Latest news with #YaLibnanEditorialBoard
Ya Libnan
4 days ago
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
Whose Side Is Tom Barrack Really On?
File photo of U.S. Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack and Syria's interim president Ahmed Al sharaa , aka( Abu Mohammad al Golani , the former leader of al Qaeda linked al Nusra front ) By : Ya Libnan Editorial Board U.S. Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack recently stated that 'the Syrian government has pledged to devote all resources to holding accountable the perpetrators of the Sweida atrocities,' adding that Syria will cooperate with the United Nations to investigate the crimes committed there. He further emphasized a commitment to humanitarian aid for southwestern Syria and to protecting 'all components' of Syrian society from forces that seek to tear it apart. But this raises an urgent question: Whose side is Mr. Barrack really on? The whole world knows that Syrian government forces themselves are responsible for the Sweida massacre last July. Eyewitness accounts and credible reports point directly to the regime's involvement — not only in the killings during the attack, but also in the brutal follow-up assault on Suweida's hospital, where patients and medical staff were targeted. It is no secret that Ahmed Sharaa, now posing in a civilian suit, is in fact the same man once known as Abu Mohammad al-Golani, the notorious leader of the the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. The change of wardrobe has not erased his Islamist extremism or his history of violence. Yet the Syrian regime — now under his influence — continues to present itself to the world as a legitimate authority, while minorities in Syria suffer under its oppression. If Mr. Barrack truly wants the truth, he should skip the photo opportunities in Damascus and visit Sweida itself. He would hear directly from the families of the victims, from the religious and community leaders living under constant threat, and from those who have endured the destruction of their homes, their hospitals, and their future. Only then will he understand the reality: that the so-called Syrian government is not protecting its people — it is preying on them. The United States must stop lending legitimacy to Sharaa's blood-stained regime. Standing with dictators in suits is still standing with dictators — and history will not forgive those who chose comfort in the palace over truth in the streets of Sweida.
Ya Libnan
6 days ago
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
Lebanon's survival demands one Flag, one Army
This is reportedly the longest Lebanese flag ever made and it reads 'We love our Lebanese Army ' By : Ya Libnan Editorial Board Disarming Hezbollah is not about weakening a single community—it is about strengthening the nation as a whole. For too long, Lebanon has lived under the shadow of a parallel armed force that undermines the state, destabilizes the country, and exposes every Lebanese citizen to war and destruction. No community has paid a heavier price for Hezbollah's reckless military adventures than the Shiite community itself. Time and again, Shiite towns and villages have borne the brunt of Israeli bombardment, not because of their own choices, but because Hezbollah has turned them into front-line battlefields for Iran's regional agenda. These communities have lost thousands of lives, seen their homes reduced to rubble, and watched their children grow up amid war instead of peace. It is a painful truth: Hezbollah's weapons have failed to protect the Shiite community. Instead, they have made it the primary target in every conflict. Disarming Hezbollah would end this vicious cycle and allow Shiite families to live under the protection of a state army that defends all Lebanese equally. But disarmament cannot remain a hollow slogan—it must be matched with action. Lebanon's allies must finally 'put their money where their mouth is' and equip the Lebanese Armed Forces with the training, technology, and resources to become a modern, capable army. A strong, unified army is not just a symbol of sovereignty—it is the most effective deterrent against any attack on Lebanon from any side. When a legitimate national army stands ready, no aggressor will dare test the nation's defenses. The Lebanese government must also send a clear message: strengthening the army is not directed against the Shiite community or any sect—it is for the protection of every citizen. The alternative—clinging to a militia outside state control—is suicidal and poses an existential threat to Lebanon's sovereignty and future. Lebanon can no longer live with two armies and two conflicting loyalties. The choice is stark: the state or the militia, survival or self-destruction. A strong Lebanese army, supported by allies and embraced by all communities, is the only path to peace, unity, and a future free from war. The time to act is now. Lebanon's survival depends on it.
