OUR BEST ALLIES .......

 

US Democratic Representative Ro Khanna announced that he was detained by Israeli settlers armed with American-made rifles during a recent visit to the West Bank, describing the trip as an opportunity to witness firsthand the devastating impact of the Israeli occupation on human life. This comes as Khanna considers a presidential run in 2028. Speaking to Reuters on Thursday from a Palestinian village, Khanna said that settlers carrying M-4 rifles surrounded the van he was traveling in the previous day during a tour of an area in the southern West Bank where residents are frequently attacked by settlers. The California congressman added , "We were in a village that Israeli settlers destroyed ... They destroyed the school, they destroyed that village, and we were just checking on that."
He continued, "Then these criminals came with M4 rifles, which are American-made, and detained us. They blocked the road. Then they called the Israeli army, and the Israeli army sided with them, not with the Americans."

Cameron Kaski, one of Khanna's aides who was with the group, said they were held for over an hour and pleaded with the American embassy in Jerusalem for help. 

Kaski added that a group of officers, who appeared to be police, eventually intervened, leading to their release.

For its part, the Israeli army explained that army and police forces intervened after receiving a report that settlers were blocking the road for vehicles near Khirbet Zanuta, a small Palestinian village whose residents were forcibly displaced following violent settler attacks after Hamas attacks on Israel in 2003.

The army stated, "Upon arrival, the forces dispersed the Israeli civilians and allowed the vehicles to proceed.

on Saturday, with the Palestinian news agency WAFA reporting that a Palestinian man was shot in the leg, two others were wounded by rubber-coated bullets, and a ten-year-old boy was injured in the head by a stun grenade during an attack by Israeli army forces and settlers on a house in the village of Al-Mughayyir, east of Ramallah .

In response, security sources told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth that "Israeli army forces arrived in the village following a report from a shepherd that Palestinians were throwing stones at them and setting fires in the area. During the clash, the forces fired shots into the air and then at one of the stone-throwing rioters." 

A rift has emerged among Democrats as Khanna becomes the second Democratic presidential
candidate to visit the region this week. In Tel Aviv on Wednesday, Rahm Emanuel, who served as White House chief of staff under former President Barack Obama , said that Israeli policies toward the Palestinians are undermining support for the U.S.-Israel alliance. 

When asked if he was considering a presidential run, Khanna said, "I am seriously considering it, and I am more inclined to do so after this visit." Israeli policies toward the Palestinians have become a major divisive issue within the Democratic Party ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November, and have contributed to the primary defeats of some current Democratic representatives by left-wing rivals who accused them of supporting the right-wing Israeli government. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that support for Israel among Democrats has fallen from 59 percent in 2018 to 22 percent in May. Although Israel has historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the United States , a growing number of Democrats in Congress are calling for a halt to US military aid to Israel. This aid, valued at $3.8 billion annually, includes funding for small arms such as M4 rifles and missile defense systems, which Israel used during its war with Iran . 

During a visit to an area overlooking a valley dotted with settlements on the outskirts of the town of Turmus Ayya, home to thousands of Palestinians who also hold US citizenship, Khanna said he believes his party's leadership "doesn't grasp the magnitude of the moral test that the issues of Palestine , Gaza, and Israel have become." Khanna noted that he deliberately limited his visit to the West Bank and ensured that its meetings and programs were organized by Palestinians, aiming to gain an unbiased view of the territories Israel seized in the 1967 war. He added, "If you are not prepared to defend the human rights of Palestinians, if you are not prepared to condemn the genocide in Gaza and the apartheid regime in the West Bank, then your moral standing is questionable." 

Israel rejects accusations that it committed genocide in Gaza or that it imposes an apartheid regime in the West Bank, home to some three million Palestinians and about 500,000 Jewish settlers. Most of the world and the United Nations consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territory. Israel, however, rejects this position, arguing that the West Bank is disputed territory with a Jewish presence dating back thousands of years. Palestinians, for their part, see the West Bank, along with Gaza and East Jerusalem , as part of their future state. Support for Israel remains strong among Republicans, although some within President Donald Trump 's political coalition have expressed reservations.

A good report looking at the dire situation within the occupied Palestinian territories, the settlers barbaric brutality, backed by the Israeli armed forces and police, plus the full apartheid being exercised on daily basis against the original Palestinians. this article was translated and inspired and copied from the leading Lebanese newspaper Annahar, while the news has spread all over the media.  

