logo
Arduous moments for Lebanon … and maybe the region

Arduous moments for Lebanon … and maybe the region

Arab News24-02-2025

https://arab.news/pvn6w
Lebanon has rarely been through such critical moments since February 2005. Even if it is relatively peaceful, the period ahead will be uncertain and unsettling for the Lebanese. The chemistry of the region is changing and the assumptions that could once be taken for granted are collapsing faster than we could have anticipated before our eyes. The setbacks of Iran's project in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have been severe by every measure.
Lebanon is taking center stage at the moment ... as both locals and foreigners on Sunday gathered to bid farewell to Hezbollah's former secretaries-general, Hassan Nasrallah and Hashem Safieddine, in a mass funeral that is likely to be the final chapter of one historical phase and the beginning of another that will be no less fraught with challenges.
The major source of contention here is that the party's leaders, its popular base and its regional sponsors are not showing any signs that they have acknowledged the irreconcilability between an armed militia, whatever its banner, and the state sovereignty of countries that are supposed to be independent, such as Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
In Lebanon specifically, Israel's war machine exploited Hezbollah's war in support of Gaza, going much further than it had in 2006, when the group had sparked a conflict (again) without consulting the 'state.'
Whether the party, its leadership and its media admit it or not, Hezbollah has been defeated both militarily and politically. Despite this major setback, the vast majority of Lebanese have avoided gloating and schadenfreude at the expense of Hezbollah or its base.
However, the party has not shown them the appreciation they deserve. Instead, media outlets affiliated with Hezbollah and its self-proclaimed advocates continue to hurl accusations of 'treason,' 'Zionism,' 'dishonor' and 'attempts to humiliate the party' (through Israel) at anyone who reiterates the call to build a state under Lebanon's new president and reformist government.
Indeed, 'internalized Zionism' has become the go-to accusation among talking heads and mouthpieces who are unwilling to give the country a chance to recover and embark on a constructive path. The path envisioned does not exclude or erase anyone, as shown by the process through which the new Lebanese government was formed.
Going back to the current state of play. First, it was an extremely fanatical Israeli government, rabidly hostile to any genuine peace that could allow for viable coexistence, that inflicted this severe setback on Hezbollah and, behind it, Iran. Whether in Lebanon, the West Bank or Gaza, Israel has always bet on suppressing moderate patriotic voices and undermining their attempts to build states, while turning a blind eye to the rise of more hard-line alternatives to ensure a pretext for evading its obligations to ensure a just peace.
Second, the fanatics currently running Israel do not merely enjoy the unwavering support of Republicans in Washington. We have also seen the Republican leadership go to great lengths in encouraging Tel Aviv's Likudists and settlers, egging on their displacement projects, first in Gaza and now in the West Bank.
Third, as Israel continues to press forward, the executive orders are gaining pace in the US. The confusion in Europe and NATO, following Washington's recent positions on Ukraine, Canada and global trade, leave the international community powerless as it tries to wrap its head around the ramifications of these developments. Consequently, there is little hope for any mechanism capable of curbing the destructive excesses that threaten moderation and credibility, on every level, in the foreseeable future.
Fourth, the current regional and international climate has left the Arab world in apprehensive anticipation of what the coming days could bring, amid several influential players' efforts to maintain as much of the initiative as possible with regard to questions of collective security, Palestinian rights and the containment of extremism. Recent Arab initiatives may, in fact, present an opportunity. Not only could they stop the backsliding, but these efforts could also lay the common ground that leaves a lasting impact even after the current phase of tension and uncertainty.
Moreover, Arab diplomatic efforts could help us take a step forward if they adhere to a clear set of principles. It is well understood that no one takes the deep-rooted Palestinian struggle — a conflict that has fueled the Arab-Israeli wars for more than 70 years — lightly. However, genuine resolutions to this conflict now seem more marginal than ever before, especially if the principles of international relations that had once been robust continue to erode.
The spike in racism, particularly hostility toward immigrants, Muslims and Arabs, is dangerous. It casts a heavy shadow over political life in Western democracies. Meanwhile, the geopolitical boundaries of Europe, which were last redrawn at the end of the Cold War — with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and the reunification of Germany — are no longer guaranteed.
Whether the party, its leadership and its media admit it or not, Hezbollah has been defeated both militarily and politically.
Eyad Abu Shakra
Even the borders of North America, once considered an island of stability, are now uncertain, while NATO is no longer a reliable security umbrella safeguarding Western security from an adversary that has, quite suddenly, become a preferred ally.
In East and South Asia, it remains unclear how the US and Russia — former adversaries that have apparently become allies — will approach the two Asian giants, India and China. Meanwhile, in Africa, where the problems are piling up and foreign interventions and risky ventures abound, considerations vary and diverge and interests often clash.
In conclusion, if all these issues have filled the global agenda, then we Arabs must, at the very least, build the bare minimum of genuine common ground needed to confront the looming regional storms. Chief among these storms is the alarming exacerbation of Israel's ambitions, Iran's expected retaliation to the setbacks it has endured over the past two years and the role that Turkiye could potentially play, especially given everything Ankara has already achieved in Syria and the signals it has sent regarding its intentions on the Palestinian front.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Americans split on Trump's use of military in immigration protests, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Americans split on Trump's use of military in immigration protests, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

