Voices of the Arab press: Israel’s war on Gaza continues, attention shifts to Lebanon

Israel’s war on Gaza continues, with attention shifting toward Lebanon

An-Nahar, Lebanon, Dec. 8

Contrary to what many had hoped, Israeli forces recently resumed their attack on the Gaza Strip, commencing where they left off prior to the truce in the northern part of the strip, and progressing into a ground operation, targeting the east and center of Khan Yunis in the southern part of the strip. Israel states that the truce fell apart after Hamas declined to follow through with the prisoner exchange under the preceding conditions.

Additionally, some Israeli officials suggested that the military leadership was apprehensive of the possibility of their assaulting forces losing the initiative on the battleground if the truce period was extended. It feared that Palestinian faction fighters would benefit from the truce to enhance their positions and modify their plans to confront the Israeli forces.

This is discussed in a report by the Institute for the Study of War in America, which monitors military conflicts worldwide, follows the movements of armies via satellites and electronic means, and scrutinizes what is broadcast on social media in order to generate analyses and prognosticate about the route of these wars. The institute recently revealed that tactics employed by Hamas fighters had developed during the truce, providing them with the means to track the movements of Israeli forces to prepare targeted ambushes when hostilities resumed.

Despite the losses incurred on the Israeli side, they continued to expand areas of control. The cease-fire created a sense of assurance among many Gazans that the war had concluded and Hamas had been victorious; this was further solidified by media outlets close to the resistance. However, when Israel resumed its bombing, people in the Gaza Strip were forced back into shelters and were displaced, yet again, this time to Khan Yunis and Rafah.

Israel’s counter-move has resulted in areas being left uninhabitable; it issues evacuation warnings to targeted sites but subsequently neglects to accept responsibility for those killed within the vicinity. The American and Western response has been timid, allowing Israel to proceed with its military objectives such as dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure and killing its leaders in the Gaza Strip. The Biden administration reportedly reached an agreement with the leaders of the seven major countries to set up an international force to monitor security in the strip when the war is over, in conjunction with the Palestinian Authority.

On the other hand, [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s government is rumored to have some additional plans involving the occupation of Gaza Strip and then establishing a protection barrier along its perimeter. Nevertheless, the US and its allies are promptly attempting to depose the conservative Israeli government shortly after the end of the conflict, and implanting a less extreme government that is more compliant with American initiatives currently in the works.

American officials reportedly imparted to Netanyahu that they expect the war to cease by the end of January at the latest. However, the Israeli government wants to give the army enough time to conclude the mission with few casualties, possibly lasting until March.

The coming holiday period could potentially see a humanitarian truce for a week, ostensibly to release Israeli prisoners, including those who are civilians, in a bid to reduce the pressure being felt by hostage families under the Netanyahu government. But, according to Western observers, Israeli leadership is hoping the ferocity of the bombardment and intensity of the ground assault will wear Hamas down in the Gaza Strip and encourage a resumption of negotiations regarding prisoner release on Jerusalem’s terms.

Recent statements from Israel’s leaders and reports from Western newspapers indicate that Jerusalem is determined to continue its military operations for as long as it can, in order to achieve a variety of objectives. Some analysts suggest that all the extreme violence and destruction that Israel is causing, and that is going unchecked by the international community, is meant to break the resilience of the people of Gaza while creating a psychological state whereby future generations are unwilling to accept any militant resistance in the vicinity of Israeli settlements.

Israel further hopes that this brutal war will restore prestige to its military and make Gaza a warning to anyone who may threaten Israel in the future. Israeli officials have even gone so far as to threaten that Lebanon or Beirut may face a similar fate to Gaza if attacks on Israel’s northern border persist. Attacks launched by Iranian-backed groups in the axis of resistance failed to dissuade Israel from proceeding with its war on Gaza.

It is evident that Israel was very precise in its recent attacks on Lebanon and Syria, and thus sent a message to Tehran warning its members from the Revolutionary Guard that they had become targets. Similarly, Israel sent a warning to Lebanon, emphasizing that their retaliations would not be limited to Hezbollah alone, but extended to the whole country if bombings of Israeli settlements from Lebanon continue.

Reportedly, the Lebanese government has been delivered messages through international mediators that indicate that after this conflict in Gaza ends, Israel will open a front in southern Lebanon and refuse to accept the presence of armed Hezbollah members south of the Litani River. Residents in northern Israel are calling for the elimination of the Hezbollah threat from the border in order for them to be able to go back to their homes.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s military force has gained increasing strength in terms of the kind of weapons it holds and the effectiveness of its fighters. Given this, it appears that the scuffles in southern Lebanon may not scare Israel, as Hezbollah’s leadership would like, but rather might stimulate a heightened sense of vulnerability that will persuade Israel to launch a war on Lebanon in the foreseeable future.

Netanyahu could take advantage of transferring the conflict to Lebanon after Gaza as a way to extend his tenure in office and shelve the repercussions of his government’s inability to ward off the October 7 attack. If the military establishment and defense minister give him hearty approval to make a robust attack on Hezbollah and lay down a new boundary between them, he may well not let such a chance slip away – although the US and Europe do not approve of this course of action. – Riad Kahwaji

What are Israel’s ambitions in the region?

Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, Dec. 9

The human survival instinct is an impetus to resist death and cling to life, as it is the dividing line between existence and non-existence. Israel, which was born through an act of violence and continues to live by the sword, is aware of this fact to an alarming degree. Driven by an excessive fear for its own life, it has embraced death as the solution to its Arab neighbors and seeks to kill them when they object to Israeli occupation or attempt to gain economic or military strength. Additionally, Israel has done everything in its power to discredit these neighbors in the eyes of the world to stifle progress and inhibit transformation. In reality, behind these reprehensible actions lies a dependence on the weakness of Arabic states and an incapacity to face up to Israel’s misdeeds and misdemeanors. Israel is an anomalous entity in the Middle East, created to divide and fragment the region, and to separate its East from its West. By operating outside of accepted global parameters of legality, it has stifled matters of justice in favor of a Machiavellian theory of might makes right. In other words, it believes that power exceeds law, a systemic injustice inspired by the power dynamics between a strong state and a weak one. As a result, Israel has found itself in a continuous, perpetual state of war that it considers self-defense, though the facing reality for the Palestinians is one in which they encounter death instead of life, be it through displacement, torture, or the recent genocide in the Gaza Strip. Under the guise of preserving Israeli lives, the country attains weaponry and other means of military power from the US and the West. However, fear persists nonetheless, and when force is used to recover a hostage, it leads to death and the death of those attempting to save them. Ultimately, these extreme measures of self-defense demonstrate an unwillingness to opt for a just peace with the neighboring states, as seen by the refusal to acknowledge the right of return for Palestinian refugees and illegal settlements. As a result, what should have been a state governed by the law, has become a state governed by fear. Israel is in a rush for victory, and may resort to deception in order to attain it. However, the country’s goal of domination over the Palestinians is unlikely to be achieved. Therefore, it is only natural that they will become a legitimate target for retaliation by the people Israel has displaced and killed, and whose homes, hospitals, mosques, and churches it has destroyed. The cycle of violence continues: Fear fuels fear while the Israelis buy security with their own lives, creating an atmosphere of peril for anyone who opposes their illegal ambitions and expansions. – Tariq Abbas

Henry Kissinger’s controversial legacy

Al-Ittihad, UAE, Dec. 8

Henry Kissinger, who served as the US secretary of state and national security adviser during US president Richard Nixon’s second term, passed away on November 29 at the age of 100. Until his very last days, Kissinger had retained his high level of mental acuity and creative sophistication. In his later years, he thoughtfully reflected and commented on some of the most pressing issues of the time, including the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, the US-China relationship, and the implications of artificial intelligence for global politics. Numerous newspaper articles published in the immediate wake of his death testify to the vital role he played as a diplomat, historian, and businessman. What is striking is the immense differences of opinion on his legacy and what he contributed to the international balance of power. Many regard him as the most influential American diplomat of the 20th century, whereas his detractors point to his complicity in some of the most appalling atrocities committed during the 1970s. In order to make an equitable assessment of his successes and purported failures, an exacting scrutiny of both is essential. Kissinger entered the Nixon administration in 1968. He is noted for his covert diplomacy with China. By employing a confidential conduit through Pakistan, he traveled to Beijing in July 1971, on the president’s directives, and thus facilitated a groundbreaking encounter between Nixon and Mao Zedong in February 1972. The diplomatic breakthrough of the Nixon presidency led to the establishment of formal relations with the Soviet Union, making the latter more willing to sign crucial nuclear arms control agreements. During Nixon’s second term, Kissinger was the only person to serve as both secretary of state and national security adviser. In October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel, regaining much of the Golan Heights. Israel found itself in peril for a week, until it was saved by a US airlift providing military equipment to the Israel Defense Forces. With this, Israel was able to regain the upper hand and gained the capacity to threaten the Third Egyptian Army. Kissinger’s crucial role in brokering a cease-fire between Egypt and Israel enabled both sides to claim victory. In 1974, Kissinger’s now-famous shuttle diplomacy contributed to a withdrawal agreement from the Sinai Peninsula, which then created the opportunity for Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem in 1977 and eventually led to the Camp David Accords a year later. Many consider this Kissinger’s foremost accomplishment in terms of peace in the Middle East. However, his critics focus on the part he played in the 1973 coup against Chilean socialist leader Salvador Allende, which enabled the oppressive rule of Augusto Pinochet, as well as his support of the bombing of Cambodia in 1970 and that of Pakistan’s general Yahya Khan in a civil war in East Pakistan, which further incited Indian involvement and finally resulted in Bangladesh’s independence. The world has experienced yet another tragedy in which Henry Kissinger is accused of participating: the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Kissinger’s primary worry was that the international order must be preserved in order to stave off the potential of global nuclear disaster. Although various organizations have since been formed to prevent such an occurrence, there is no real substitute for carefully regulating relations between the great powers that wield the power of realpolitik. As the current conflict in Ukraine demonstrates, we still live in dangerous times. Kissinger was willing to implement morally objectionable measures to stave off global disturbance. Undoubtedly, Kissinger was a remarkable human being: sagacious, particularly responsive to censure, egotistical, an adept diplomat, and fecund writer. In the years to come, there is bound to be a myriad of reappraisals of his life. Yet, the ultimate evaluation of his legacy will be shaped by analysts and experts who will probably forever appreciate as well as reproach him in equal part. – Geoffrey Kemp

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb.