Connect with us

RSS

Hezbollah Rejects US Diplomacy While Wary of Expanded Conflict

Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters through a screen during a rally commemorating the annual Hezbollah Martyrs’ Day, in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Photo: Reuters/Aziz Taher

Iran-backed Hezbollah has rebuffed Washington’s initial ideas for cooling tit-for-tat fighting with neighbouring Israel, such as pulling its fighters further from the border, but remains open to US diplomacy to avoid a ruinous war, Lebanese officials said.

US envoy Amos Hochstein has been leading a diplomatic outreach to restore security at the Israel-Lebanon frontier as the wider region teeters dangerously towards a major escalation of the conflict ignited by the Gaza war.

Attacks by Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis on shipping in the Red Sea, US strikes in response and fighting elsewhere in the Middle East have added urgency to the efforts.

Hezbollah is ready to listen,” a senior Lebanese official familiar with the group’s thinking said, while emphasising that the group saw the ideas presented by veteran negotiator Hochstein on a visit to Beirut last week as unrealistic.

Hezbollah‘s position is that it will fire rockets at Israel until there is a full ceasefire in Gaza. Hezbollah‘s rejection of the proposals presented by Hochstein has not been previously reported.

Despite the rejection and Hezbollah‘s volleys of rockets in support of Gaza, the group’s openness to diplomatic contacts signals an aversion to a wider war, one of the Lebanese officials and a security source said, even after an Israeli strike reached Beirut on Jan. 2, killing a Hamas leader.

Israel has also said it wants to avoid war, but both sides say they are ready to fight if necessary. Israel warns it will respond more aggressively if a deal to make the border area safe is not reached.

Such an escalation would open a major new phase in the regional conflict.

Branded a terrorist organisation by Washington, Hezbollah has not been directly involved in talks, three Lebanese officials and a European diplomat said. Instead, Hochstein’s ideas were passed on by Lebanese mediators, they said. Reuters consulted eleven Lebanese, US, Israeli and European officials for this story.

One suggestion floated last week was that border hostilities be scaled back in tandem with Israeli moves towards lower intensity operations in Gaza, the three Lebanese sources and a US official said.

Another suggestion is that Hezbollah keep its fighters at least 7 km (4 miles) from the border, two of the three Lebanese officials and an Israeli official said. The proposal was communicated to Hezbollah, the Lebanese officials said.

That could leave fighters much closer than Israel’s public demand of a 30 km (19 mile) withdrawal to Lebanon’s Litani River, as stipulated in a 2006 UN resolution.

However, Israel believes most anti-tank missiles fired from further than 7 km would not land on northern Israeli communities, according to the Israeli official, who was briefed on war cabinet discussions, but requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the conversations.

Hezbollah has dismissed both ideas as unrealistic, the Lebanese officials and the diplomat said. The group has long ruled out giving up weapons or withdrawing fighters, many of whom hail from the border region and melt into society at times of peace.

Israel would also want to see Hezbollah‘s elite Radwan force kept north of the Litani and a United Nations peacekeeper force “beefed up,” the Israeli official said.

Israel’s Prime Minister’s office declined to comment on “reports of diplomatic discussions” in response to questions from Reuters for this story.

Spokespeople for Hezbollah and the Lebanon government did not immediately respond to detailed requests for comment. The White House declined to comment on Reuters’ reporting.

Hezbollah has, however, signalled that once the Gaza war is over it could be open to Lebanon negotiating a mediated deal over disputed areas at the border, the three Lebanese officials said, a possibility alluded to by Hezbollah‘s leader in a speech this month.

“After the war in Gaza, we are ready to support Lebanese negotiators to turn the threat into opportunity,” one senior Hezbollah official told Reuters, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He did not address specific proposals.

Hezbollah previously held fire during a 7-day Gaza truce in late November.

Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy, in response to a Reuters question at a media briefing on Wednesday, said there was “still a diplomatic window of opportunity,” to push Hezbollah away from the border.

