THE PREVAILING LEBANESE SCENE NOWADAYS......

 

The negotiations are progressing beyond simply establishing a ceasefire or managing calm in the south of Lebanon. Washington announced a fourth round of negotiations on June 2 and 3, in parallel with the launch of a security track at the Pentagon on May 29, with the participation of military delegations from both sides, in a move that reflects the shift in the discussion from the framework of field calm to an attempt to formulate long-term security and political arrangements.

The ongoing negotiations are divided into two main tracks: the first is military, relating to a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal. The first track focuses on reconstruction, while the second revolves around the issue of the state's monopoly on weapons and sustainable security arrangements on the borders. Between these two tracks, concerns are growing that the proposed security gradual approach could become a pretext for redrawing internal power balances. Amid growing questions about the army's position and the future of Hezbollah weapons, That limits of the American role in reshaping the landscape.

The outcome of the negotiations. Washington On May 29, Brigadier General Dr. Bahaa Hilal explained that the region is not facing a mere ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, rather, it's facing an American attempt to reshape the Lebanese security and political structure within a new regional system, in which the definitions of security, sovereignty, the function of the state, and the role of weapons outside its official institutions are being redefined.

The information circulating about the security track indicates a multi-stage project starting from southern Lebanon, specifically south of the Litany River, under the title of consolidating the truce and preventing the return of the military front against Israel. But a deeper reading, according to Gen. Hilal, reveals that the objective goes far beyond that, gradually aiming to reshape the entire Lebanese security environment.

This begins with bolstering the army's deployment, establishing monitoring and coordination mechanisms under American auspices, linking reconstruction and financial support to security measures, and extending to the issue of Hezbollah's weapons north of the Litany River, then in the southern suburbs and Beirut. It is precisely here that the similarity to the May 17, 1983 agreement begins, not necessarily in its direct legal form, but rather in the underlying political and security philosophy of the project.

In both cases, the following emerges,  As Brigadier General Hilal states, the US acts as the sponsor, guarantor, and supervisor of the re-establishment of a new security balance, one in which the security of Israel and its northern borders holds absolute priority. The core of the current American proposal rests on the idea of ​​gradually transforming the Lebanese state into a security partner in controlling the resistance and its weapons. This echoes the philosophy underlying the May 17 Agreement, which linked Lebanese stability to security arrangements connected to Israel.

However, the fundamental difference between the periods of 1983 and 2026 lies in the shifting balance of power. In the 1980s, Israel occupied Lebanon. Large parts of Lebanon were under Israeli control, and the Lebanese state was virtually collapsed as the civil war raged. Today, the situation is far more complex. Israel has not achieved a decisive strategic victory, and Hezbollah, despite the strikes, still possesses significant military and organizational capabilities and a broad network of influence. Furthermore, the Shia community continues to view weapons as a means of protection and deterrence against Israel.

Therefore, the American strategy and approach appears to be closer to a long-term, gradual containment project, rather than imposing a direct or rapid surrender. Hence, according to Brigadier General Hilal, the talk is of a step-by-step approach: Lebanese security measures in exchange for de-escalation, economic support, reconstruction, and political and international guarantees.

In this sense, the security track is not a final agreement, but rather a cumulative process aimed at shifting the issue of weapons from a position of independent power to one of negotiation and restriction. However, the most dangerous aspect of the proposed project, according to Brigadier General Hilal, does not only concern Hezbollah's weapons, but also the Lebanese military institution itself. The United States appears to be betting on the Lebanese army as the only legitimate instrument capable of implementing any future security arrangements. Therefore, the increasing American support for the army cannot be understood apart from the attempt to redefine its role in the coming phase. This highlights the delicate position of General Rudolph Haykal, the army commander, who finds himself facing one of the most complex dilemmas in the history of the Lebanese military: how to maintain relations with the international community and external support, while simultaneously preventing the army from sliding into an internal confrontation with the broader Lebanese public?

Historically, as Brigadier General Hilal emphasizes, the army was not built as an instrument of civil conflict, but rather as a national balancing force whose goal is to protect stability, prevent disintegration, and maintain a minimum level of national unity. Therefore, the most dangerous aspect of the current American proposal is not merely the idea of ​​disarmament, but the possibility of gradually drawing the army into an internal political and sectarian conflict under the guise of the state's monopoly on the use of force.

In this context, any talk, as Brigadier General Hilal says, of joint brigades or security arrangements directly linked to the American-Israeli vision will place the military establishment before a highly sensitive existential test. The move from south of the Litany River to its north, and then to the southern suburbs of Beirut, is not merely a geographical shift, but a move into the heart of the social and political environment that fosters the resistance.

