Perspectives and insights from writers in the Arab media

In the wake of monumental fallout of Israel’s impactful wars against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Arab media scrambles with uncertainty to decipher how the future Middle East political landscape may evolve. Confounding their instigative coverage is the ‘Trump factor’  – the new US president whose power and personality has regional political leaders perplexed and wondering:
‘What, where and when?’

David E. Kaplan
Editor Lay of the Land

*(Articles translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE GULF

By Abdullah Bishara

Al Qabas, Kuwait, February 12

President Trump has returned to the presidency of the United States, buoyed by an unforeseen landslide victory that has propelled him back into the White House. His success has left him intoxicated with triumph and armed with an agenda filled with ambitious plans that encompass both the feasible and the challenging. Undeniably, his extensive ambitions have been fueled by the overwhelming victory granted to him by the American electorate, which surpassed all projections.

This substantial victory has certainly triggered concerns within the global community, particularly given President Trump’s unconventional approach. He eschews traditional logic and norms, addressing international issues with convictions that shape the ideas and solutions he proposes. President Trump does not adhere to conventional problem-solving mechanisms. He exists in his own realm, dismissing analyses, the quality of advice, or the obviousness of logic and rationality, guided by a subjective belief in his capacity to unravel mysteries, surmount obstacles, and fill gaps. This confidence is bolstered by the formidable power wielded by the United States across various domains.

Furthermore, he introduces proposals to both allies and adversaries, proposals that frequently conflict with his role as a neutral mediator. He steadfastly maintains positions as remedies for the issues he negotiates, often with little regard for their legitimacy or legality. He remains determined to reduce the burdens shouldered by the United States in maintaining global stability, a stance that has raised apprehensions in Europe, NATO, and among allies in Asia.

Turning his focus to the Israeli-Arab conflict, he devises intricate solutions he deems viable, relying on American strength and his entrenched personal convictions. In his perspective, the endorsements from Bahrain, the Emirates, Sudan, and Morocco in the Abraham Initiatives validate his approach. Now, once again, he is resolute in advancing his role to secure an acceptable resolution with Israel and nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and the remaining Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

President Trump undoubtedly senses that the present conditions offer a unique context for peaceful resolutions, distinct from prior attempts, granting a greater prospect of success. Multiple factors contribute to his optimism.

First: The Trump administration has undoubtedly monitored substantial transformations within the Arab world. The Assad regime in Syria has vanished, succeeded by a new administration open to initiatives that untangle the complexities inherited from its predecessor. Iraq has also undergone shifts in its political landscape concerning regional matters, fostering an adaptive environment in line with the peace efforts championed by President Trump. No significant opposition exists in the region to the pursuit of an agreeable resolution to the Palestinian issue.

Second: Events in recent months, particularly the Israeli offensive on Gaza, its targeting of Hamas, and its elimination of Hezbollah’s presence in southern Lebanon, have influenced regional dynamics.

Third: Israel has successfully neutralized the Iranian military presence in Syria, losing its key ally following the disappearance of the Assad regime and paving the way for moderate forces to align with the broader regional trend. As the Iranian presence dwindles in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, the prospects for peace solutions acceptable to Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq have heightened.

Fourth: President Trump is evidently focusing his aspirations on Saudi Arabia’s potential involvement in the Abraham Initiative. However, he must recognize the kingdom’s rationale for abstaining. Saudi Arabia has put forth a comprehensive proposal advocating the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for collective recognition of Israel. This stance reflects the broader Arab position. Without a Palestinian state, the region will continue to grapple with instability, turmoil, extremist proliferation, and mounting terrorism.

Fifth: Emphasizing the role of the GCC countries in global security and economic stability, these nations shoulder the responsibility of supplying essential energy at reasonable prices. Their diplomacy is rooted in their understanding of their pivotal role in the global economy, a commodity the world cannot forego without incurring chaos and peace erosion. The GCC states also actively engage in global development efforts, championing economic, social, and educational initiatives in developing countries, reflecting their commitment to advancing collective goals.