As always, my profound many thanks to all.   

A HINT OF WHAT'S COMING ......

 

The website "Arabi 21" stated that the Israeli writer and academic Eyal Zisser said in an article published in the newspaper "IsraelToday,” the talk about approaching Lebanon and Israel's new political understandings are still premature," he said, adding that "any declaration of principles between the two sides could meet the same fate as the May 17, 1983 agreement if practical steps are not taken to address the existing challenges on the ground."

Zisser added that "the Lebanese government's willingness to sign a document of principles that includes a commitment to move towards a peace agreement with Israel represents, in his view, a remarkable development, especially in light of what he described as the decline in influence of Hezbollah"Compared to previous phases in which the concepts of 'peace' and 'normalization' were absent from Lebanese political discourse."

He considered that "the document of principles does not rise to the level of an actual peace agreement, but remains within the framework of a declaration of intent that needs practical translation on the ground," and he believed that "the real challenge lies in the implementation mechanisms and not in political statements or declared pledges.

Zisser pointed out that "the importance of the declaration, if it goes ahead, lies in its ability to separate the Lebanese track from the ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran, and preventing Tehran from maintaining direct influence in determining the future of the Lebanese arena.”

He criticized what he described as an attempt by American Vice President J.D. Vance linked the Lebanese file to the understandings with Iran. He argued that "such a trend gives Tehran an influential role in Lebanon and gives Hezbollah an opportunity to regain its strength, which could hinder the Lebanese government's efforts to rebuild state institutions free from Iranian influence.

According to Zisser, "intervention by American Foreign Minister Marco Rubio, in coordination with Lebanon and Israel, helped avert this scenario, and also allowed Tel Aviv to maintain its military presence in South Lebanon In accordance with its security requirements.”

Despite this, the writer emphasized that “what is happening so far does not go beyond the framework of non-binding political documents,” recalling the May 17, 1983 agreement, which stipulated ending the state of war between the two parties, respecting the borders, and the withdrawal of forces. In exchange for Israeli commitment to Lebanon that was obligated to prevent any operations against Israel launched from Lebanese territory.”

He explained that “the agreement did not last long due to the weakness of the Lebanese state at the time and its inability to fulfill its commitments, in addition to the Syrian role in obstructing the agreement and the withdrawal of the United States from the Lebanese scene after its forces were subjected to deadly attacks claimed by Hezbollah, which ultimately led to the cancellation of the agreement in 1984.”

Zisser pointed out that “Hezbollah is betting today on a repeat of this scenario, considering that the fate of any new understandings may be similar if the party remains a major player on the Lebanese domestic scene.”

He concluded by saying that “the success of any future political process between Lebanon and Israel requires, in his view, preventing Hezbollah from regaining its capabilities and reducing Iranian influence in parallel with supporting Lebanese state institutions and strengthening their role, he warned that ignoring the lessons of the past could lead to a reproduction of the failures of previous experiences.

As received in Arabic, translated to fit our blog, for better understanding of the situation between Lebanon and Israel nowadays, more so in light of the escalation taking shape on the ground as more players are being dragged into the game, as in Turkey and possibly Egypt as well as Syria, which will somehow worsen the situation for Lebanon, the weaker link in the area.

As always, my many thanks to all. 

A GOOD AND FAIR ANALYSIS.....

 
In response to a recent video criticizing Tucker Carlson, Mujahid Sarsur, author of the forthcoming book, Palestinians at the Holocaust Museum, writes:

I believe the efforts of pro-Palestinian human rights liberal Jews (including you, Michelle Goldberg, and Naomi Klein) to contribute to the Democratic/Republican establishment goal of dismissing Carlson as a bigot are extremely harmful to the Palestinian cause, and I believe such efforts, although primarily justified by focusing on Carlson’s statements that may be perceived as bigoted, partly stem from a need to defend a construct of a “Jewish peoplehood”—a construct which has been substantially shaped not by traditional Jewish ethics, but by the Zionist movement’s ethnocentric influence on the Jewish community.

My deeper point is illuminated by coining the term “anti-Zionist Zionist Jews”: a person who does not believe in the need for a Jewish state but still embraces the ideological structures underlying Zionism, wanting to defend and be part of a “Jewish peoplehood,” and unwilling to look at the link between that construct and the extermination of Palestinians.

The Palestine issue cannot be understood without a deep exploration of Jewish identity; few questions are more relevant to the Palestinians than “Who is a Jew?” In my upcoming book, I rely on the writings of Jewish and Israeli authors who illustrate how Zionism is ideologically dependent on the construct of “Jewish peoplehood” and who argue that Jews are no more than a faith group, to show how this construct is existentially linked to the future of Palestinians:

The concept of the Jewish people has been at the center of Zionist ideology and what it did to the Palestinians. Israeli intellectual Boaz Evron argues that “the problematic situation in which modern Israel finds itself is derived, inter alia, from assumptions and ideologies about the nature of the Jewish people and the Jewish state that have largely been refuted by historical developments.” Israeli historian Shlomo Sand writes that Israel’s attachment to an “unbridled ethnocracy that grossly discriminates against certain of its citizens, rests on the active myth of an eternal nation that must ultimately forgather in its ancestral land.” Professor of Jewish history, Yakov Rabkin, writes that what “underlies Zionist ideology” is “the concept of the Jewish people.” Israeli government policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians have always been about how to defend this “Jewish peoplehood” and whatever the definition of that peoplehood encompasses.

Indeed, Jewish identity does not only concern the Palestinians, but it is also existentially relevant to them. The Nakba—the destruction of over 500 Palestinian towns and villages and the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian refugees—was a direct result of this vision of Jewish peoplehood that needs to be preserved and protected. The Gaza genocide was rationalized and justified by Israel and its supporters by the need to protect the “Jewish people.” When Israel commenced its genocide, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken came to Israel and explicitly cited his Jewishness to explain why he feels personally required to support Israel and its military.

By equating genocide with Jewishness, as the American Jewish establishment wants him to do, Carlson is challenging the essence of why Antony Blinken may not be a practicing Jew but feels part of a “Jewish peoplehood.” By extension, Carlson is also challenging you, Peter, and Goldberg and Klein to reflect on the essence of contemporary Jewishness. You are confronted with a choice: the easy route of dismissing him as a bigot or asking tough questions. What does it mean that the majority of synagogues and Jewish community centers have Israeli flags? What does the removal of these flags entail? How much of contemporary Jewishness is left without Zionism? Why do many American Jews insist on Jewishness as an “ethnicity” even though ample books have collapsed that idea? Why would 540 Columbia students feel a need to call themselves Zionists and defend Israel in the midst of the genocide?

Many in the Palestinian community view the Carlson phenomenon as miraculous because, for the first time, they see in Carlson the possibility that the structures that have been leading to the expulsion and extermination of Palestinians are being fundamentally challenged. Carlson is holding a sledgehammer and is destroying these structures. Dismissing him as a bigot helps stop this sledgehammer and, from the vantage point of many Palestinians, feels like a deeply Zionist act.

This is, of course, not to accept Carlson’s other views, but to focus on his impact on the Palestine issue as well as the Lebanese situation.

A brilliant analysis, by this Palestinian author, addressed to Peter Beinart, who published it under his very interesting site "The Beinart notebook", which I get by email myself, I'm forwarding it through our blog for better understanding of the original issue and causes of the Israeli/Palestinian dilemma.
As always my deep many thanks to all.   

A PSEUDO PEACE......

 

by Jonathan Kuttab

On June 4, the Israelis bombed and killed Mona Khalil, a 67 year old woman living in Southern Lebanon. Ms. Khalil was an internationally-known environmentalist with a special passion for endangered sea turtles. Her brightly painted orange house in the seaside village of Al-Mansouri, where she kept and cared for sea turtles, was well-marked and known. No explanation for the bombing was made by the Israeli army, other than to state that everyone was ordered to evacuate that area and that she lived within the 20% of the sovereign state of Lebanon that Israel had marked for total destruction. She refused to abandon her precious turtles and was therefore declared to be a legitimate target. Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly declared that Israel will destroy everything in the territory and that none will be allowed to return to it. The Israeli policy is declared openly: nothing will remain.  Houses, businesses, libraries, shopping centers,  schools, agricultural fields, and everything else will be destroyed. The people will be forced out, unable to return.

 
Over one million people in Southern Lebanon face the same fate as Ms. Khalil: “Leave your homes, your land, your schools, your memories, livelihood, hobbies, and community. Flee, or we will kill you. We don’t care where you go. This part of your country is now under our control, and we do not want you here.”

The story of Lebanon is the story of Gaza and of Palestine itself. The Zionist movement, whatever else it is, has determined that its goals and needs trump everything else. While it frequently exhibits elements of hatred, vengeance, sadism and rage, these attributes are really incidental. Its defining feature is a total disregard and lack of concern for any other human beings who happen to be in the way of its program and policies. What happened in Lebanon was the natural progression of what happened (and did not happen) in Gaza. In the words of Smotrich, “we were able to destroy and make Gaza unlivable, and the world was silent. We can now do the same in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.” These were not just the rantings of an extremist ideologue, but they represent the logical conclusion of Zionism and constitute the guiding political principle supported by a majority of people in Israel. This includes many who personally despise Netanyahu and are embarrassed by the blunt and open fascism of Smotrich and Ben Gvir. 

It is important to note that this feature of Zionism has been there all along. Zionism was a response to anti-Jewish hatred and discrimination in Europe, which posited that such evil tendencies against Jews exist everywhere and that the only response to it is the empowerment of Jews through the creation of a Jewish state. This state would need to have and use overwhelming power that forces their enemies to submit. The state and its power becomes not a normal function of those seeking to have a state like all other states, but a necessary (and only) response to the problem of anti-Jewish bigotry and hatred. According to that logic, the failure of the state to achieve complete and decisive victory would inevitably result in another holocaust. Resistance by Palestinians in any form is thus seen as an existential threat and an extension of the historic bigotry aimed at Jews in the Christian West.

 Palestinian and Arab resistance cannot be seen as a legitimate desire for freedom and self determination, but must be viewed as evil and noxious terrorism. That is what Israelis are taught from a very early age. With such a mentality, eternal enmity and eternal militarism becomes necessary. All other values, including not only international law but also core Jewish ethical and moral values must necessarily be sacrificed, as the choice to “live by the sword” becomes ingrained as the sole means of survival. Compromise becomes treason. Accommodations are treated as appeasement. Those who hold out hopes for a genuine peace and reconciliation with Palestinians are treated as naive fools, at best, and as dangerous internal enemies, at worst. Tribal solidarity and a Machiavellian usage of the levers of power become necessary and even virtuous. Deception may be warranted, but the goals  must remain the same. 

What is happening in Lebanon, just as in Gaza and Iran, necessarily brings into question the fundamental values and ideology of Zionism itself. Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben Gvir therefore are not aberrations but the logical conclusion of the Zionism dominant in Israel today. Some of my Jewish friends point out that there are other forms of Zionism, like that of Ahad Ha Am, which are more humane and compatible with Palestinian rights, morality and justice. My answer is that those forms of Zionism have failed to gain acceptance, and are only referred to in Zionist apologetics. 

The only form of Zionism we have experienced is the prevailing one, which sometimes camouflages its true nature pretending to favor liberal democracy, but  is clearly articulated by Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben Gvir. It is also supported in reality by the rest of Jewish Israelis, who only prefer to pretend otherwise. 

The silver lining is that with the stripping off of the mask, with the horrors of genocide and apartheid, many Jews worldwide (and a small minority in Israel as well) now feel they have to deal with this reality. For many of them, Zionism and the state of Israel are no longer something they can support. For them, and for their supporters abroad, the legitimate concerns for the safety and well being of Jews in Israel must find their answer in advocating for Palestinian rights, for equality, and for a rejection of Jewish supremacy in favor of justice,  security, and dignity for Jews and Palestinians alike.

 This is something that sheer reliance on military power and ethnic superiority can never provide. Only this way can they preserve their own moral and spiritual values, and ultimately find peace and security as well. The alternative is only more suffering, in Lebanon, Palestine, and beyond. As well as a deepening of resentment, hatred, and even anti-Jewish sentiment worldwide.

As received by email from FOSNA, an excellent analysis by Jonathan Kuttab, of the present reigning atmosphere between Israel and its actual regime, and practically all of its neighbors, but mostly Lebanon and Syria, more so after the signing yesterday of an accord of pseudo peace between Lebanon and Israel, under the tutelage of the US. an accord that is very shaky and vague in many aspects, whereby I personally have a feeling it will not hold, but fail miserably, fail Lebanon, its population and eventually all parties of the eternal conflict. 
All my thanks to all, as always. 

WHAT ABOUTISM......

 

US Leaders and Media Must Move Beyond the Israeli-Imposed Narrative
 Washington Watch

Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American Institute.