It is precisely here, as Hilal says, that the comparison with the experience of Saad Haddad and Antoine Lahad becomes strongly present in the Lebanese consciousness. While it is true that the circumstances are radically different, and that the discussion today does not revolve around a separate local militia like the South Lebanon Army, the similarity lies in the same security philosophy: the creation of a Lebanese structure functionally linked to Israeli security under the guise of protecting the borders and controlling the resistance. However, the difference is that the current project does not attempt to build a "militia" parallel to the state, but rather seeks to utilize the state's own institutions, foremost among them the army, within a new regional security system that enjoys international and American backing.

Thus, the greatest Lebanese fear, as Brigadier General Hilal states, lies not only in the issue of normalization or negotiation, but also in the possibility that the division over the issue of weapons could transform into an internal rift threatening the very unity of the state. A swift or forced move toward an internal confrontation with Hezbollah could destabilize the military establishment, exacerbate sectarian tensions, and unravel Lebanon's fragile balances.

For this reason, Washington appears, thus far, to be steering matters gently, avoiding a full-blown explosion, because while a Lebanese civil war might achieve Israel's goal of weakening the resistance and depleting its support base, it could simultaneously open the door to regional chaos that would be difficult to control.

Therefore, according to Brigadier General Hilal, what is happening today can be described as an attempt to re-engineer Lebanon's security and political landscape through gradualism, containment, and pressure, rather than through direct military intervention. However, the success of this project remains contingent on an unresolved question: Can Lebanon redraft its internal social contract regarding the concepts of the state, weapons, and sovereignty without sliding into a new civil conflict?

This is precisely the question that will determine whether Lebanon is facing a new historical settlement or a more complex and updated version of the May 17th crisis and the civil war combined. Given this, Brigadier General Hilal believes that a step-by-step approach is the most realistic, as it is the practical model currently being proposed: a security measure in exchange for reduced attacks, aid, reconstruction, international support, and political guarantees. For example: removing weapons from south of the Litany River in exchange for de-escalation; strengthening the army in exchange for aid and armaments; monitoring border crossings in exchange for easing economic pressure; and discussing heavy weapons in exchange for political stability and reconstruction. This aligns with the American discourse advocating a gradual approach rather than an immediate resolution.

Again, a copied article from the Lebanese news site "Lebanon 24" by the talented Hitaf  Daham. forwarded to me , I translated it to fit and forward through our blog for the benefit of our readers for better understanding of the Lebanese dire situation. a good analysis and scenario that might reverse itself any time, as not all parties abide by the American or official Lebanese wishes. two players , Israel and Hezbollah with Iran might very well turn the table upside down. A quick escalation from any side might put an end to the entire process, and it's actually happening, as the American side imposed sanctions on several Lebanese officials including two army officers, a clear warning to the Lebanese side of likely escalation.  

As, always, my many thanks to all.  

A DIRE SITUATION INDEED.....

 

With attempts to reach an agreement to end the faltering war, an Israeli assessment suggests that the US president currently faces two options for dealing with Iran:

An Israeli source told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that "Mr. Trump" now has two options: either a limited and controlled military operation that does not lead to escalation, or a temporary agreement that allows negotiations to continue and the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened.

The source added that Israel wants to resume fighting by launching strikes on energy and infrastructure targets, which would significantly weaken the regime, as well as bombarding to ground major parts of Lebanon.

But according to the newspaper at this stage, it seems that Israel and the United States view things differently. Trump is not keen on a full-scale resumption of fighting, and the interim agreement will calm the situation between the two sides, allowing the strait to reopen, but it will not resolve all the issues."

In contrast, the Israelis believe that "Trump neither desires nor longs for a full-scale resumption of fighting, because he believes that this will not improve his position, but will rather complicate matters for him domestically. With another rise in energy prices and harm to allied countries," according to Yediot Aharonot's assessment.

The newspaper reports, according to an Israeli source, believes that "Israel prefers a more assertive approach, but does not want to be accused of dragging the American president into renewed fighting."

It adds that "one of the possibilities under discussion in Washington, the Americans might choose a limited military operation and continue the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz; in that case, they might ask for Israel commitment to neutrality and non-intervention, recognizing that Israel's response would be harsh if Iran launched missiles at it, potentially leading to a full-blown war.

The Israeli source stated that "neither the Iranians nor the Americans want a full-scale resumption of the war, so Israel may remain neutral this time."

However, according to Yediot Ahronoth, "Israel is preparing for all eventualities, including a scenario in which Trump orders a resumption of hostilities and Iran resumes launching missiles at Israel."