Ya Libnan
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
Did the Christian Conscience Die in Gaza, Op-Ed
'I don't know what you would call it other than mass starvation, and it's man-made, and that's very clear,' Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , Director-General of the World Health Organization told a virtual press conference from Geneva. By : Ya Libnan Editorial Board For generations, the Western world has proudly declared its commitment to Christian values—compassion, mercy, justice, and the sanctity of human life. These principles are preached in churches, taught in schools, and held up as the moral compass of society. But in the face of Gaza's unfolding humanitarian catastrophe, those values appear to have died. What we are witnessing in Gaza is not merely a conflict—it is a systematic destruction of an entire population. Over two million people, half of them children, are being starved, bombed, and displaced on their own land. Their homes have been reduced to ashes, their neighborhoods leveled, their schools and hospitals obliterated. Starvation has become a weapon of war. Families boil weeds to feed their children. Parents are gunned down while searching for food to keep their families alive. Human beings are dying—not just from bombs, but from hunger and thirst, right before the world's eyes. And as this hell unfolds, much of the Christian world remains silent—or worse, actively complicit . While Palestinians die of starvation, the West continues to flood Israel with weapons and ammunition, feeding the very machine responsible for this humanitarian catastrophe. It is not just inaction—it is participation. Here is the bitter truth: the moral failure of Western Christianity has become so grotesque, so absolute, that it makes ISIS look human by comparison . At least ISIS did not pretend to represent a higher moral standard. Today, those who proclaim the values of Christ are watching, even enabling, mass starvation and civilian slaughter—and calling it justified. Nearly every family in Gaza has been displaced, some multiple times. There is no refuge, no safe zone. Every place they flee to is eventually targeted. Entire generations have been erased, often in a single airstrike. Gaza is not just being destroyed—it is being erased. And through it all, Western pulpits grow more silent by the day. Where are the voices of Christian moral leadership? Where is the Vatican? Where are the bishops, the pastors, the priests who once marched for civil rights, stood up against apartheid, and denounced colonial wars? Gaza is calling. Will they answer? This is not just a political question—it is a spiritual reckoning . Christianity teaches us to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and comfort the afflicted . Yet today, those who claim to follow Christ remain unmoved as Gaza's people are starved , bombed, and left to die. The hypocrisy is staggering. Let us be clear: this is a test of Christian conscience. And so far, it is a test we are failing. Enough killing. Enough starvation. Enough complicity. If the Christian Church remains silent, it will share the shame of history. If it speaks out—clearly, bravely, and loudly—it might still help save lives and reclaim the moral authority it once held. It is time for churches around the world to rise—not in whispers, but in thunder. To demand an immediate end to the bombing, the blockade, and the genocide. To proclaim, without hesitation, that every human life matters —including Palestinian lives. Let the Christian conscience awaken—before it is buried alongside Gaza's children.
Ya Libnan
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Ya Libnan
Netanyahu's nomination of Trump for the Nobel Prize is an insult to Alfred Nobel and humanity
By: Ya Libnan Editorial Board Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nomination of former U.S. President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is not only absurd—it is an insult to the legacy of Alfred Nobel, to the meaning of peace, and to the intelligence of the global public. Let's be clear: This nomination is not about Donald Trump. It is about the man making the nomination—Benjamin Netanyahu—a leader who stands accused of some of the most serious crimes in recent history. On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing their alleged responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Gaza. These are not trivial accusations—they are grave, and backed by months of investigation. Netanyahu's moral authority to speak about peace is nonexistent. He is not only accused of genocide abroad, but is also under criminal investigation at home in Israel, facing multiple corruption charges including bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. For years, Netanyahu has fought tooth and nail to delay or derail his trial, even attempting to overhaul Israel's judiciary—an effort widely seen as a direct attempt to shield himself from justice. Worse still, Netanyahu's prosecution of the war in Gaza, and now his provocation of conflict with Iran, appear driven not by national security or regional peace, but by sheer political survival. With public support wavering and legal pressure mounting, Netanyahu has used war as a political weapon. The longer the conflict drags on, the more he clings to power. Every missile launched, every raid ordered, seems less about protecting Israel and more about protecting himself. In his last will and testament, Alfred Nobel bequeathed over ninety percent of his fortune to fund the Nobel Prizes. He was an inventor, entrepreneur, scientist and businessman who also wrote poetry and drama. His varied interests are reflected in the prize he established and which he lay the foundation for in 1895 when he wrote his last will. It's in this context that Netanyahu nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize—a deeply cynical gesture. Trump's own record on peace is checkered at best. But more alarmingly, Trump has lent his support to Netanyahu's regional provocations, particularly the reckless escalation with Iran. In doing so, he has become complicit in a calculated political maneuver designed to keep Netanyahu in power, even at the cost of plunging the region into wider war. Netanyahu's nomination of Trump is not just laughable—it is dangerous. It distorts the meaning of peace, mocks the suffering of civilians in Gaza and elsewhere, and politicizes a prize that was meant to honor those who genuinely strive to end conflict and advance humanity. Alfred Nobel created the peace prize to recognize those who combat war—not those who fuel it. For Netanyahu, a man with blood on his hands and criminal charges around his neck, to nominate anyone for that prize is a grotesque manipulation of both justice and symbolism. And for Trump to accept such a nomination would only confirm what many fear: that peace is being hijacked by the very men who profit from war. The world should not be fooled by such theatrical gestures. The real headline today is not about a nomination—it is about a global call for accountability, justice, and the end of impunity for war criminals hiding behind politics.
Ya Libnan
23-06-2025
- Business
- Ya Libnan
Strait of Hormuz threat: Iran is shooting itself in the foot
By: Ya Libnan Editorial Board A sharp drop in commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz—one of the most critical maritime corridors in the world—is fueling fears of a major escalation in the Middle East. The development comes on the heels of a dramatic turn: the United States struck three Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities, marking its most direct involvement yet in efforts to halt Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has responded with defiance, condemning the strikes and declaring that all options are on the table to protect its sovereignty. One of the most concerning of those options is the reported approval by Iran's parliament to close the Strait of Hormuz —a decision that, if acted upon, would represent an alarming miscalculation and a profound act of self-harm. The Strait of Hormuz is not just any waterway. It is the artery through which nearly 20% of the world's oil and petroleum products pass , as well as a fifth of global liquefied natural gas, mostly from Qatar. Even a brief disruption could send energy prices skyrocketing, threaten global inflation, and put a chokehold on international shipping. But in threatening to close the Strait, Iran is shooting itself in the foot . Its economy is already on life support—crippled by sanctions, inflation, mismanagement, and capital flight. Oil exports are among the few reliable sources of revenue left. Blocking the Strait would not only disrupt global energy flows—it would cut off Iran's own economic lifeline . In effect, Tehran would be undermining its already fragile position in a fit of strategic posturing. Worse yet, Iran risks alienating its most important international partners. China , its largest oil customer, has little patience for disruptions that imperil its own energy security. Tehran may find that its threats will do more than rattle markets—they could fracture its few remaining strategic alliances. And practically speaking, Iran's ability to close the Strait is more limited than it once was. In the 1980s, the U.S. responded to similar threats by escorting oil tankers through the waterway. Today, that capability still exists—and regional players like Saudi Arabia have developed alternative pipelines to the Red Sea , capable of diverting millions of barrels per day. The reality is clear: Iran cannot win this standoff by turning off the tap. Any attempt to weaponize the Strait would only accelerate its own economic collapse and invite overwhelming international backlash. It would not be an act of strength, but of desperation . The wiser path for Iran is de-escalation, diplomacy, and a long-overdue investment in its own people and economy. Threats to the global oil supply won't gain it leverage—they'll deepen its isolation. Tehran must ask itself: Can it afford to gamble what little stability it has left? Because shutting down Hormuz won't bring relief or victory—it will only tighten the noose around Iran's own neck.
