accountability. All these actions and obstructions reflect a pattern in Lebanon, in which political officials and influential figures have grown accustomed to impunity and the absence of legal scrutiny. The political war over Judge Bitar's probe has also produced threats against him personally and violence on the streets. Hezbollah, the Iran-backed party and militant group, together with Amal – a political ally led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri – has allegedly been trying to push the judge out since his appointment. However, the investigator's determination to move the case forward led to the issuance of a legal analysis on January 25, 2023. This, Judge Bitar stated, gave him the authority to resume his work on the Beirut port explosion case. He had been suspended from the investigation since December 23, 2021, amid legal disputes and intense political pressure. Upon resuming his duties, Judge Bitar brought charges against several senior officials, including Lebanon's top public prosecutor, Ghassan Oweidat. In response, Mr Oweidat reversed his prior recusal – a move widely regarded by experts as lacking legal basis or unlawful – and charged Judge Bitar with 'usurping power', summoning him for questioning. He also imposed a travel ban on Judge Bitar and ordered the release of all 17 detainees connected to the blast, leaving one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history without a single suspect in custody. Under Lebanese law, the authority to decide on the release or continued detention of individuals lies with the investigating judge, not the public prosecutor. In this case, it appears that the Prosecutor General, whose role is to represent the public interest, may have acted beyond his legal powers, potentially committing serious procedural and legal violations, in addition to the charges he already faces in connection with the explosion. Mr Oweidat did not stop at these violations. He went further by issuing an order to the judicial police and the Public Prosecution Office instructing them not to co-operate with Judge Bitar – a move many legal experts have described as lacking legal basis and potentially obstructing justice. However, despite all this, Judge Bitar resumed interrogations on February 10 this year, questioning the remaining defendants, including former prime minister Hassan Diab, politicians, judges and senior security officials. He completed all interrogations and chose to withhold decisions on individuals until a full indictment was issued. The newly appointed public prosecutor, Judge Jamal Hajjar, also reversed the directive previously issued by the defendant, Mr Oweidat, restoring co-operation between the investigative judge and the Public Prosecution Office. As of July 21, Judge Bitar has completed all his questioning and is now awaiting responses to several judicial requests that were sent abroad. The port explosion was a turning point in the lives of the Lebanese people, with many families emigrating after that date, especially after witnessing how the country's political class handled the investigation with disregard for justice and open threats to the judiciary. Many also lost hope of uncovering the truth, as the Lebanese grew accustomed to a prevailing culture of impunity. However, the situation is different for the victims' families. They do not cling to the word "hope" because the justice they are demanding is a victim's right, not an aspiration. Lebanon's new government and new president have pledged, within the powers granted to them by the constitution, to do everything necessary to ensure justice is done in the port case. However, the people are waiting for truth and accountability. Victims' families and their supporters are also ready to resume protests if the investigation is not completed and an indictment is not issued. The investigation into the Beirut port explosion, despite major delays caused by political obstruction, Hezbollah and the defendants will, I am sure, lead to the truth. Every official or civilian who was required to preserve the security of the citizens and did not do so, will be held accountable. If these people had done their duty, the storm resulting from the nitrate explosion would not have swept through the city, destroyed homes and roads, and killed people in this catastrophic way.
