Voices from the Arab press: Trump should pressure Israel, not Hamas

Hochstein’s recent visit to Lebanon

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, December 4

In a quiet revelation, a Lebanese banker, who shares a longstanding friendship with US envoy Amos Hochstein dating back to their time at a New York bank in the 1990s, disclosed insights from Hochstein’s recent visit to Lebanon. The banker notes an air of optimism surrounding the potential finalization of a ceasefire agreement. 

During a meeting with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Berri, without hesitation, informed Hochstein that Hezbollah had agreed to a withdrawal plan beyond the Litani River. This was a remarkable turnaround, considering its previous staunch rejection. At that time, Berri had reiterated leader Hassan Nasrallah’s assertion that relocating the river to the border seemed more feasible than Hezbollah’s withdrawal. 

Hochstein confided in his Lebanese contact that had this proposal been accepted a year earlier, much of the present devastation and loss of life could have been avoided. In their latest encounter, Berri assured Hochstein that Hezbollah was willing to decouple the conflict in Lebanon from that in Gaza and would adhere to a ceasefire, provided that Israel withdrew beyond the Blue Line and stopped bombing urban areas. 

Hochstein responded, noting his impending visit to Israel and highlighting the robust mandate he held from the US administration, both current and incoming, to pressurize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and enforce a ceasefire. 

The departure of the two men was warm, contrasting sharply with their previous meeting, which ended without so much as a handshake. In Tel Aviv, Netanyahu met Hochstein with a sarcastic jab, remarking in front of the media, “Sorry to interrupt your pleasant stay in Beirut.” 

Unfazed, the American envoy entered into what became a tense meeting. The Israelis were confronted with a stark message: the United States would not veto any UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel should it fail to cease hostilities. President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump had reportedly agreed upon this stance during their meeting at the White House. 

In frustration, Netanyahu slammed his hand on the table, protesting that this shift was a profound betrayal and a strategic blunder that could enable Hezbollah to regain strength and perpetuate Iranian influence. Leaving the meeting noticeably displeased, Hochstein remarked to reporters, “There is progress in the ceasefire negotiations.” 

Netanyahu convened an emergency cabinet session, briefing members on his discussions with Hochstein. He presented the proposed temporary truce as the most strategic move for Israel, highlighting significant achievements from the Lebanese conflict, including the depletion of Hezbollah’s resources and the permanent detachment of Lebanon from Gaza. 

Sources close to Netanyahu suggest his acceptance of the truce intends to corner Hezbollah further, while the agreement grants Israel military intervention rights in Lebanon under international law. As the region embarks on the 60-day trial period for the ceasefire, one certainty remains: the border with southern Lebanon is, for the first time since the 1960s, devoid of direct military confrontation with Israel. Some speculate this stipulation might extend throughout Lebanon, permitting Israeli strikes against any treaty violations. The triumphant claims by Hezbollah’s new secretary-general come despite significant setbacks, sparking skepticism about the true nature of victory. Despite Hezbollah’s declarations of triumph, there’s no going back to pretense. 

In his “Victory Message,” Naim Qassem asserted that Hezbollah would operate under the Taif Agreement’s framework. This agreement, crucial in ending Lebanon’s civil war in the early 1990s, envisioned disarming all militias. Nonetheless, Hezbollah retained its arms under the guise of resistance, bolstered by Syrian and Iranian support. The path forward inevitably involves the critical disarmament of Hezbollah for full compliance with Security Council resolutions. 

Resolution 1701 presents a viable path for Lebanon and Hezbollah, safeguarding the party’s interests while ensuring Lebanon’s complex political fabric remains intact. Lebanon and Hezbollah must adeptly steer through profound shifts with lasting regional implications. Any move towards Hezbollah’s disarmament will undeniably alter regional dynamics, impacting the United States, Israel, and Iran, each confronting new challenges or opportunities. For Iran, the loss of a steadfast ally in Hezbollah is unimaginable, given its extensive backing. 

In contrast, the United States and Israel might see such a development as a springboard for reinvigorating the Abraham Accords. Beyond populist rhetoric, one truth stands clear: the geopolitical landscape has undeniably shifted post-conflict, as the axis of resistance grapples with the substantial repercussions following Hezbollah’s substantial setbacks in Lebanon. – Huda Al-Husseini

National service in the UAE: Our collective duty

Al-Ittihad, UAE, December 5

Since its inception, the UAE has demonstrated astute leadership in its quest to forge a resilient society equipped to navigate challenges and safeguard national resources. A pivotal aspect of this strategic vision is national service, which serves as the cornerstone of efforts to bolster the country’s defense capabilities and ensure security and stability.

This initiative aligns with the UAE’s broader strategy to fortify its defensive prowess, as envisioned by its ambitious leaders, who are intent on preparing the youth to adeptly respond to a myriad of regional and global dynamics. In a world where challenges and security concerns evolve swiftly, each nation must guarantee the readiness of its military and security forces to tackle these exigencies effectively.

Through the implementation of national service, the UAE emphasizes imparting combat and military proficiency to its youth, while instilling discipline and a sense of responsibility. These competencies extend beyond mere defense, equipping individuals with the ability to make swift decisions under duress and collaborate effectively in fluctuating environments, thereby enhancing societal resilience against any adversities.

Moreover, national service plays a crucial role in cultivating a well-trained human resource pool that contributes not only to the armed forces but also to domestic security agencies and other institutions that underpin the nation’s stability. The entire fabric of Emirati society thrives on the cooperative ethos shared by various security and military bodies, with national service serving as a foundational pillar in broadening the scope of this collaboration. 

Despite its significant positive impact, national service faces challenges that must be navigated to ensure its continued success. Chief among these is the need to keep pace with technological advancements, necessitating the integration of cutting-edge technologies and training methodologies within military and security paradigms. This includes leveraging artificial intelligence systems, state-of-the-art security monitoring techniques, and advanced tactical operations. 

By adapting national service programs to these technological shifts, the UAE can continue to enhance the capabilities of its armed and security services, ensuring its position at the forefront of nations adept at safeguarding their security and stability. 

In conclusion, it is imperative to recognize that national service in the UAE transcends traditional military service; it is a profound investment in developing human capital that forms the bedrock of the nation’s strength across various sectors. Through this initiative, young Emiratis are empowered to uphold national stability and counter potential internal or external challenges. It is also a vital instrument for fostering national unity and reinforcing Emirati identity, positioning the UAE as a regional exemplar in maintaining security and stability. 

At Dubai Police, we uphold the view that serving the nation is both an honor and a duty. We are steadfast in our support of this national endeavor, contributing to the preparation of a generation ready to face the future with confidence and determination, ensuring the continued advancement and prosperity of our cherished nation. – Dubai Police Chief Lt.-Gen. Abdullah Khalifa Al Marri

US-European relations under Trump: Growing transatlantic divide

Al Qabas, Kuwait, December 7

The forthcoming four years of Donald Trump’s presidency promise to be crucial for the dynamics of US-European relations and the broader future of the European Union. This isn’t merely speculative; it stems from the realities observed during Trump’s first term in the White House and the overarching directions of his foreign policy.

Integral to this is the multitude of variables and challenges currently facing the United States and Europe. Since 2010, American interest in Europe has generally waned, largely due to a rising focus on Asia, especially China – a trend acutely recognized by European nations. When Trump assumed office in 2017, his unilateral approach further distanced Europe from Washington. 

President Joe Biden later sought to mend these relations by reinforcing alliances, particularly as the conflict in Ukraine bolstered solidarity between the Atlantic partners, with Washington leading the European charge against Russian aggression. 

Nevertheless, even amid Western unity against Russia under US leadership, Europe has charted a course focused on bolstering its own military and defense capabilities. There’s a growing determination to achieve defense autonomy, allowing Europe to protect itself from external threats independently or without the umbrella of American support and NATO, should circumstances necessitate it. 

This determination is rooted in a steadfast European belief that it is unsustainable to rely indefinitely on Washington for security. Despite Biden’s administration vigorously confronting Russia, including substantial financial and military aid to Ukraine, apprehensions persist. The Europeans interpreted Biden’s immediate declaration that the US would not intervene militarily in Ukraine as a worrying indication of Europe’s diminished priority for the US. 