Our understanding of an historical event’s meaning is a function of two factors. The first is what we choose to identify as the starting point leading up to the event. The second is the lens through which we view it. This should be obvious, but unfortunately it is not, and the failure to acknowledge or understand it has consequences in everything from public policy to personal relationships.

 
This truth can be ignored due to thoughtlessness, blindness to one’s biases, or just plain ignorance. On some occasions there can be malign intent, including efforts to deliberately hide what one knows to be an event’s antecedents for political or personal reasons. 

Before examining the issue that prompted this column, I want to share an example. The comedian, Dick Gregory once noted that despite what we were taught in school “Columbus didn’t discover America, because it wasn’t lost.” His point seems simple enough, but upon closer examination it reveals deeper truths. 

“Columbus discovered America” erases the history, civilization, and contributions of the indigenous groups who populated the lands that Europeans came to call the New World. Even the term “New World” was a thinly veiled masking of their imperial self-understanding and intent. “We discovered these lands, and they are ours to take, name, and exploit.” 

The American history we were taught was an extension of European history. It began with Columbus. Then moved to the Spanish, British, and French colonialists, culminating in the Revolutionary War and the birth of the United States. The native peoples were treated as bit players in the unfolding story—at times, a footnote, at others an inconvenient obstacle. 

This story of American history results from choosing Columbus as the starting point and using a lens so Euro-centric that it only sees the indigenous peoples who populated this land as less than human and therefore less deserving of defining their own history or even remaining on their land. They were removed and/or massacred, their humanity was ignored, and their treatment was justified because they were of less worth than the Europeans who displaced them. 
This reflection was prompted by the way Israel’s war on Gaza continues to be reported in the press and discussed in policy circles. US reporters appear to be required to include a line in their stories that reads “The hostilities began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas militants attacked Israel killing 1,200 and taking 250 hostages.” It isn’t accidental that this line (or something very close to it) occurs in almost every US print story. 

 
We all must agree that what happened on October 7th was traumatic for Israelis. It was a shock that their security was breached and that some horrible and condemnable atrocities were committed by Hamas and others who joined in their attacks. But history didn’t begin or end on October 7th. 

Recall that just a few weeks before that the Hamas attack, President Biden’s National Security Advisor noted that the Middle East was the calmest it had been in years. This statement gave short shrift to the Palestinian reality and made clear the biased lens through which he saw the region. He was ignoring Israel’s continued economic strangulation of Gaza (which made Palestinians increasingly dependent on Israel or Hamas for their livelihood) and the growing threat of settler violence, settlement expansion, and land confiscations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  
A few weeks after October 7th, I met with this same individual and listened to him describe the pain and fear of Israelis and how October 7th evoked the traumas of their history. I told him that I completely understood and agreed that Hamas stood rightly condemned for what they had done. I cautioned him, however, not to ignore the trauma of the Palestinians—their pain and fears—and their history of dispossession. He became angry waving off my comments as “what aboutism.” 

As the weeks and months wore on, when I would write a comment about: the growing Palestinian civilian casualty toll, or the bombing of hospitals, or the denial of water, food, medicine, and electricity, or the deliberate destruction of more than 70% of Gaza’s  buildings, and the repeated forced expulsions of families—the responses I would receive invariably included “Hamas started it,” “what about the hostages,” or worse. In other words, Israeli lives were all that mattered. And the Israeli narrative became the only acceptable one. In other words, since the story began on October 7th, what followed was a justifiable response.

 
The Israelis’ ability to control the narrative has long characterized the conflict. They would say: “The Balfour Declaration gave Israel a legal right to Palestine”; or “In 1948, tiny Israel was attacked by all surrounding Arab armies”; or “In 1967 Israel was only defending itself.” All of these Israeli-defined “starting points” are fictions that ignore everything that led up to them and the stories they tell are seen only through the biased lens of those who have imposed them.

 
This problem of false narratives based on biased histories isn’t just a problem for Israel or the US. It is unfortunately all too common, especially in conflict situations. When those who seek to help resolve a conflict are captive to one side’s definitions and perspective, it’s a recipe for continued tension and ultimately disaster. 

