A view shows the moment of an Israeli strike on a building, amid the ongoing hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, in the Chiyah district of Beirut’s southern suburbs, Lebanon, Nov. 25, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

A senior Israeli official said on Monday that Israel‘s cabinet would meet on Tuesday to approve a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah, and a Lebanese official said Beirut had been told by Washington that an accord could be announced “within hours.”

Israeli officials had said earlier that a deal to end the war was getting closer though some issues remained, while two senior Lebanese officials voiced guarded optimism even as Israeli strikes pounded Lebanon anew.

US news website Axios, citing an unnamed senior US official, said Israel and Lebanon had agreed to the terms of a deal, and a senior Israeli official told Reuters that Tuesday’s meeting was intended to approve it.

Israel‘s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said Israel would maintain an ability to strike southern Lebanon under any agreement.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office declined to comment on the Axios report.

The US has pushed for a deal to end over a year of hostilities between the Iran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon and wields significant political and military influence in the country, and Israel that erupted last year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.

Since the Hamas onslaught, which launched the war in Gaza, Hezbollah has been firing barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones at northern Israel almost daily, forcing tens of thousands of Israelis to flee their homes. Israel had been exchanging fire with Hezbollah but drastically escalated its military operations over the last two months, seeking to push Hezbollah forces further away from the Israel-Lebanon border. The intensified fighting has raised fears of a wider Middle East war.

In Beirut, Lebanese Deputy Parliament Speaker Elias Bou Saab told Reuters there were “no serious obstacles” left to beginning implementation of a US-proposed ceasefire with Israel.

Bou Saab said the proposal would entail an Israeli military withdrawal from south Lebanon and regular Lebanese army troops deploying in the border region, long a Hezbollah stronghold, within 60 days.

He said a sticking point on who would monitor compliance with the ceasefire been resolved in the last 24 hours with an agreement to set up a five-country committee, including France and chaired by the United States.

A Western diplomat said another stumbling block had been the sequencing of Israel‘s withdrawal, the Lebanese army’s deployment, and the return of displaced Lebanese to their homes in south Lebanon.

Efforts to clinch a truce appeared to advance last week when US mediator Amos Hochstein declared significant progress after talks in Beirut before holding meetings in Israel and then returning to Washington.

“We are moving in the direction towards a deal, but there are still some issues to address,” Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer said, without elaborating.

Michael Herzog, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, told Israel‘s GLZ radio an agreement was close and “it could happen within days … We just need to close the last corners,” according to a post on X by GLZ senior anchorman Efi Triger.

A second senior Lebanese official, speaking on condition of anonymity earlier in the day, said Beirut had not received any new Israeli demands from US mediators, who were describing the atmosphere as positive and saying “things are in progress.”

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into full-scale war in September when Israel went on the offensive, pounding wide areas of Lebanon with airstrikes and sending troops into the south.

Israel has dealt major blows to Hezbollah, killing its leader Hassan Nasrallah and other top commanders and inflicting massive destruction in areas of Lebanon where the group holds sway.

Diplomacy has focused on restoring a ceasefire based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended a 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war.

It requires Hezbollah to pull its fighters back around 30 km (19 miles) from the Israeli border, behind the Litani River, and the regular Lebanese army to enter the frontier region.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said the test for any agreement would be in the enforcement of two main points.

“The first is preventing Hezbollah from moving southward beyond the Litani, and the second, preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its force and rearming in all of Lebanon,” Saar said in broadcast remarks to the Israeli parliament.

Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said Israel must press on with the war until “absolute victory.” Addressing Netanyahu on X, he said “it is not too late to stop this agreement!”

But Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter said Israel should reach an agreement in Lebanon. “If we say ‘no’ to Hezbollah being south of the Litani, we mean it,” he told journalists.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said last week that the group had reviewed and given feedback on the US ceasefire proposal, and any truce was now in Israel‘s hands.

Branded a terrorist group by the United States, the heavily armed, Shi’ite Muslim militant group has endorsed Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri of the Shi’ite Amal movement to negotiate.

The post Israeli Cabinet to Meet Tuesday to Approve Lebanon Ceasefire Deal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The Wall Street Journal’s previous office in Palo Alto. Photo: Wiki Commons.