Hochstein has a track record of successful mediation between Lebanon and Israel. In 2022, he brokered a deal delineating the countries’ disputed maritime boundary – an agreement sealed with Hezbollah‘s behind-the-scenes approval.

Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, in whose cabinet Hezbollah has ministers, has said Beirut was ready for talks on long-term border stability.

During his Jan. 11 visit to Beirut, Hochstein met Mikati, the parliament speaker and army commander. He said publicly at the time that the United States, Israel and Lebanon all preferred a diplomatic solution.

Hochstein was hopeful “all of us on both sides of the border” could reach a solution to allow Lebanon and Israel to live with guaranteed security, he told reporters.

The spearhead of the Iran-aligned “Axis of Resistance”, Hezbollah was drawn into a battle it has said it did not expect when Palestinian ally Hamas stormed Israel on Oct. 7, triggering a conflict that has also spilled into the Red Sea, where US strikes have targeted Yemen’s Houthis over their attacks on shipping.

Hezbollah has said its campaign has aided Palestinians by stretching Israeli forces and driving tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes.

It has come at a cost, with around 140 Hezbollah fighters and at least 25 Lebanese civilians killed, as well as at least nine Israeli soldiers and a civilian. The intensity has been growing in recent weeks.

Hezbollah, founded by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1982, is the most powerful and influential of the groups Iran backs. It has played a big part in Tehran’s wider foreign policies.

Sources familiar with Hezbollah thinking have said it knows all-out war would be ruinous for Lebanon, a country already destabilised by years of financial and political crises, and where Hezbollah‘s vast arsenal has long been a point of contention. Experts say the cache includes more than 100,000 rockets.

Even as Iran-aligned fighters draw U.S. fire elsewhere in the region and Iran launches strikes in Syria and Iraq, Tehran would be loathe to see Hezbollah and Lebanon subjected to massive destruction, not least because it has previously had to foot the bill of reconstruction, said Mohanad Hage Ali, deputy director of the Carnegie Middle East Center, a think-tank based in Beirut.

Iran’s foreign minister on Wednesday said attacks against Israel and its interests by the “Axis of Resistance” will stop if the Gaza war ends.

Hage Ali said Hezbollah clearly wanted to avoid full-scale conflict. It did not want to be left in a situation where Israeli strikes continue or intensify in Lebanon after the Gaza war ends or is significantly scaled back, he said.

“A process in which it can engage, or support, the Lebanese state as it negotiates would provide the benefits of de-escalation,” he said.

The diplomacy faces significant complications, and many observers see a serious risk of an escalation in fighting. Israel has said its army will act if diplomacy cannot restore security to northern Israel.

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the group had heard “threats and inducements”.

The threat, Nasrallah said in a Jan. 15 speech, was the warning that Israel would move forces to its northern border as it shifts to the next phase of the Gaza war. Hezbollah was ready for war and would fight without “any limits, rules or boundaries”, he said.

But he has also alluded to diplomatic possibilities, saying in a Jan. 5 speech that once the Gaza war was over Lebanon had “a historic opportunity” to liberate land.

Those comments were widely interpreted as reflecting the possibility of a negotiated deal settling the status of disputed border areas.

Four Lebanese officials briefed on the matter said Hochstein has discussed ideas aimed at advancing such a deal, but he had not presented any draft proposals. The officials did not provide details of the ideas.

An Israeli official told Reuters Israel’s government has “relayed lots of demands,” without giving details. “One way or another, our 80,000 northern residents will be returning home,” the official said.

France has also been involved in de-escalation efforts. A source familiar with French thinking said Nasrallah’s public comments alluding to a possible border deal were “direct messages to the Americans and to the French”.

“He’s telling us: ‘the door is open’”.

The post Hezbollah Rejects US Diplomacy While Wary of Expanded Conflict first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

Police Neglect is a Pogrom’s Essential Ingredient

Israeli football supporters and Dutch youth clash near Amsterdam Central station, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, November 8, 2024, in this still image obtained from a social media video. Photo: X/iAnnet/via REUTERS

JNS.orgIn Amsterdam, in the heart of Europe, on Nov. 7, Israeli football fans were hunted, beaten and terrorized by gangs. Was this a pogrom? According to conventional wisdom, it takes two to make a riot and three to make a pogrom. A pogrom requires three parties: instigators, victims and the public instrument of law and order that either neglects or condones the violence.

The instigators, in this case, were the Arab-Dutch gangs who went on a “Jew hunt.” The victims were clearly the Jewish supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv. And the third ingredient?

The Dutch police made 62 arrests before and after the riot but none during the assaults.

The Anti-Defamation League has said, “Given the extent of the rampage and violence, the number of detentions to date is alarming[ly] low.”

A month before this incident, there were alarming media reports that local police officers were refusing to safeguard Jewish and Israeli sites across the country.

We have been here before.

There is a long colonial tradition of the authorities ignoring mob attacks on Jews in Arab countries. The British army stood outside the gates of Baghdad but failed to quell the Farhud massacre of Iraqi Jews on June 1-2, 1941. It was only when the rioters began threatening Muslim quarters that the troops were ordered to intervene. By then, 179 Jews had already been murdered; women had been raped, babies mutilated, and extensive looting and destruction of property had taken place.

In the Libyan riots of 1945, during which more than 130 Jews died, the Jews held the British authorities partially responsible for the riots: they did not intervene directly in the pogrom until the third day of violence. In 1948, troops, including soldiers of the Jewish Brigade, were ordered to their barracks by the British administration in Libya while a second pogrom raged, and 14 Jews were killed. More deaths were prevented only because some Jews had been trained in self-defense.

The French colonialists, too, had an ignominious habit of failing to protect the Jews. When a riot broke out in Constantine, Algeria, in 1934, killing 25 Jews, unarmed police could not prevent the initial incident from spreading. The civil and military authorities in the city hall underestimated the dangers. The mayor, his deputy and the prefect were all on vacation, and none were recalled to deal with the situation. The secretary-general of the Algerian government even forbade the troops under the leadership of the military commander for Constantine to use bullets. The army took three hours to arrive.

In the Amsterdam case, victim-blaming has already begun. The Maccabi fans had “provoked” the riots when they burnt a Palestinian flag and “destroyed” a taxi. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence that the Amsterdam riot was preplanned and premeditated. This, too, is an essential ingredient of the classic pogrom. In 1941, Jewish homes were daubed with a red hamsa on the eve of the Farhud riot. In the run-up to the 1948 pogrom in the Moroccan city of Oujda, inscriptions with skulls and crossbones appeared, declaring “Death to the Jews!” and that the community leader “Obadia will be hanged, and the rest will follow!”

In Mandatory Palestine, on April 4, 1920, at the peak of the Nebi Musa festival, anonymous Arabic-language notices began circulating in Jerusalem that said, “The government is with us, [the British Gen. Edmund] Allenby is with us, kill the Jews; there is no punishment for killing Jews.” Over four days, thousands of Arabs ran through the Jerusalem streets, throwing stones at Jews, destroying Torah scrolls, setting a yeshiva and several houses on fire, breaking into buildings and looting, with little intervention from the British authorities until the very end.

In Aden, the British-trained forces of law and order took an active part in the killing during the 1947 riots in which nearly 90 Jews were murdered. In 1929, knowing that a pogrom was about to happen, the Arab-dominated police force in Hebron made sure that Jews were not able to defend themselves, and 67 Jews were killed.

In the case of the violent riots targeting the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam, were the police incompetent or did they fail to act by design?

The attitude of those police officers who refused to do their duty because defending Jewish sites and people would present them and their consciences with a moral dilemma is as close as it gets to condoning the violence.

On the night of Nov. 7, the Dutch police neglected to control events. More frightening, the risk of contagion across Europe is high. Jews have not felt more threatened since World War II, and less confident, in the event of trouble, that the forces of law and order will be ready to protect them.