Furthermore, the increase in US military presence in the Indo-Pacific and preparations for potential military action against a Chinese incursion into Taiwan have not gone unnoticed by European observers. Europe, particularly its key nations, is profoundly unsettled by the prospect of Trump’s return and is strategizing on how to navigate this challenge. 

Should Trump assume office again, US-European relations face potential deterioration not seen before. Although Trump does not inherently oppose Europe, his administration’s challenges and priorities markedly diverge. 

Foremost among these is the revitalization of the American economy, a pursuit that may lead Trump to impose higher tariffs on even allied nations and reduce financial and military aid, including contributions to NATO, the primary entity safeguarding Europe. Trump’s ambition to realign American industries will extend the trade conflict beyond China, implicating all global partners. Addressing the challenge posed by China, noted explicitly by Trump post-victory, suggests an almost exclusive focus at the expense of Europe, particularly as tensions with China escalate dramatically.

Additionally, Trump’s strategy to resolve the Ukrainian war, currently in development, threatens to shift the balance of power in Russia’s favor, reshaping transatlantic relations. In essence, Trump’s tenure is likely to significantly widen the transatlantic divide, bringing about several consequences for Europe. 

A pronounced fracture within the European Union could accelerate its disintegration over the next two decades, considering that Washington has historically been a major supporter of its formation and continuation. 

This division would manifest in sharp disagreements among European nations regarding key policies, especially those involving relations with China and Russia. For instance, some Eastern European countries, such as Hungary, might pivot towards strengthening ties with Moscow, while France could seek to enhance its economic relationship with China to secure its interests. 

Additionally, Europe may witness an intensified rise of far-right movements, which could further complicate the continent’s political landscape. There might also be significant challenges in advancing European defense capabilities, with each country, particularly Germany and France, focusing on enhancing its military strength individually. This trend could lead to growing tensions between Europe and NATO, as collective security efforts become more fragmented. – Noura Saleh Almujeem

Trump should pressure Israel, not Hamas

Al-Ahram, Egypt, December 5

US President-elect Donald Trump issued a warning to Hamas last week, threatening “all hell to pay” if Israeli hostages held in Gaza are not released. This declaration was not only misinformed but also incendiary. It neglected the fact that the Middle East had already been engulfed in turmoil long before he had come to power. 

During his election campaign, the Middle East was already ablaze, rendering his statements redundant and misdirected at the Palestinian resistance, while ignoring the occupying power, Israel. Throughout his campaign, Trump remained silent on the actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, often referred to as the region’s butcher.

Netanyahu orchestrated a plight in the Middle East that eclipses America’s historical bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in its sheer devastation. He deployed airstrikes that obliterated Gaza and inflicted violence on civilians with an intensity unmatched even during the barbarity of the Middle Ages. 

These atrocities are broadcasted globally, leaving one to question the basis of Trump’s statement amid the escalating casualty figures in Gaza—numbers that dwarf those in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The casualties in Ukraine are a mere fraction of the devastation in Gaza, highlighting the disproportionate nature of the pronouncements made by the president-elect in response to the capture of Israeli citizens during what is labeled the October 7, 2023 incident. 

Despite the substantial loss of Palestinian lives – 50,000 dead and wounded in exchange for only a handful of Israeli captives – Trump’s rhetoric suggests further sacrifices, even as all parties have endured significant losses. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his former defense minister, both protected by the United States despite being wanted by international courts, have escalated tensions.

Amidst all this, the Palestinian resistance leaders named by these courts have been eliminated, leaving solely Israeli leadership unchecked and awaiting accountability. Ultimately, the return of hostages who have been detained for over 14 months requires intensified American diplomatic pressure on Netanyahu’s government, not on the Palestinian resistance. 

This imperative is heightened by the looming threat to their lives due to the relentless Israeli siege and violence affecting all residents of Gaza. American efforts, alongside Egyptian and Qatari mediation, must intensify before the Israeli government budges. The repeated cycles of violence must cease if there is any hope for resolution and accountability in this ongoing crisis. – Osama Saraya, former editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram

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.