If we’ve learned anything about the reporting from inside Gaza in the past year, it’s that there is virtually no such thing as professional journalism inside the Strip.

On multiple occasions, HonestReporting has exposed Gazan journalists who have disqualified themselves from claiming to be reporting objectively. Some have publicly expressed their antisemitism or blatant anti-Israel bias. Others have been revealed to be active supporters of terrorism, or friends of Hamas.

Media outlets have taken action against several of these exposed journalists, and their bylines can no longer be found on mainstream media reports from Gaza.

But others have continued to report, as media outlets prefer to sweep the issue under the carpe,t hoping that the problem will simply disappear.

But it won’t.

It’s not enough to expose the biased, antisemitic, or terror-supporting journalists. It’s time to expose the six media outlets whose silence has protected 20 biased journalists.

HonestReporting is launching a social media campaign to hold these outlets accountable. We demand they stop letting these “journalists” report on Israel-related issues.

Six major outlets employ 20 journalists tied to bias or even terror groups. Despite clear evidence, accountability is ignored. Over the next few weeks, we’ll expose how they infiltrated newsrooms—why it matters, and what you can do about it.

Stay tuned. pic.twitter.com/BOZ3r4k6Yd

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 19, 2024

Reuters

The agency still employs eight journalists exposed for infiltrating Israel, expressing biased views, or having unethical ties with Hamas:

• Yasser Qudih: Infiltrated Israel on October 7, and was honored by Hamas. He also won the 2024 Pulitzer prize with Reuters photography staff.
• Doaa Rouqa and Hamuda Hassan: No action taken after they celebrated images of October 7 atrocities.
• Iraq Bureau Chief Timour Azhari: Covers the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, yet demonizes Israel online.
• Suhaib Jadallah Salem, Mohammed Jadallah Salem, Fadi Shanaa, and Ibraheem Abu Mustafa: All received awards from Hamas. But Reuters had no problem with this, or with the terror groups‘ paraphernalia that decorated the Reuters office:

The Associated Press

The wire service still employs seven journalists who either infiltrated Israel or collaborated with terror groups:

• The agency hasn’t taken action against Hatem Ali and Ali Mahmud, who were in exactly the right place on October 7 to capture images of Israelis kidnapped to Gaza:

• Adel Hana, Hatem Moussa, Fatima Shbair, and Khalil Hamra: All participated in official Hamas propaganda events, yet were and are defended by AP. Adel Hana also taught media courses for the Hamas-run Information Office.
• Mohammed Zanaty: A Lebanese cameraman who supported an ally of Hezbollah online, yet AP kept silent on the matter.

AFP

The wire service stood by Mohammed Baba, a photojournalist who participated in a Hamas promo and was honored by the terror group.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), New York Times (NYT), and CBS News

Zero action has been taken against the following journalists:

• Abeer Ayyoub, WSJ: Shared terrorist propaganda.
• Samar Abu Elouf, NYT: Honored as Hamas “work partner.”
• Yousef Masoud, NYT: Infiltrated Israel on October 7.
• Marwan Al-Ghoul, CBS News: Spoke at an official event of the PFLP, a proscribed terror organization.

These 20 identified journalists have proven they cannot report on Israel objectively. It’s past time for these outlets and journalists to be held accountable.

How You Can Help

Take action now. Demand accountability from Reuters, AP, AFP, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CBS News: These journalists must no longer be allowed to report on Israel for any respectable publication.

Go to HonestReporting’s dedicated Call Out Complicity page, where you can sign the petition, send emails to editor,s and post our campaign content to social media.

We must get loud.

We must demand action.

HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post Take Action Now: Help Stop These 6 Media Outlets From Running Biased Stories Against Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

US President Donald Trump is interviewed by then-Fox and Friends co-host Pete Hegseth at the White House in Washington, US, April 6, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

On the night of November 19, 2024, a strike targeted the 1046th Logistics Support Center of the Russian Armed Forces near the city of Karachev in the Bryansk region. The Ukrainian Defense Forces (UDF) used American ATACMS ballistic missiles to carry out this strike, according to media reports.

Washington and Kyiv had not issued any official statements regarding the approval and receipt of such permissions at the time. However, the confirmation of Ukraine receiving the authorization came by November 21.