The post Police Neglect is a Pogrom’s Essential Ingredient first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Under US Pressure to Expel Hamas, Qatar Keeps Double-Dealing

Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani makes statements to the media with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in Doha, Qatar, Oct. 13, 2023. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS

JNS.orgThe United States is pressuring Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from its territory due to the terrorist organization’s refusal to consider even a short ceasefire and new suggestions for a hostage release deal with Israel.

According to international media reports, Qatar is under American comply with an ultimatum to expel the senior Palestinian terrorists.

While Qatar has confirmed that it is stalling its mediation efforts in the indirect hostages-for-terrorists exchange talks between Israel and Hamas, it has not confirmed that it is ousting Hamas members.

Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president for research at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said, “This is pressure from Senate Republicans, amplified by Trump’s electoral victory. The Biden team appears to be trying to take credit for something that was spurred by others.

“The regime in Doha is trying to simultaneously confirm and deny the news. This is consistent with Qatar’s double-dealing. The goal right now should be to squeeze the regime to jettison Hamas,” he added.

While it is “unclear how Trump’s arrival will change any of this,” Schanzer assessed, the fear of a shift in American policy “is undeniably pushing Doha to make these moves and announcements.”

Meanwhile, “the Qataris are going to continue to buy up assets in the United States, regardless of who is president. This is their way of gaining leverage over our leaders in politics and business,” said Schanzer. “I believe that the next administration needs to conduct a careful and thorough review of these sovereign investments. The amount of money that Qatar has invested in this country is staggering. But it has not yet been made clear why it has invested so much—especially in sectors like education that do not yield a financial return.”

The Biden administration’s ‘last card’

Brandon Friedman, director of research at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, told JNS that US pressure on Qatar is the Biden administration’s “last card to play. How effective it will be depends on how Hamas—and Qatar—perceive the Trump administration. My guess is that the Qataris suspect the Trump administration will ask them to expel Hamas, so there is no harm in playing this card now and preemptively dealing with a potential source of tension with the new administration.”

According to Friedman, “The Qataris use their relations with various Islamist and jihadi groups as foreign policy tools to advance and protect their interests. Even if they expel Hamas, they will continue to host factions of the Muslim Brotherhood and let Al Jazeera be used to promote the Brotherhood’s ideology. It is also unclear whether the US asked Qatar to end its role as financial backer and conduit for Hamas’s extensive regional network of businesses and charities, which funded its terror infrastructure.”

(Hamas began as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Qatar, Friedman said, “was traumatized by the Saudi-led June 2017 blockade that lasted until the end of the Trump presidency. The blockade was imposed shortly after Trump’s visit to the Saudi kingdom. The Qataris are likely to make every effort to earn the good favor of the Trump administration.”

Asked to address the American military’s ongoing use of Qatar’s Al Udeid Airbase, which Doha spent a very large some of money to build and develop, Freidman said, “I don’t view the US as dependent on Al Udeid. I see it as a source of leverage for the US in dealing with Qatar. It is a symbol of US protection.

“If the US withdrew from Al Udeid, Qatar would feel unprotected. In fact, one might argue it is not a coincidence that the US quietly renewed its lease of Al Udeid for another 10 years after the Qataris brokered the November [2023] deal for the hostages. It was almost as if it was a reward for good behavior or a service provided.”

Addressing Doha’s global investments, Friedman said that “Qatar can use its immense wealth to purchase US arms, which would likely be viewed favorably by Trump. It can also invest its energy wealth in the US economy, which is one of the ways Saudi Arabia won favor with the first Trump administration. It is worth noting that Qatar has been substantially increasing its activities in both of these areas—US weapons purchases [$1 billion in 2022] and investments in the US economy over the past five to 10 years.”

‘No longer serves its purpose’

On Nov. 9, Reuters reported that Qatar is stalling its Gaza ceasefire mediation. Doha informed Hamas and Israel it will “stall its efforts to mediate a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal until they show ‘willingness and seriousness’ to resume talks,” the news agency stated on Saturday, citing the Qatari Foreign Ministry.

“The Gulf country has been working alongside the United States and Egypt for months on fruitless talks between the warring sides in Gaza,” said the report.

“The Qatari ministry also said press reports on the future of the Hamas political office in Doha were inaccurate without specifying how,” it added. On Friday, Reuters cited a US official as confirming that Washington asked Doha to expel Hamas, and that the Qataris had “passed this message on to Hamas.”

Reuters also cited an unnamed official briefed on the matter as stating on Saturday that “Qatar had concluded that with its mediation efforts paused, Hamas’ political office there ‘no longer serves its purpose.’”

Hamas has denied being told to leave the Gulf state, which has hosted it since 2012.

The post Under US Pressure to Expel Hamas, Qatar Keeps Double-Dealing first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Who Is Testing Us?

“Abraham and Isaac,” oil on canvas, Anthony van Dyck, circa 1617. Photo: National Gallery Prague via Wikimedia Commons.

JNS.orgOn Shabbat, we will read the Torah portion Vayera and the poignant drama of the akeidah, the binding of Isaac, which is the 10th, and most difficult, test of faith that our father Abraham had to face in life. Would he be prepared to sacrifice his beloved son Yitzchak, Isaac, on the altar of God, especially since he waited so many years for this son to be born to his wife, our matriarch, Sarah?

Why is this famous act of near-martyrdom so special? What makes Abraham and Isaac so unique? Haven’t there been many millions of Jewish martyrs throughout our long and torturous history? Only one generation ago, 6 million martyrs, including more than 1 million innocent children, were killed. And one year ago, 1,200 of our finest—young and old—were martyred by Hamas.

So why, I ask, is the near martyrdom of Abraham and Isaac so special?

There are many famous answers to this question, but I would like to share with you an unconventional answer that I believe speaks to us today and has a very relevant and personal message to us all.

This section in the Torah begins with these words: “And it came to pass after these things, and God tested Abraham.”

That’s it. I just gave you the answer. Did you get it? No? You missed it? OK, let me repeat it. “And God tested Abraham.” Did you hear the emphasis this time? God himself was testing Abraham.

What is my point? Tragically, we Jews are all too accustomed to martyrdom. We are used to giving up our lives and our children’s lives when we are threatened and attacked by our enemies, by antisemites and by the vicious villains of history. We understand that life is a battle between good and evil. In this epic confrontation, we have all too often given our very lives for our faith, for our principles, and for God so that the forces of light would vanquish the forces of darkness and evil.

So for Abraham to be called upon to give his life, or his son’s life, in a battle against, say, the mighty King Nimrod would be understandable. But here, Abraham was not being tested by Nimrod or Hitler or Hamas. Here, Abraham is facing off against God. God Himself was testing Abraham!

That the antisemite wants to take your child’s life is a reality we are, sadly, all too familiar with. But God? God is threatening my child’s life? This, we cannot come to terms with so easily.

But Abraham said nothing. Not a word. He got up early the next morning and went on this mission with total faith in God. He did not demand any answers to the many questions he could have asked.

The unique test of Abraham was whether he would become disillusioned by the clear contradiction in God’s own words.

“Hey God! One minute, you tell me you are giving me a crown prince and that he will be my heir and the next link in the founding fathers of the Jewish people, and the next minute, you’re telling me to sacrifice him? And he hasn’t yet married or fathered any children. I don’t get it, God.”

Abraham could have said that, but he didn’t. He never wavered. Not for a moment. And that is part of his immortality. That is why his sacrifice remains unique, even after millions and millions of heroic acts of Jewish martyrdom throughout the generations.

God was testing Abraham. Not the antisemite. Not Hamas. God. And Abraham passed the test with flying colors.

Disillusionment is a very big test in life, especially if it comes from an unexpected source—like God.