Arab News

time2 hours ago

  • Arab News

Americans split on Trump's use of military in immigration protests, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

WASHINGTON: Americans are divided over President Donald Trump's decision to activate the military to respond to protests against his crackdown on migrants, with about half supportive of the move, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Thursday. Some 48 percent of respondents in the two-day poll agreed with a statement that the president should 'deploy the military to bring order to the streets' when protests turn violent, while 41 percent disagreed. Views on the matter split sharply along partisan lines, with members of Trump's Republican Party overwhelmingly backing the idea of calling in troops while Democrats were firmly opposed. At the same time, just 35 percent of respondents said they approved of Trump's response to the protests in Los Angeles, which has included sending National Guard troops and US Marines to the city and also threatening to arrest Democratic officials, including the governor of California. Some 50 percent of people in the poll said they disapproved of Trump's response. Trump has argued the military deployment in Los Angeles was needed due to protests there following a series of immigration raids in the city. Some of the demonstrations in Los Angeles have turned violent — leaving burned out cars on city streets — and 46 percent of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said protesters opposing Trump's immigration policies had gone too far, compared to 38 percent who disagreed with that view. The protests have spread to other US cities including New York, Chicago, Washington and San Antonio, Texas — all of which have large immigrant populations and tend to vote for Democrats rather than Republicans. Trump campaigned and won last year's election on a promise to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants and Reuters/Ipsos polls have shown that his support on immigration policy has been consistently higher than on other matters, such as his stewardship of the US economy. The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which surveyed 1,136 Americans nationwide and has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points, showed wide support for increased deportations. Some 52 percent of respondents — including one in five Democrats and nine in 10 Republicans — backed ramping up deportations of people in the country illegally. Still, 49 percent of people in the poll said Trump had gone too far with his arrests of immigrants, compared to 40 percent who said he had not done so. The most heated protests have taken place in Los Angeles County, where one in three residents are immigrants and about half of people born abroad are naturalized US citizens, according to US Census estimates. Nationwide, Americans took a generally dim view of Trump's threats to arrest Democratic officials like California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Just 35 percent of respondents said Trump should order arrests of state and local officials who try to stop federal immigration enforcement.

Lebanon risks losing US support over delays on Hezbollah, economic reforms
Lebanon risks losing US support over delays on Hezbollah, economic reforms