Another strike followed, targeting a command post near the village of Maryino in the Kursk region. This attack involved at least 10 British subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missiles.

Earlier, media reports suggested that Ukraine had received a “green light” from the US to use long-range missiles, not only for ATACMS but also for Storm Shadow. Even without official statements, it became evident that the reports were accurate — the permissions were granted, and the first strikes on Russian territory had already occurred.

The process of obtaining approval for Ukraine to strike Russian territory was a long and complex diplomatic effort. The Biden administration consistently denied Ukraine this right, citing concerns about escalation. At one point, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin dismissed the idea, with the implausible claim that there were no significant targets worth using ATACMS on within a 300-kilometer radius of Ukraine’s borders.

In reality, there are more than 200 significant targets in that zone, including 16 airfields used by the Russian Aerospace Forces. Striking these targets, according to UDF command, would significantly ease the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine and improve the country’s defensive capabilities. Priorities included ammunition depots, which would disrupt artillery operations; airbases, which would reduce tactical aviation activity; and command centers, which would weaken operational management efficiency.

The strikes in Karachev and Maryino clearly followed this strategic sequence.

Despite the evident benefits of such strikes for Ukraine, the US delayed granting permission, resulting in avoidable losses. Political considerations, rather than military ones, clearly drove the Biden administration’s decision.

From a broader perspective, Ukraine’s military and political leadership operated under the premise that a country facing aggression has the full right to employ all lawful means of defense, including striking enemy territory. When partner nations provide weapons for defense, it should be assumed that these can also be used on the aggressor’s territory. However, for the first time in the history of wars and conflicts, such a restriction was imposed.

This has led to a paradoxical situation where a country receiving weapons for self-defense is constrained in how it can use them. The situation bears resemblance to the Soviet Union’s receipt of Lend-Lease equipment during World War II, and its prohibition from using it beyond its borders.

Thus, using Western-manufactured missiles on Russian territory is a normal practice, while prohibiting their use is an unprecedented anomaly in the history of warfare — one that cannot be explained solely by fears of escalation.

Since 2022, Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated that Russia’s so-called “red lines” are ineffective. Strikes, including ones like the attack on the Kremlin, have not led to escalation or fundamentally changed the nature of the war.

Biden’s “Swan Song”?

On the eve of the US presidential elections, there was speculation in Ukrainian political and media circles that granting Ukraine the right to strike Russia might be President Joe Biden’s “swan song” — a final memorable decision in his career. Opponents of this view argued that such permission would only come from the next US president, whether it would have been Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.

This decision was one of those rare foreign policy moves unlikely to provoke significant opposition from either Democrats or Republicans.

Future Prospects Under Trump

It’s possible that Biden’s outgoing administration made this decision as a preemptive measure to counteract fears of a radical shift in US policy on Eastern Europe under Donald Trump. Biden’s move effectively granted Ukraine carte blanche, not just for ATACMS but potentially for other advanced weaponry.

Future plans call for Ukraine to receive US-made AGM-158 cruise missiles and AGM-154 precision-guided bombs. These systems will also require approval for use deep within Russian territory, a decision that would likely fall to the Trump administration. Additionally, Ukraine seeks the ability to shoot down Russian military aircraft in Russian airspace using Western air defense systems and AIM-120C/D AMRAAM missiles for its F-16 fighter jets. These, too, will require US approval, dependent on how effectively Kyiv establishes communication with Trump.

Another key issue will be the continued supply of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Trump might aim to appear as effective as Biden — or even more so — in supporting Ukraine.

Biden’s decision has effectively placed Trump in a politically awkward position with limited room to maneuver. Any attempt to block permissions granted by Biden could politically weaken Trump by making him appear less decisive in comparison to his predecessor. For Ukrainian diplomacy, convincing Trump to grant similar permissions for other long-range missile systems will be a challenging yet critical task.

In the near term, it will be difficult for Trump to reverse permissions already granted by Biden without undermining his own political standing. However, Ukraine’s diplomatic corps will face the formidable challenge of persuading Trump to approve the use of additional advanced weaponry expected to arrive in the short term.

Alexander Kovalenko is amilitary-political analyst of the “Information Resistance” group from Odessa, Ukraine. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Will Donald Trump Continue to Allow US Weapons to Be Used By Ukraine for Offensive Purposes? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.