 
Peacemaking requires that an effort be made to rise above false narratives, self-serving starting points and the biased perceptions of one or another side. That’s not “what-aboutism”—it’s leadership. And it’s been sorely lacking in the US.   
***

A very valid and brilliant analysis, even historically at other similar situations of the ongoing barbaric situation in the Middle-East and particularly Gaza, Lebanon and the Palestinian occupied territories, I took the liberty of reforwarding the article through our blog, after receiving it by email from the author, again, strictly to the benefit and better understanding of my readers and friends all over. 
As always, my many thanks to all. 

AN EVERLASTING DIRE SITUATION.......

 

The Turkish newspaper "dailysabah" published a new report discussing the issue of disarmament of "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. And the assassinations carried out by Israel against the leaders and members of the "Party"

The report, translated by Lebanon24 , states that "Lebanon is once again on the brink of a new war with Israel, and this time the danger appears to be more structural than incidental." It adds, "On one hand, the agenda to disarm Hezbollah is being strongly pushed through diplomatic pressure led by..."USAnd its regional allies, on the other hand, Israel continues to broadcast messages of direct military threat through daily ceasefire violations, targeted assassinations, and expanding the scope of its operations.

The report argued that “the assassination of Hezbollah military commander Haitham Tabatabai in late November was not just an isolated security incident, but rather a deliberate indication that Israel does not treat the ceasefire as a binding framework, but as a tactical pause to shape the next phase of escalation.” It added: “Tel Aviv’s strategy does not aim to stabilize the status quo, but rather to exploit the current balance of weakness to prevent Hezbollah from returning as a permanent deterrent force. In this sense, the goal is not mutual deterrence through restraint, but deterrence through structural weakness.”

It added: "Alongside military pressure, diplomacy itself has taken on a more assertive character, and Egypt has recently emerged as one of the key players conveying this pressure. Following previous mediation efforts led by intelligence chief Hassan Rashad, when he visited Beirut with "Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel-Aati. This visit represented a significant departure from previous de-escalation efforts. Unlike earlier initiatives based on restraint and crisis management, this visit underscored for Lebanese officials that unless Hezbollah disarms and Lebanon enters into direct negotiations with Israel, the country could face dire consequences. Most importantly, Egypt moved away from previous proposals that focused on an arms freeze and instead proposed a complete nationwide disarmament.

The report continued: "This change reflects Washington's growing frustration with the slow pace of political engineering in Lebanon. After the regime change in Syria Following the reshuffling of power in Beirut, it was expected that Hezbollah would be quickly squeezed through institutional mechanisms. Indeed, the Lebanese parliament tasked the army with preparing a national disarmament plan by the end of 2025. However, despite the election of a pro-Western president and the formation of a new government, Hezbollah continued to maintain its popular base and political influence, which slowed the implementation of the disarmament project and revealed the limits of external control over Lebanon's fragmented political structure.

It added: "For his part, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has so far refrained from endorsing any scenario for forced disarmament, and the reason is clear: imposing disarmament through the Lebanese armed forces carries a high risk of triggering internal military divisions, or even civil war. The army itself has expressed these concerns, and it is widely understood that it is trying to remain relatively neutral.

It added, "For Washington, which has invested heavily in strengthening the Lebanese army as a counterweight to Hezbollah, this situation is deeply troubling. From the American perspective, the army's hesitation indirectly reinforces Hezbollah's domestic legitimacy by implicitly asserting that Israel, not Hezbollah has the upper hand. 

It said: “Tensions escalated further when Army Commander Rudolph Haykal publicly criticized Israel’s ceasefire violations, describing it as an enemy. Shortly afterward, his planned visit to Washington was abruptly canceled. Following this, political circles in Beirut began openly discussing the possibility of external attempts to influence the army leadership. Whether these scenarios materialize or not, their very discussion demonstrates the extent to which Lebanese military sovereignty is exposed to foreign agendas.

It continued: "After failing to generate sufficient pressure from within, Israel and the United States turned to intensifying external pressure. Assassinations, financial sanctions, and increasingly explicit threats delivered through intermediaries have become a unified pressure mechanism targeting Hezbollah and the political Lebanese system. Both are taking place, while a broad financial blockade is being imposed to weaken Hezbollah's funding channels. At the same time, the Lebanese state's continued silence in the face of these violations is exacerbating the Israeli situation. The contradiction between declared sovereignty and actual subservience.”

It continued: “This contradiction was further highlighted by the recent maritime border demarcation agreement signed between Lebanon and Southern Cyprus. Although technical discussions date back years, its political timing—coming directly after tensions between the Lebanese army leadership and Washington—was widely interpreted as a gesture of goodwill toward the United States. Given Southern Cyprus’s strategic alignment with Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean, Hezbollah circles framed the agreement as a concession of sovereign rights. In this sense, the deal was not widely viewed as merely a legal arrangement, but rather as a political signal of compliance with the American regional order.

The report continued: “In light of all this, and from Israel’s perspective, three clear messages are now being conveyed to Hezbollah: First, the top leadership is no longer immune from direct targeting; second, Syria is no longer able to serve as a safe rear base; and third, any future confrontation will not be confined to southern Lebanon. All of this represents a qualitative shift in the logic of deterrence. Furthermore, Israel is no longer signaling containment, but rather creating the conditions for a regional escalation under more favorable geopolitical circumstances.”

The report concluded that “for Hezbollah, strategic options are dwindling,” stating: “Since the Gaza war, the party has adopted a principle of strategic patience, enduring repeated Israeli violations and avoiding actions that could justify a full-scale war. However, this patience has come at a high price. Daily border strikes, targeted assassinations, economic strangulation, and psychological warfare are steadily eroding its military capabilities and political maneuvering capacity.” At the same time, the Lebanese government’s failure to confront Israeli aggression leaves Hezbollah operating within a state that speaks the language of sovereignty but lacks the capacity to defend its territory.

The report continued, “In such an environment, we are approaching a dangerous threshold, and the accumulation of pressure may ultimately push Hezbollah to a point where restraint becomes unsustainable. In reality, this would not be an ideological escalation, but rather a forced response to systematic elimination. At the same time, Hezbollah is fully aware that hasty military action could give Israel the pretext it seeks for a full-scale war.”

The report concluded, “For this reason, the parliamentary elections in May 2026 represent perhaps the last meaningful political way out of a catastrophic confrontation. If Hezbollah secures a strong electoral mandate, it may be able to contain the army-centric disarmament project through institutional channels and limit the presidency’s room for maneuver.” For its part, Israel is fully aware of this political timeline, and from Tel Aviv's strategic perspective, the period preceding the electoral rebalancing may represent the most opportune moment to deliver a decisive blow.

The report asserted that "any such confrontation will not be confined to Lebanon, as Hezbollah does not operate in isolation, and any existential threat will inevitably trigger regional reactions." It added, "Iranian signals have already intensified, with Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to the Iranian leadership, publicly stating that Hezbollah's existence is more vital to Lebanon than bread and water. This message clearly indicates that any campaign of annihilation will not remain a local conflict but will escalate into a multi-pronged regional war."

The report continued, "Although Lebanon entered 2025 with cautious optimism following the formation of a new presidency and government, as the year progresses, it finds itself more embroiled in external power struggles than at any time since 2006. The state, which speaks of sovereignty, is simultaneously powerless to halt Israeli aggression, prevent foreign interference in its military leadership, or protect its territory from becoming a proxy war zone."

It continued: “The contradiction has become clear. There is a government that is unable to stop the occupation and is demanding disarmament; and a state that is unable to protect its borders is seeking to dismantle its basic deterrent force in the country. If Israel launches a preemptive war with an American mandate, the Middle East will not only face another Lebanese war, but will enter a broader and more dangerous phase of regional confrontation. In such a scenario, Lebanon will once again be reduced to a playing field rather than an actor, and its sovereignty will be discussed rhetorically while it is practically dismantled under the weight of external pressure and internal paralysis.

A very lucid and factual report by the Turkish newspaper, It's more of a direct Turkish message than a description of the situation on the ground. Albeit being a bit old, it is a still ongoing situation, more so with the new introduction by Mr. Trump of a new element, of Syria taking care of Hezbollah, a plan that will surely lead to lots of chaos for the area and the partition of Lebanon into several parts, and taken over by Israel in the entire south, Syria under a possible Turkish umbrella in the complete north including the port city of Tripoli,  and the Bekaa valey.  and the creation of couple ethnic entities, as in a Druz enclave adjacent to the Druze south Syrian under Israeli occupation, and possibly a small Maronite/Christian enclave to remind the world of the "good old Lebanon". Now is Iran a complicit in this scenario, more so after the new agreements with the US. Only Time will tell. 

Translated from Arabic, and arranged to fit our blog, with my comments,  for the better understanding and benefit of our blog readers.   As always, my many thanks to all.