The newspaper noted that there's "concern in Israel" that Americans are only discussing the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz with the Iranians, without ever mentioning ballistic missiles or proxies in the region—two crucial issues for Israel.

However, it is likely in Israel that Trump will wait until his return from his visit to China early next week to take his next step regarding Iran. 

A good report/analysis translated from the Lebanese news site "Lebanon 24", based on Israeli newspapers reports, copied here for better understanding of the weird situation over the entire Middle-East affecting the safety of the entire world.

As always, my many thanks to all. 

 

A MULTIFACETED REPORT.....

 

A report in the Israeli newspaper Maariv warned that "the Egyptian military advance in Sinai under the pretext of Counter-terrorism. This will turn into a strategic threat to Israel, which calls for a careful review of the peace treaty commitments.
Maariv stated that "peace with Egypt is an indispensable strategic asset, and for this very reason we should be concerned about the accumulating violations of the agreement in Sinai and the Egyptian mobilization against Israel" On the international stage."

It added that "the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, signed in 1979 following Anwar Sadat's historic initiative, has been considered for decades a cornerstone of regional stability," noting that "the agreement, which restored to Egypt a near-monopoly on relations with Israel, was a cornerstone of regional stability." The semi-island of Sinai includes clear provisions limiting the presence of Egyptian military forces in this region, with the aim of preventing friction and establishing and building mutual trust.

 However, the newspaper noted that "in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the reality on the ground is moving further and further away from the original agreements." The newspaper stated that "Egypt's central justification for increasing its military presence in Sinai is combating ISIS and its affiliates, which have operated in the region and posed a real threat to the country's internal stability," adding that "there is no doubt that this terrorist activity required a firm response, and even Israel itself understood the need to allow Egypt a certain degree of flexibility in deploying its forces."

The newspaper added that "over the years, quiet, and sometimes even public, permissions have been granted to increase Egyptian forces beyond what is permitted under the agreement." It stated that "Egypt has not only increased the number of soldiers in Sinai, but has also introduced heavy weaponry, advanced military infrastructure, and established permanent logistical arrangements, all in violation of the spirit and letter of the agreement." 

The newspaper further noted that "international reports indicate that the Egyptian presence is moving closer and closer to the border with Israel," pointing out that "this is a quiet, almost imperceptible process, but one with profound strategic implications." It emphasized that "when large, well-equipped forces are near the border, a situation arises where any political change or regional crisis could lead to a rapid escalation." 

The newspaper stated that "Egypt, for its part, continues to claim that all its activity is within the framework of counterterrorism and that it has no intention of harming the peace agreement," adding that "it must be acknowledged that combating ISIS in Sinai has been complex and difficult, and ultimately Egypt has succeeded in significantly reducing the organization's activity in the region." The newspaper added that "this particular success raises an expected question: if the threat has diminished, why does the enhanced military presence remain?" 

It noted that his does not stem from the assumption that Egypt is planning for an immediate war; on the contrary, security cooperation between the two countries continues and even deepens in certain areas, including agreements to supply Egypt with gas.

The Israeli newspaper stated: History teaches us that strategic situations can change rapidly, and agreements remain stable as long as there is political will to maintain them. When circumstances change, agreements can also erode."

 Indeed a multifaceted report, I copied and translated it from a Lebanese site, to indicate that it could be a genuine caution about a growing force on Israeli borders, but it could very well be a deliberate early prepping for another possible war or aggression toward an entire strategic area that Israel was and is looking steadily at controlling and/or annexing, all the way to the Suez canal. It once had it and had to give it back when as mentioned Sadat offered a peace plan, but the dream and geopolitical control of the area, including the Suez canal, like the straight of Hormuz are all part of the alleged Godly dream of the biblical Israel, plus of course the new Zionist inheritors complex dreams of a greater Israel, and its total control of the entire Middle-East. It could very well be a continuation of what started in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.... 

As always, my many thanks to all.     

IT IS WHAT IT IS ......

 

Once upon a time in America, the Republican Party devolved into a rightwing authoritarian regime that promoted white supremacist conspiracies, systematically dismantled democratic norms, and adulated some criminal vulgarians who once partied with a notorious pedophile.

Rather than acting as a robust opposition movement, the Democratic establishment, led by feckless somnambulists beholden to corporate money, decided to behave like Vichy collaborators. For more than a decade, they chose civility and assumed playing possum—a suggestion given by crypt keeper James Carville—would be the best course of action. The leadership opted for prevent defense, despite losing both the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections, and warned the country that Donald Trump posed an existential threat to American democracy.

As the Democratic Party’s favorability plummeted and their own voters derided them as spineless and ineffective, party leaders clung to restoration and moderation over transformation and progressivism. After spending millions in search of the “liberal Joe Rogan,” they were gifted a once-in-a-lifetime candidate, Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who won the New York City mayoral race by championing affordability, challenging billionaires, and embracing wokeness and diversity.

So what did Vichy Democrats do?

They endorsed the disgraced politician Andrew Cuomo instead and played footsie with shameless Islamophobic attacks against the first Muslim mayor of New York City. In their desperation to destroy Mamdani and his populist message, they even unleashed former President Bill Clinton, ex-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City, to try and take him down.

They failed.

---

After Mamdani’s victory last November, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, offered only muted praise, preferring the company (and hugs) of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an alleged war criminal—Silicon Valley donors, and MAGA reek Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, continued to support AIPAC, despite revelations that the pro-Israel lobbying group funded by rightwing billionaires spent $2.3 million against Tom Malinowski, a pro-Israel moderate Democrat, in a primary race in New Jersey’s Eleventh Congressional District.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin chose to withhold the audit of the failed 2024 presidential election, despite promising his base that the results would be released. An Axios report revealed that the Biden Administration’s full-throated support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza was a major reason that Democratic voters stayed home.

It also bears remembering that former Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris didn’t break away from President Joe Biden’s failed foreign policy and instead supported a politically suicidal decision to ban Palestinians from speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

Even as Trump unleashed armed and masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to act as his personal Gestapo and terrorize American cities, many Democrats refused to embrace the call to “Abolish ICE.”

After witnessing the brutal murders of Renée Good and Alex at the hands of ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, respectively, a majority of Americans soured on ICE, an agency that had become notorious for recruiting unqualified extremists from the fringes of society. For the first time, a plurality of Americans embraced “Abolish ICE” and questioned why their taxpayer dollars were funding a rogue entity that harassed, tortured, and kidnapped citizens and immigrants with impunity.

However, “moderate” Senator Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, whom the Party chose to respond to Trump’s unhinged 2025 address to Congress, refused to embrace “Abolish ICE,” stating, “You need law enforcement.” That same “law enforcement” agency then announced plans to spend $38 billion to convert warehouses across the country into concentration camps, like the one that already exists in Dilley, Texas, where media and protesters recorded the wails and cries of children kept in squalid, inhumane conditions.

Nonetheless, Democratic leadership persisted in being weak possums, instead opting for “Rein in ICE,” without articulating a robust, progressive vision for immigration reform.

---

When it came to fighting the oligarchy, Democratic centrists like Slotkin argued that the slogan was too vague for average Americans. Progressive leaders Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, decided to test that message by touring the country, including the Rust Belt, which is populated with the magical, white, centrist voters that the Democratic establishment so desperately coveted. These white voters, including Republicans and independents, enthusiastically embraced taxing billionaires, reflecting a growing rage against the elite Epstein class who grew wealthier at the expense and suffering of the majority.

The Democratic establishment continued to sideline rising progressive candidates in favor of corporate candidates, such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, who refused to embrace a wealth tax and insisted that his “big tent” included billionaires. Unfortunately, Newsom’s tent wasn’t large enough to include transgender people, whom he threw under the bus during one of his numerous “civil” conversations with rightwing extremists like the late Charlie Kirk and the ghoul Steve Bannon.

In a CNN interview, Newsom argued that Democrats should be more “culturally normal” and stop focusing on pronouns. Apparently, that could include partying with pedophile billionaires, disavowing climate change, and praising Adolf Hitler. Newsom did find time to agree with paid rightwing propagandist Ben Shapiro that Israel was not committing genocide, putting himself at odds with many Democratic voters and a majority of Americans.

The Democratic establishment’s “big tent” did, however, expand to include “pro-growth” organizations like Next American Era, funded by Silicon Valley broligarchs advancing artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and anti-regulation policies. Nothing says helping the average Rust Belt American than promoting the talking points and policies of billionaires Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Alex Karp, who are openly committed to replacing democracy with a techno-fascist “utopia.”

With Vichy Democrats like these, who needs MAGA?

Fortunately, a majority of Americans decided they were tired of being permanently hijacked by a Democratic Party that refused to evolve and respond to the challenges of the moment. Harnessing their numbers and grassroots momentum, they championed progressive, populist policies, organized boycotts against complicit corporations, and challenged entrenched Democrats in primary races.

Whether these efforts will result in meaningful progress toward justice, equality, and freedom or be stymied by corporate Democrats in bed with billionaires and a rightwing authoritarian regime remains to be seen.

A good description of what the Democratic party is facing today under its classic leadership and the actual political atmosphere, by the talented Wajahat Ali with the Left Hook, originally published in the May issue of the Progressive. Copied here for a good and better understanding of an important aspect of American politics. 

As always, my many thanks to all. 

EXISTENTIALISM..... The Global Sumud Flotilla

 

by Jonathan Kuttab

On Wednesday, a flotilla of 55 ships carrying humanitarian relief to Gaza was intercepted in international waters off the Greek Islands by armed Israeli naval vessels. The Israelis forcefully boarded 20 ships, kidnapping 175 of their occupants, who come from many countries, and destroyed the equipment of some ships and towed others towards Ashdod.

This confrontation could not provide a more stark contrast between two opposing world views:
On the one side was the fully armed Israeli navy, projecting its military power hundreds of miles (700 miles actually) away from its borders, in full contempt of international law and maritime regulations, as well as the interests and sovereignty of others. It was a declaration to one and all that “might makes right.” As Netanyahu stated recently, Israel is now not only a regional power but a world power. It will set its own rules and do what it wishes because it can. This, it did not do in defense of its own security or the well being of its population, but with the declared purpose of maintaining its cruel siege over Gaza and its people , including its authority to control any food, fuel, medical supplies or any civilian goods from even approaching, much less entering Gaza waters or territories without its express approval. After Israel devastated the ability of Gazans to live any normal lives and began subjecting them to an ongoing genocide, it is actually declaring that those who show any sympathy with Gazans are criminals whom it can arrest, detain, question and imprison anywhere they exist. While the arrestees belong to many countries, including Europe and the United States, Israel counted on the cowardice of their politicians and their unwillingness to challenge Israel's power.

 

The United States even issued a statement supporting Israeli actions because some of the arrested were under its sanctions and considered “sympathizers of Hamas.” Only President Trump, among the nations of the world, matches the arrogance of Israel and its disdain for international law and norms, and its exceptional claim to do whatever it wants because it has the power, holds the cards, and can force its will upon others.

On the other side were unarmed citizens from multiple countries. Artists, activists, parliamentarians, doctors, and ordinary citizens who want to show concretely their care for the people of Gaza. They do not use force or violence, but they act in a concrete, nonviolent manner. Many think they are naive and unwise to challenge the overwhelmingly powerful forces of Israel (and its ally, the United States) but they choose to act nonetheless out of love, care and dedication. They assert their belief in universal values that apply to all. Their actions are not meant to hurt anyone or cause harm to Israel and its population, yet they are brave enough to confront the horrors of the genocide and to do something about it at great risk to themselves. While their governments dither and vacillate while failing to take any concrete actions, the flotilla participants are willing to stand up and be counted.

In classic terms of the nonviolence movement, they are exposing the failures of their respective governments to protect their citizens or the international rule of law. They are asserting the primacy of international law. They are reminding the world of the ongoing genocidal situation in Gaza.  They are deepening the isolation of Israel and reasserting the relevance and vitality of international law and norms that are universally binding on everyone, with no special exception for Israel and the US. They are restoring faith in the relevance of solidarity and collective action against rogue states. They are asserting their own agency in the face of the helplessness of their own governments.

All of us are being called upon to take a position on this issue as well. Do we stand with Empire, and its power to bully others that, in the words of Trump, feels no restraints other than “its own morality” (such as it is) or do we insist on resistance, based on international law, universal human rights, and nonviolent but sacrificial resistance to ongoing injustice and oppression. It is incumbent on all of us to raise our voices and to truly choose whether we support unrestrained power and lawlessness or whether we stand with nonviolent resistance, law, and justice.

Friends of Sabeel North America · PO Box 3192, Greenwood Village, CO 80155, United States. Friends of Sabeel North America · PO Box 3192, Greenwood Village, CO 80155, United States. A Christian voice for Palestine. 
This email was sent to bbagh@gmail.com.

Its war in Lebanon, and its continued bombing in Gaza – despite so-called “ceasefires” in place – did not stop Israel from conducting violent raids in the occupied West Bank and conducting “piracy” at sea.
 
more sad and tragic episodes of the ugly situation over that area, the way it's going in Lebanon, Israel's other front,  the remaining and isolated populations of southern Lebanon will need flotillas to nourish them, medicine and humanitarian aid to compensate for the Israeli blocades, destruction and genocide/transfer of the entire remaining population of the southern parts of the country. 

As always, my profound many thanks to all.