Latest news with #RamzyBaroud
Arab News
10 hours ago
- Business
- Arab News
Netanyahu's delusional pursuit of a ‘new Middle East'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persistently declares his ambition to 'change the face of the Middle East.' Yet his repeated assertions seem to clash with the unfolding reality on the ground. Netanyahu's opportunistic relationship with language is now proving detrimental to his country. The Israeli leader undoubtedly grasps fundamental marketing principles, particularly the power of strong branding and consistent messaging. However, for any product to succeed over time, clever branding alone is insufficient; the product itself must live up to at least a minimum degree of expectation. Netanyahu's 'product,' however, has proven utterly defective. Yet the 75-year-old Israeli prime minister stubbornly refuses to abandon his outdated marketing techniques. But what, exactly, is Netanyahu selling? Long before assuming Israel's leadership, Netanyahu mastered the art of repetition — a technique often employed by politicians to inundate public discourse with specific slogans. Over time, these slogans are intended to become 'common sense.' As a member of the Knesset in 1992, Netanyahu delivered what appeared to be a bombshell: Iran was 'within three to five years' from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In 1996, he urged the US Congress to act, declaring that 'time is running out.' Iran has remained his primary focus Dr. Ramzy Baroud While the US pivoted its attention toward Iraq, following the September 2001 attacks, Netanyahu evidently hoped to eliminate two regional foes in one stroke. Following the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, Netanyahu channeled all his energy into a new discourse: Iran as an existential threat. Between then and now, Iran has remained his primary focus, even as regional alliances began to form around a discourse of stabilization and renewed diplomatic ties. However, the Obama administration, especially during its second term, was clearly uninterested in another regional war. As soon as Obama left office, Netanyahu reverted to his old marketing strategy. It was during Trump's first term that Netanyahu brought all his marketing techniques to the fore. He utilized what is known as comparative advertising, where his enemies' 'product' is denigrated with basic terms such as 'barbarism,' 'dark age,' and so forth, while his own is promoted as representing 'civilization,' 'enlightenment,' and 'progress.' He also invested heavily in the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) marketing technique. This entailed spreading negative or misleading information about others, while promoting his own as a far superior alternative. This brings us to 'solution framing.' For instance, the so-called 'existential threats' faced by Israel can supposedly be resolved through the establishment of a 'new Middle East.' For this new reality to materialize, the US, he argues, would have to take action to save not only Israel but also the 'civilized world.' It must be noted that Netanyahu's 'new Middle East' is not his original framing. This notion can be traced to a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2004. It followed the US war and invasion of Iraq, and was part of the intellectual euphoria among US and other Western intellectuals seeking to reshape the region in a way that suited US geopolitical needs. The Carnegie article sought to expand the definition of the Middle East beyond the traditional Middle East and North Africa, reaching as far as the Caucasus and Central Asia. American politicians adopted this new concept, tailoring it to suit US interests at the time. It was US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who largely rebranded 'greater' to 'new,' thus coining the 'new Middle East,' which she announced in June 2006. Clever branding alone is insufficient Dr. Ramzy Baroud Though Netanyahu embraced the term, he improvised it in recent years. Instead of speaking of it as a distant objective, the Israeli leader declared that he was actively in the process of making it a reality. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East. We are changing the face of the world,' he triumphantly declared in June 2021. Even following the events of Oct. 7, 2023, and the Israeli war and assault on Gaza that ensued, Netanyahu never ceased using the term. This time, however, his emphasis on 'change' rotated between a future possibility and an active reality. 'I ask that you stand steadfast because we are going to change the Middle East,' he said on Oct. 9 of that same year. And again, in September 2024, he proclaimed that Israel was 'pursuing' a plan to 'assassinate Hezbollah leaders' with the aim of 'changing the strategic reality of the Middle East.' And again, in October, December, and January of this year. In every instance, he contextualized the 'change of the Middle East' with bombs and rockets, and nothing else. In May, coinciding with a major Israeli bombing of Yemen, he declared that Israel's 'mission' exceeds that of 'defeating Hamas,' extending to 'changing the face of the Middle East.' And, finally, on June 16, he assigned the same language to the war with Iran, this time remaining committed to the new tweak of adding the word 'face' to his new, envisaged Middle East. Of course, old branding tactics aside, Netanyahu's Middle East, much like the old US 'greater Middle East,' remains a pipe dream aimed at dominating the resource-rich region, with Israel serving the role of regional hegemon. That said, the events of the past two years have demonstrated that, although the Middle East is indeed changing, this transformation is not happening because of Israel. Consequently, the outcome will most likely not be to its liking. Therefore, Netanyahu may continue repeating, like a broken record, old colonial slogans, but genuine change will only happen because of the peoples of the region and their many capable political players.
Arab News
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Gaza's famine and the erosion of our humanity
The situation in Gaza today starkly highlights Israeli exceptionalism. Israel is employing the starvation of 2 million Palestinians in the blockaded and devastated Gaza Strip as a tactic to extract political concessions from Palestinian groups operating there. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs last month described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as 'the worst it has been' since the outbreak of war in October 2023. Despite the severity of such pronouncements, they often appear to be treated as routine, eliciting little concrete action or substantive discussion. Israel's violations of international and humanitarian laws regarding its occupation of Palestine are well-established facts. A new dimension of exceptionalism is emerging, as reflected in Israel's ability to deliberately starve an entire population for an extended period, with some even defending this approach. The population of Gaza continues to endure immense suffering, having already experienced the loss of about 10 percent of its number due to deaths, disappearances and injuries. The Gazans are confined to a small, largely destroyed area of about 365 sq. km, facing death from treatable diseases and lacking access to essential services, even clean water. For the people of Gaza, even fundamental needs now seem unattainable after decades of diminished expectations Dr. Ramzy Baroud Despite these conditions, Israel continues to operate with impunity in what seems to be a brutal and protracted experiment, while much of the world observes with varying degrees of anger, helplessness or total disregard. The question of the international community's role remains central. While enforcing international law is one aspect, exerting the necessary pressure to allow a population facing starvation access to basic necessities like food and water is another. For the people of Gaza, even these fundamental needs now seem unattainable after decades of diminished expectations. During public hearings in The Hague that started on April 28, representatives from many nations appealed to the International Court of Justice to utilize its authority to mandate that Israel cease the starvation of Palestinians. Israel 'may not collectively punish the protected Palestinian population,' stated the South African representative, Jaymion Hendricks. The Saudi envoy, Mohammed Saud Alnasser, added that Israel had transformed the Gaza Strip into an 'unlivable pile of rubble, while killing thousands of innocent and vulnerable people.' Representatives from China, Egypt, Algeria and other nations echoed these sentiments, aligning with the assessment of Philippe Lazzarini, head of UNRWA, who stated in March that Israel is employing a strategy of 'weaponization of humanitarian aid.' Even when aid was permitted, Israeli forces targeted desperate civilians, including children, who gathered to receive supplies Dr. Ramzy Baroud However, the assertion that the weaponization of food is a deliberate Israeli tactic requires no external proof; Israel itself has declared it. Then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant publicly announced a 'complete siege' on Gaza just two days after the start of the genocidal war. Gallant said: 'I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel — everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.' This was not an impulsive outburst but a policy rooted in dehumanizing rhetoric and implemented with extreme violence. This 'acting accordingly' extended beyond closing border crossings and obstructing aid deliveries. Even when aid was permitted, Israeli forces targeted desperate civilians, including children, who gathered to receive supplies, bombing them along with the aid trucks. A particularly devastating incident occurred in Gaza City in February last year, when reports indicated that Israeli fire killed 112 Palestinians and injured 750 more. This event was the first of what became known as the 'flour massacres.' Subsequent similar incidents took place and, in between, Israel continued to bomb bakeries, aid storage facilities and aid distribution volunteers. The intention was to starve Palestinians to a degree that would allow for coercive bargaining and potentially lead to the ethnic cleansing of the population. Last April, an Israeli military drone struck a convoy of World Central Kitchen vehicles, resulting in the deaths of six international aid workers and their Palestinian driver. This led to a significant departure of international aid workers from Gaza. A few months later, starting in October 2024, northern Gaza was placed under a strict siege, with the aim of forcing the population south, potentially toward the Sinai desert. Despite these efforts and the resulting famine, the will of the Gazan population did not break. Instead, hundreds of thousands began returning to their destroyed homes and towns in the north once a ceasefire came into effect in January. When Israel reneged on that ceasefire agreement in March, it once again resorted to using starvation as a weapon. There were few consequences and little strong condemnation from Western governments regarding Israel's return to war or its starvation policies. Using the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is classified as a war crime under international law, as explicitly stated in the Rome Statute. However, the relevance of such legal frameworks is questioned when those who advocate for them and consider themselves guardians of these laws fail to uphold or enforce them. The inaction of the international community during this period of immense human suffering has significantly undermined the relevance of international law. The potential consequences of this failure to act are grave, extending beyond the Palestinian people to impact humanity as a whole. Despite this, hope persists that fundamental human compassion, separate from legal frameworks, will compel the provision of essential supplies like flour, sugar and water to Gaza. Any inability to ensure this basic aid will lead to profound questions about our shared humanity for years to come.