Al Arabiya

time3 hours ago

  • Al Arabiya

Lebanon risks losing US support over delays on Hezbollah, economic reforms

The Trump administration remains hopeful that Lebanon's government will fulfill its commitments to the international community—chiefly disarming Hezbollah and implementing key economic and financial reforms. But without tangible progress, Beirut risks losing US support, American officials and sources familiar with internal deliberations told Al Arabiya English. Several US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, pushed back on speculation that Washington is shifting its Lebanon policy. However, they stressed that patience within the administration is wearing thin. Among the rumors circulating is that the US and Israel have agreed not to renew the mandate for the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which comes up for a vote in August. A State Department official rejected the claim, calling it inaccurate, although US officials are considering changes to the mandate's language, citing the need for more effective enforcement. A delegation from the State Department's Bureau of International Organization Affairs is set to visit Beirut this week as part of ongoing policy discussions in the lead-up to the UN vote. Meanwhile, Lebanon's defense minister has called for an unconditional renewal of UNIFIL's mandate. In a separate development, Tom Barrack—US ambassador to Turkey and recently appointed special envoy for Syria—will travel to Lebanon next week, according to officials familiar with his plans. Barrack, a close ally of President Donald Trump who previously held Lebanese citizenship, is expected to assess progress on disarmament and reform. He will also explore the possibility of initiating border demarcation talks between Lebanon and Syria following his meetings with Syria's interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa. Focus on Hezbollah's weapons Deputy Special Envoy for Middle East Peace Morgan Ortagus recently underscored the Lebanese government's responsibility to disarm Hezbollah. Despite unconfirmed reports that she had been removed from her post, Ortagus remains in her role, according to the State Department website. While the LAF has deployed to areas it previously was unwilling or incapable of deploying to, 'there's a lot more to go,' Ortagus said. She said Lebanese authorities had done 'more in the last six months than they probably have in the last 15 years.' Under a ceasefire agreement reached last November, Hezbollah was to withdraw its fighters north of the Litani River while Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon. Yet Hezbollah says it will not discuss its remaining weapons until the Israeli occupation of five border points ends. Washington maintains that Hezbollah must fully disarm and dismantle its military infrastructure throughout Lebanon, not just the south. Officials welcomed Beirut's recent decision to enter and demilitarize Palestinian refugee camps—long governed by the 1969 Cairo Agreement—but remain wary that this move could be a diversion from the more pressing Hezbollah file. 'We need to see more than declarations,' a US official said. 'The issue of Hezbollah's arms must be addressed swiftly.' Economic reform and foreign aid The Trump administration also continues to press Lebanon to enact long-awaited economic reforms following its financial collapse, the recent Hezbollah-Israel war, and decades of systemic corruption. US officials noted a broad consensus among Washington, Gulf allies, and international financial institutions that aid will only increase once Lebanon enacts clearly defined reforms. The US is clear-eyed about the challenges due to, among other things, the fact that Parliament is run by Hezbollah ally Nabih Berri, who has long been seen as a face of corruption in Lebanon. Berri's control over the finance ministry has enabled him to block key reform efforts. Still, the US expects concrete movement on reform measures in the near term. 'We want to see results, and we want to see them quickly,' another US official said.

Israel's Strike on Iran 'Could Very Well Happen': Trump
Israel's Strike on Iran 'Could Very Well Happen': Trump

Leaders

time4 hours ago

  • Leaders

Israel's Strike on Iran 'Could Very Well Happen': Trump

The US President, Donald Trump, on Thursday said that Israel's attack on Iran looks very close, although he favors a deal with Tehran if it compromises, reported AFP. Israeli Attack Asked about Israel's potential attack on Iran, Trump replied: 'I don't want to say imminent, but it looks like it's something that could very well happen.' The US President also said that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was considering a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which he said could spark a 'massive conflict.' He urged Israel not to attack Iran, as Washington and Tehran are edging closer to a new nuclear deal. 'We are fairly close to a pretty good agreement,' he said. 'I don't want them going in, because I think it would blow it,' he added. Nuclear Deal Close Trump said he prefers negotiations with Iran to avoid conflict. However, he added that Tehran has to cede more ground in its negotiations with Washington to avoid conflict. 'I'd love to avoid the conflict. Iran's going to have to negotiate a little bit tougher – meaning they're going to have to give us some things that they're not willing to give us right now,' he told reporters. IAEA Resolution Trump's remarks came after the IAEA's Board of Governors announced that Iran is in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years. In response, Iran called the resolution 'political' and announced countermeasures, including establishing a third enrichment facility in a 'secure location,' and upgrading its centrifuges for advanced ones at Fordo, which will significantly boost Iran's production of enriched materials. Pulling US Personnel Amid escalating tensions, the US arranged the departure of non-essential personnel from locations around the Middle East, citing heightened security risks in the region. Moreover, the US Embassy in Israel issued a security alert instructing American government employees and their families to remain in the Tel Aviv area over security concerns. Trump said that Washington was pulling American personnel out of the region because 'it could be a dangerous place,' stressing that he would not allow Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon. Short link : Post Views: 1

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store