Perspectives and insights of Israel’s current war with Gaza from writers in the Arab media.While many of these articles are heavily slanted against Israel, Lay of the Land views it important for its readers to be exposed to the conversations throughout the Arab world that impact Israel and the Jewish world.
(*Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
HAMAS IS THE BEST CHOICE FOR NETANYAHU!
By Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
Al-Ahram, Egypt, May 9
Is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu truly committed to the complete elimination of Hamas? This question goes beyond his capability to achieve this goal or the current circumstances; it delves into the sincerity of his intentions. Some argue that Netanyahu is not being truthful, as he understands that removing Hamas from power is not in his best interest. The alternative to Hamas is the Palestinian Authority, which poses a greater threat to Netanyahu. The Authority boasts global support, particularly from influential Western nations that shun Hamas. The international legitimacy granted to Palestinians lies with the Authority, including the right to establish a Palestinian state — a notion vehemently rejected by Netanyahu. If Hamas were hypothetically eliminated, the Palestinian Authority would reign unchallenged, with strong international backing, pushing for a Palestinian state. Netanyahu would find himself in a weaker position against this establishment compared to his stance against Hamas. Thus, it is concluded that Netanyahu’s rhetoric regarding the eradication of Hamas lacks sincerity. His actual strategy appears to be weakening Hamas without rendering it powerless in the Gaza region, as having Hamas as his adversary benefits him. Hamas, lacking Western support, weakens the Palestinian Authority, which seeks the backing of the West in its statehood demands, a stance Netanyahu vehemently opposes.
Netanyahu is emblematic of a dishonest, duplicitous politician who may not always mean what he says or may even intend the opposite. His ambiguity may be perplexing to international observers, but even within Israel, his statements are not always clear. This enigmatic quality seems to be an electoral advantage for him, as his constituents trust that he will pursue his objectives without wavering or succumbing to external pressures. Despite knowing that he may not always tell the truth, they believe his deceptive tactics will ultimately benefit him in negotiations by feigning compromise and flexibility.
– Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
THE SENSELESS WAR IN GAZA HAS NO END IN SIGHT
By Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali
Okaz, Saudi Arabia, May 9
Seven months since the outbreak of the devastating conflict in the Gaza Strip, it appears that there is no end in sight to the Israeli military campaign. The initial goals of the war, which included the elimination of the Hamas movement, the release of Israeli hostages, and ensuring the security of the Israeli border, now seem unattainable. Some even speculated that Israel sought to alter the demographics of the Gaza Strip through forced displacement, an idea supported by right-wing Israeli figures like Ben Gvir and Smotrich, who advocated for the resurrection of Israeli settlements in the region.
After weeks of intense fighting, it is evident that these goals are unrealistic and come at a high cost, not only for Palestinians but also for Israelis. The complete eradication of Hamas appears increasingly difficult, and any success in doing so would result in many civilian casualties. While Israel has caused significant destruction in Gaza, including damage to infrastructure and loss of civilian lives, it has not fundamentally altered the situation on the ground.
The conflict in Palestine is not about the Israeli response but rather the failure to address the core issues of the Palestinian crisis. The Israeli leadership’s arrogance, which led them to believe they could impose solutions by force and ignore the Palestinian people, has been proven wrong. The war, particularly in the past few months, has failed to achieve its military objectives. It is increasingly seen as serving the internal political interests of the far-right government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s desire to avoid accountability and the far-right’s concerns about the outcome of future elections in Israel have influenced the government’s handling of the conflict. As the war continues, there is a growing realization that it has become futile, particularly on the Israeli side. However, internal political considerations may hinder efforts to reach a ceasefire. Netanyahu’s political predicament may lead him to obstruct any agreements that do not align with his goals.
– Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali
A FRAMEWORK FOR PEACE ABD STABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
By James Zogby, Visiting Professor of Social Research and Public Policy at New York University Abu Dhabi.
Al-Ittihad, UAE, May 8
The American response to Iran’s retaliatory drone and missile strikes against Israel was expected but unhelpful. The decision to impose more sanctions on Iran and provide more weapons to Israel, all while urging de-escalation, was a mix of contradiction and potential for aggravating the existing tensions.
Disturbing comments came from the Israeli and Arab media, as well as political authorities and so-called experts in the United States and the West. Some Arabs applauded Iran’s show of force and deterrence, while Israelis lauded the efficiency of its defensive measures in foiling the attack. Western “hawks” initially praised the defensive success but quickly shifted to downplay the Iranian threat. They then advocated for massive retaliation from Israel to “neutralize” Iran, asserting that anything less would embolden further attacks. Such myopic views are not only short-sighted but also perilous. The reality is that neither Israel nor Iran can be completely vanquished. Any attempt to do so would have catastrophic consequences on the entire region, leading to devastation and economic ruin in the Arab Levant and the Arabian Gulf. The wider Middle East craves peace and stability, not more strife. Resorting to arms and hostile attitudes will only worsen the situation. History holds a valuable lesson: Conflicts in the region do not end in defeat but rather fuel further aggression or morph into more vicious forms.
After years of misguided American and Western policies, the region is entangled in numerous intertwined conflicts fed by external actors like Iran and its allies, or the US/Israel coalition and its supporters. America’s steadfast support for Israel, coupled with a reluctance to engage constructively with Iran, has led to the current predicament: Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, Israel-Hezbollah tensions, and Syria’s ongoing turmoil following the civil war. Iran is entangled in various conflicts, including those in Libya and Sudan. Amid America’s wavering policies, its diminished global standing, the ascent of China and the China-Russia alliance, and persistent regional threats, Arab nations are compelled to safeguard their interests independently by fostering regional peace and stability. They are forging ties with Iran, aligning with China and Russia, maintaining relations with the United States, and making overtures toward Israel.
However, in light of the Gaza war and the looming Israel-Iran conflict, the United States has reverted to its failed strategies of the past. Rather than advocate for diplomacy and de-escalation, why not combat Iranian interference by collaborating with the P5+1 group at the United Nations to establish a regional security framework like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) did during the Cold War? The idea was initially proposed by the Iraq Study Group in 2006 to address the aftermath of the Iraq war, urging the formation of an international support group that includes Iraq’s neighbors and the five permanent Security Council members. This vital notion was overlooked then but remains critical in ensuring regional stability and global peace. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, curbing Iranian regional meddling, instituting political and economic reforms, establishing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and bolstering regional investment and trade are essential components of this framework. Like the Madrid Peace Conference, the Middle East’s version of the OSCE would bring together Arab states, Iran, Turkey, and Israel under the Security Council’s stewardship. While some nations may need encouragement to participate, concessions and incentives should be offered. Unlike at the Madrid Conference, pressure to reach agreements should persist beyond the initial meetings. US policymakers may argue against the feasibility of this idea, citing potential nonparticipation. Yet, similar doubts surrounded the Madrid Conference, underscoring the importance of persistence and creativity. Failure to pursue such initiatives would spell a perilous path toward permanent conflict.
–James Zogby
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
