Voices from the Arab press: The man behind ‘shuttle diplomacy’ is no longer

The man behind ‘shuttle diplomacy’ is no longer

Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, Dec. 1

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has passed away. While I disagreed with many of his policies, I did admire his tenacity and fortitude. I had the privilege of witnessing his poise and wisdom firsthand at the 2018 Davos Forum, where he addressed a gathering of world leaders. His intellectual prowess and astuteness were plainly evident, and he applied his insights thoughtfully to the various issues being discussed. He was truly remarkable among the global elite. A Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a powerful diplomat, Kissinger has been remembered for his concept of “shuttle diplomacy,” a means of resolving diplomatic issues between countries through intensive back-and-forth in-person meetings with the warring parties. His enduring legacy is marked by his service under two US presidents, fundamentally altering America’s foreign policy. Kissinger worked right up to the last months of his life. Even at 100 years old, he was still publishing books on leadership and testifying before the Senate regarding the nuclear risk posed by North Korea. Strangely enough, the late statesman even made a surprise visit to Beijing to confer with the Chinese president in July.

Last October, while celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, Kissinger admitted to being surprised by the conflict, stating he hadn’t anticipated the Egyptians would wage war in such a manner. He further revealed he had thought Israel would emerge victorious over the Egyptians within hours – this, of course, was not the case. It’s almost unfathomable that, at a century of age, Kissinger was still actively engaging in such events. The relationship between Egyptians and Henry Kissinger was fraught, owing to his role in the Camp David Accords which, while pleasing some Egyptians, stirred up dissent among many others. Kissinger conducted American foreign policy from 1969 until Nixon’s resignation in 1974. In 1977, Kissinger resumed his mission of Egyptian-Israeli peace by reviving the Middle East negotiations that then-US president Carter had long foreseen. To replace Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy,” Carter opted for a more comprehensive and multilateral approach after the Yom Kippur War. Many praised Henry Kissinger for his career, yet others labeled him a war criminal for propping up anti-communist dictatorships. In his later years, attempts were made to restrict his travels, as other countries sought to interrogate him about previous American foreign policy. This is the reality of politics: who one considers an ally is another’s adversary. Despite what people might think of Kissinger, it’s difficult not to respect his accomplishments, regardless of whether they were morally defensible or not. – Abdel Latif El Menawy 

Hezbollah returns to war, but without eyes set on Gaza

An-Nahar, Lebanon, Dec. 2

The first phase of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip highlighted that Hezbollah’s occupation of southern Lebanon had not offered any noteworthy assistance to Hamas. This was evident from the demobilization of the large number of Israeli reserve soldiers that were called up on October 7. Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli intelligence and current head of a research body called MIND Israel, thought of it as a “tactical” defeat for the “deterred” party and a point of pride for the Israeli army. In reality, the “axis of resistance”– in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen– cannot effectively support Hamas militarily. Measures taken by the Israeli and American forces have ensured that. As a result, the Gaza Strip has no real ally. Why did Hezbollah reignite the Lebanese front just as the temporary truce in Gaza came to an end? There could be multiple reasons. Morale boosting is one: withdrawing from the “Al-Aqsa Flood” war could be seen as accepting Israel’s claims of a tactical victory and as a betrayal of commitments to Hamas. Losing Iran could be another; the country is currently attempting to retrieve funds transferred from South Korea to Qatar through a hostage deal with the US yet held by a third party. The fundamental motivation underlying Hezbollah’s return to war is its long-term military presence in southern Lebanon. Its entry into the initial phase of the Gaza conflict brings Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war, back into the spotlight and exposes it as a hollow promise. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon and the Lebanese army have fallen short of the commitments both parties made to the international community. This implies the war between Hezbollah and Israel is back to where it was just before Resolution 1701 was enacted in 2006. The US has pledged to use all its capabilities to ensure Israel upholds Resolution 1701, which calls for an end to armed conflict on the Lebanese front. Hezbollah is apprehensive of the potential effects of American pressure, given Israel’s claims that anything not achieved diplomatically will be implemented through military might. Israel is determined to keep Hezbollah and its Redwan Force away from its border. In the last days of the first round of the war, Israel struck a major blow to the militant group by targeting some of its most prominent field leaders, including the son of Shi’ite politician Mohammad Raad, who is the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc party in the Lebanese government. To give its citizens on the border with Lebanon reassurance, Israel aims to create a buffer zone similar to the one likely to be imposed in the Gaza Strip after Hamas’s attack on October 7. Hezbollah’s return to the battlefield aims to ensure its strategic presence and secure deal-making on its terms. This will inevitably have ramifications for Lebanon’s internal frictions, as Hezbollah will exert even greater pressure so that the next president of the republic meets its conditions. This shift from backing Gaza to defending its own military viability, at the behest of Iran, indicates that Gaza is now being used to bolster Hezbollah’s clout. Should the pressure from the international community mount, it can always fall back on the Southern Front, signaling that Lebanon is bound for difficult days in a region where resolutions – however temporary – require a large blood toll. – Fares Khachan

What we need: Palestinian national unity

Akhbar el-Yom, Egypt, Dec. 1

The Palestinian people must recognize that the surest path to freedom lies in their unity. They must stand together and form a solid collective to face off against the occupation and fight for the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state. At the head of those who must fully recognize this reality, commit to it, and strive earnestly and loyally to meet all its requirements, are the leaders of the factions and all the members and cadres of the many Palestinian organizations engaged in political, social, and military activities, raising the banner of resistance – be it in Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or others. I contend that these factions and groups within Palestine must rise to the level of hopes and aspirations held by the Palestinian people and work together. These people have continuously taken a stand in their combat against the oppressive occupation forces since the Nakba up until today. These groups’ leaders must take on the critical and essential task of striving earnestly and with integrity to end their differences and put aside their divisions to reach unity in their ranks and goals. This is an obligation and necessity that is placed upon them to achieve the aspirations of the Palestinian people and to gain their legitimate rights to liberation and the establishment of their own state with its boundaries existing before June 4, 1967, with east Jerusalem as its capital. All people, no matter their loyalties or beliefs, must be aware that their duty is to their homeland and its people. They must understand that their homeland and its people won’t forgive anyone sowing division and fragmentation among the Palestinian people. The only way to achieve Palestinian self-determination is through national unity. – Mohamad Barakat

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb.