Voices from the Arab press: Capturing Lebanon's essence through Fairuz at 90

Fairuz at 90

Al-Ittihad, UAE, November 24

Lebanon now finds itself embroiled in the tumultuous whirlwind of a mini-regional conflict-laden with the long-standing repercussions of war. 

This nation was not created for annihilation and devastation; rather, it was meant to be a bastion of peace, reconciliation, coexistence, love, tolerance, security, and a cradle for beauty, art, thought, and culture.

Lebanon resembles a mosaic in its diverse social fabric, once a beacon of coexistence within a unified homeland where allegiance to the nation surpassed all other affiliations. 

Such sentiments resonate through numerous intellectual, artistic, and literary works, capturing the essence of Lebanon’s past and the drastic changes of recent decades.

Among the most profound of these expressions are the songs of the iconic artist Fairuz, who recently turned 90.

Unfortunately, the Lebanese people was unable to celebrate this milestone, as the cacophony of destructive conflict drowned out any celebration.

However, let us revisit some of Fairuz’s poignant songs dedicated to Lebanon, envisioning a homeland that prioritizes unity over religious and sectarian divisions, and that must be shielded from the perils of conflict and war.

She sang of Lebanon, the cherished homeland: “My homeland, oh you the mountain of the blue clouds / my homeland, oh you the moon of dew and lilies / oh houses of those who love us / Oh soil of those who were buried before us.”

She also expressed her concern for her nation in the same song: “My homeland, oh you the gold of the lost time / my homeland, you showed up from the lightning of poems / I am a poem on your door that was written by the stubborn wind.”

One particularly lesser-known song, “The Bird is Back,” highlights the natural beauty and peaceful coexistence of life in Lebanon, contrasting sharply with the destructive nature of conflict: “The bird is back to nest in the bricks / And the iris is back to bloom again. / School is back; children, snow and holidays.”

The song starkly outlines the impact when this tranquility is shattered by war: “They said a lot, they wrote a lot.... They said the roaring homeland is destroyed / The homeland of the time that taught and built / And the world wept, the world wept.”

Nevertheless, the song concludes on a hopeful note of renewal and recovery: “But we’ll be back, we’ll be back, we’ll be back! / We’ll be back from fires, back from streets / Destroyed by canons, we’ll be back, we’ll be back!” And then, Lebanon reemerges, or rather is reborn: “And the true Lebanon is coming; the Lebanon of simplicity is coming.”

Fairuz’s music transcends religious and sectarian lines, captivating Arabs across the world who are indifferent to her religious beliefs or sectarian identity. 

All they recognize is her ability to unite Lebanese people through her art, in a homeland that should always be the priority.

Yet, some fail to grasp the depth of her lyrics, which warn: “Woe to a nation in which sects have multiplied and religion has decreased / And woe to a divided nation where everyone calls out, ‘I am a nation.’”

Fairuz was also among the first to pay tribute to the Lebanese national army, an institution that has steadfastly preserved Lebanon’s unity. In 1962, she saluted it in song: “May you be well, O soldiers of Lebanon, O father of the well-named arms.”

She is Fairuz – and we salute her in her nineties. – Wahid Abdel-Meguid

The International Criminal Court’s decision

Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, November 24

The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, is a monumental one.

 Yet, unfortunately, it seems to lack the mechanisms necessary for enforcement.

This decision remains “pending,” much like other significant UN resolutions concerning the Palestinian cause that have languished in implementation limbo for decades.

One can’t help but fear that this decision will prove to be unenforceable. 

There’s no international military force poised to carry it out, and it’s only obligatory for nations that have ratified the Rome Statute. 

Seeking enforcement through the UN Security Council is improbable due to the American veto power, as explained by legal expert Dr. Mahmoud Kabish, dean of Cairo University’s Faculty of Law.

Nonetheless, Kabish emphasizes the decision’s undeniable significance from both political and historical viewpoints. 

For the first time, leaders of the Zionist state have been formally accused by the International Criminal Court – an institution crafted by the international community – of committing international crimes punishable by stringent penalties. 

This accusation marks the entity with the stigma of international criminality, isolating it on the global stage.

It is significant that neither of the accused will risk setting foot in any of the countries that have committed to enforcing the warrant. These include major European nations and Canada, which have historically supported the Zionist state.

The decision is akin to a bullet that may not hit directly but nevertheless rattles the leadership of the Zionist state. 

The upheaval within Netanyahu’s circle is evident, reflected in the fervent Israeli appeals that have reached the White House – a cascade of denials, condemnations, and accusations fired at the court, dismissing it as a “biased and discriminatory political body.”

In a frantic attempt to evade this “stain of shame,” Netanyahu’s office issued a statement attacking the court’s integrity: “The decision was made by a corrupt prosecutor attempting to evade serious sexual harassment allegations, and by biased judges motivated by an antisemitic hatred of Israel.”

The familiar charge of antisemitism is employed once again, deployed like an incendiary device against anyone who opposes Israel’s actions.

It’s a charge hurled at those who decry the relentless cycle of genocide, destruction, and the slaughter of innocents – even newborn children. 

Antisemitism has become a malleable accusation, one that could feasibly condemn the entire world, not just the court’s judges, as perpetually hostile toward Jews. 

This charge has become a shield for those who commit atrocities, as if merely questioning their actions aligns one with centuries-old enmity.

To clarify, antisemitism, in the literal sense, refers to hostility against Semitic peoples – a term first coined by German researcher Wilhelm Marr to describe the swell of animosity toward Jews in Central Europe during the 19th century. 

While Arabs and Assyrians also belong to the Semitic family, their suffering at the hands of aggressors is not categorized as antisemitism. 

Hostility against Jews alone is a form of racism, whereas their genocidal actions, causing humanity’s collective shame, are not labeled the same. – Hamdy Rizk

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.

Israeli consensus behind Netanyahu

Al-Ahram, Egypt, November 24

In a rare show of unity, all Israeli political parties, even those opposed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration, vehemently condemned the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.

This decision, if anything, has unmasked the underlying consensus among Israeli factions, regardless of political leaning, in their support for the actions of the Israeli military, which has been accused of committing grave offenses against unarmed Palestinian civilians. 

This unflinching unity is apparent in the widespread disregard for the haunting images of Palestinian children, casualties of these military operations.

Remarkably, some of Netanyahu’s adversaries remain steadfast in their determination to hold him accountable on domestic corruption charges, underscoring a commitment to the judicial process even in wartime.

These charges, concerning alleged financial misconduct involving sums in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, seem limited in scope when compared to the ICC’s grave accusations against him, which involve allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians.

Critics of the ICC’s decision often hasten to dismiss its significance, arguing that enforcement is improbable. They disregard the decision’s profound political ramifications, which, effectively, isolate Israel on the global stage regardless of immediate implementation. 

With 124 nations, including major European states, as signatories to the ICC, Israel faces substantial diplomatic pressure. This obliges Netanyahu and Gallant to avoid traveling to these countries.

Notably, in the United States – where the Biden administration has voiced strong opposition to the ICC’s decision – the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, took a stand, asserting his commitment to effectuating the arrest warrants should the chance present itself. 

He stated, “Our president may abstain from action, but local authorities will ensure that our community does not harbor war criminals. We will detain Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter our city.” 

Such declarations call upon other US cities to consider similar stances, suggesting that Dearborn might merely be the starting point for broader initiatives within America and beyond.

Amid these developments, Mohammed Deif, the Hamas leader similarly sought by the court, faces a pivotal decision. 

Should he still be alive, Deif might consider surrendering to the ICC, contingent on Netanyahu and Gallant doing the same. 

This move could potentially offer a platform to highlight the justice of the Palestinian cause while exposing the alleged crimes committed by Israel, thereby galvanizing international scrutiny and debate. – Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab

Hamas: The political and military body has become one

Al-Arabiya, Saudi Arabia, November 24

The quest for clarity in Gaza’s future and the conspicuous absence of Hamas’s political bureau from media discourse add layers of complexity to the Palestinian landscape. 

These factors may justify the lack of intra-Palestinian dialogue, leaving unanswered questions about political collaboration in handling Palestinian affairs – questions that might have been addressed if Hamas had scaled back some of its demands sooner.

Chief among these demands was the Palestinian Authority’s removal from negotiations related to hostage situations and ending the conflict, a stance that weakened the collective Palestinian position.

Hamas later insisted on a full reversion of Gaza to the pre-October 7 status, as a prerequisite for any ceasefire agreement. 

This demand implies regaining full control over Gaza, the withdrawal of occupying forces, and the restoration of border crossings, even before any formal agreement is reached.

Such conditions have given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a pretext to prolong the conflict, ostensibly to pressure Hamas into making concessions. 

This delay has proven catastrophic for civilians, who bear the devastating consequences of a conflict prolonged by two parties showing little regard for humanitarian outcomes: Hamas, which ties the cessation of hostilities to its dominance in Gaza, and Netanyahu, whose political and ethical standing is intertwined with the war’s perpetuation.

For the United States and Israel, negotiations resembled a mere hostage exchange deal, diverging sharply from Hamas’s aspirations of securing American guarantees for a postwar landscape. 

With no compelling leverage other than the hostages, and the battlefield reduced to widespread civilian anguish, Hamas’s strategy faltered.

Meanwhile, the movement’s political rhetoric veered dramatically – from inciting uprisings against ruling authorities, trivializing the conflict to an intertribal skirmish, to idolizing the so-called resistance axis in a juvenile approach devoid of genuine political strategy. 

This discourse disregarded the long-standing support Arab nations have extended to Palestinians since the 1940s.

Hamas, long yearning for direct negotiations with the US, misinterpreted America’s involvement, anticipating an agreement on its terms as inevitable – tantamount to American recognition of Hamas as a sovereign entity.

Suspicious of the PA’s role, fearing it would strip Hamas of its grip on Gaza, the group harbored a delusion uncommon in political strategizing. Consequently, the war persisted, and Netanyahu stood firm in Gaza. 

With negotiations faltering and the intermittent or perhaps permanent closure of Hamas’s political office in Qatar, diplomatic prospects seemed grim, while the humanitarian crisis deepened.

Hamas’s aspirations for a postwar resolution became increasingly elusive, exacerbated by Netanyahu’s maneuvering in Lebanon, shifting focus to those negotiations while Gaza awaited another deferred chance, with Hamas clinging to its original demands.

This scenario renders the Palestinian dialogue equation unstable, particularly as the US administration broadens sanctions against certain Hamas leaders, likely extending further. 

This signifies a US shift from negotiation toward punitive measures, as Hamas’s search for a new headquarters for its political bureau intensifies amid growing isolation and diminishing political legitimacy.

The merger of Hamas’s political and military facets leaves reactivating its Qatar office under past conditions insufficient to lure back US negotiators for discussions on Gaza’s future.

Hence, Hamas opts to maintain the current deadlock, necessitating its political bureau’s retreat from the public eye and suspending direct communication, forestalling significant Palestinian-Palestinian dialogues involving the Hamas leadership. – Ayman Khaled

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.