We are often faced with tests of disillusionment, and not only for the big events, like the Holocaust or Oct. 7.

I can understand why my competitor is hurting my sales. He wants to. But why is God allowing this to happen to my business? I’ve been good. I come to shul. I give tzedakah. Didn’t God promise in the Bible that if we are good to Him, He would be good to us? Why is He killing my whole business?

That is a big test. Will we allow ourselves to wallow in disillusion?

Furthermore, the word “Elokim doesn’t only mean God, it can also mean the godly. The godly, too, can sometimes cause us to be tested.

Like the rabbi! The rabbi is supposed to be a man of God. “Well, he didn’t say good morning to me or Shabbat Shalom or wish me a chag sameach. He didn’t visit me when I was in hospital or when I had the flu.” If the rabbi did not live up to one’s expectations of a spiritual leader—to the high standards people expect of a man of God—then one can become disillusioned. Many people worldwide have left synagogues because they became disillusioned with their man of God, their rabbi.

That, too, is a test.

And then there is the most common test of all. I must have heard this one at least a thousand times!

“Rabbi, I know a guy who goes to shul 10 times a day. He prays, he shukels (shakes) up a storm, and he makes it like he is the holiest guy in town. And when it comes to business, he is a rip-off artist! A gonif (thief)! If he represents religion, I don’t want to have anything to do with it!”

You know what? Personally, I can understand people having that reaction when they see such blatant cases of shameful hypocrisy. The so-called “godly” people may be testing us again.

But to tell you the truth, I’m tired of all those old stories about religious rip-off artists. Let’s assume you are right, and that fellow is indeed a pious swindler. Good in shul and terrible at work. So what? What does that have to do with you? Just because someone else failed his tests in life, why should you fail yours?

Whether we become disillusioned by the so-called “godly” among us, who behave unethically, may well be a test of our own faith.

Every one of us has a direct relationship with God. Jews don’t need intermediaries. If so and so is a crook, that’s his problem, not mine. And if Mr. X is a hypocrite, is God not God? Is Torah, not Torah? Is Judaism, not Judaism?

Why should someone else’s behavior weaken my relationship with God? Does that release me from my obligations and responsibilities?

A Jew’s connection to God is holy, inviolate and non-negotiable, irrespective of the behavior of others, even the “godly” among us. The seeming inconsistencies in the behavior of a rabbi, chazzan, rebbetzin, gabbai or some crook who happens to dress “religious” are entirely irrelevant.

Let me end with a story. At the end of World War II, after the U.S. Army liberated the Mauthausen concentration camp, Rabbi Eliezer Silver, a well-known leader of the American rabbinate, went to help the survivors. He arranged a prayer service with all the inmates where they said Kaddish for their fallen family members and thanked God for their survival. The rabbi noticed one survivor turned his back on the prayers and wouldn’t participate, so he went over to him and invited him to join them. The man told the rabbi why he wasn’t going to pray.

“In our camp, one Jew had managed to sneak a siddur into the camp. Whenever it was safe, Jews would get in line for a chance to hold the siddur in their hands and offer a prayer. At first, I respected him greatly for that noble act of courage and sacrifice. But then I saw that the fellow with the siddur was charging for it! He would take a quarter of the people’s daily food rations as payment for his siddur. How despicable! It was then that I lost my faith and decided never to pray again. How could a Jew do such a thing?!”

The wise rabbi put his arm around the survivor and said: “So, let me ask you a question. Why do you look only at the one shameful Jew who charged his poor brothers for his siddur? Why do you not look at the dozens of holy Jews who were prepared to give up a quarter of their meager rations and risk their lives just for a moment of prayer with the siddur? Why don’t you look at them and be inspired by them?”

The survivor acknowledged that the rabbi had a point. To his credit, he turned around and joined the rabbi in the prayers. That survivor was none other than the famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal.

Whether our fellow Jews, even supposedly “godly” Jews, behave correctly or not, let’s make sure we still do the right thing.

The post Who Is Testing Us? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News