Sixth: Persistent skepticism among Arab states, including the Gulf, surrounds President Trump’s commitment to the principles necessary for easing tensions in the occupied Palestinian territories. His position, marked by strong support for Israel, including endorsing the annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, remains indifferent to the objections from Arabs and others advocating for a balanced solution. Confidence in his support for Security Council resolutions and their implementation remains elusive.

Seventh: The transformation in the Arab region presently has reshaped the context of America’s involvement, witnessing increased engagement compared to Trump’s first presidency four years ago. Gulf-American relations have expanded and evolved from a phase of strength to one of strategic partnership, a reality President Trump is likely to leverage in pursuit of his objectives.

Eighth: For President Trump to succeed in his peace endeavors, he must focus his efforts on persuading Israel to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Without a state that embodies Palestinian aspirations, peace will remain elusive, posing significant challenges to all initiatives. The absence of a Palestinian state continues to pose a formidable barrier, demanding renewed, earnest efforts to actualize the Palestinian people’s right to statehood.

Ninth: President Trump stands to achieve success if he recognizes the imperative of establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. Conversely, ignoring this necessity would undermine his prospects for resolution.

Abdullah Bishara

TRUMPISM: RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, February 6

Many assert that the words of Donald Trump, the returning American president, are mere bluster. In my view, Trump could be anything – either an empty sound bomb or a truly destructive force. 

We are on the brink of four potentially extraordinary years that could either morph into our worst fears, leaving Palestinians without a land, or realize the dream of a Palestinian state. His policies might ignite a dangerous regional war with Iran or herald a new era of regional peace, putting an end to decades of Arab-Western conflicts and tensions with Iran. He could either catalyze regime falls and ensuing chaos or foster security and peace regionwide.

This is not an overstatement – Trump is undeniably unpredictable. Whether joking or serious, he cannot be ignored. Not even 100 days into his new tenure, he has already dismissed the FBI director, disrupted the US Agency for International Development’s operations, fired 10,000 of its employees, halted all American aid globally, withdrawn from the World Health Organization, and initiated the mass deportation of illegal immigrants, with military planes carrying them out of the US at an unprecedented pace. This has forced several Latin American presidents to accommodate them. 

The Canadian prime minister has also scrambled to deploy about a quarter of a million soldiers and border guards to curb infiltration and smuggling, just as Mexico has done. Meanwhile, meetings are underway in Brussels, the European Union’s capital, to deliberate over Trump’s intentions to cut support for Ukraine and hike tariffs on European products.

If such actions don’t illustrate Trump’s character and management style, what lies ahead may be even more profound. Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, Trump lifted restrictions on the sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel – restrictions imposed by his predecessor, president Joe Biden – and announced measures aimed at preventing Iran from exporting its oil. 

As we come to understand this American president, now more formidable than before, it’s essential to assess the issues he will address. Refusing to engage with him carries steep costs, and despite Trump’s repeated assurances of not resorting to military force against opponents, he can still inflict economic harm on those who dissent. 

Trump wields two key weapons. The first is economic and financial. This includes raising tariffs – though fortunately, Arab exports to the US are minimal – or cutting aid. Arab nations receiving aid need to reorganize their affairs if they plan on noncooperation and should not expect alternative support from other Arab nations or international allies, as Trump is likely to penalize governments and international banks that back dissenting regimes against him. 

The second weapon is political. Conflicts with Trump will be exploited by opposition forces like the Muslim Brotherhood, seeking to capitalize on the political climate. They will aim to incite public dissent against Trump and embarrass Arab governments with propaganda campaigns, while simultaneously maneuvering closer to the Trump administration for their own goals, much like their strategy in 2011.

The Trump administration faces two significant challenges: Iran and Palestine, with related crises branching out to include Yemen’s Houthi rebels, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Should Israel resolve to obliterate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, it must wait until Trump’s negotiation attempts – likely to commence soon – fail. 

It wouldn’t be inconceivable for the Iranian leadership to cooperate with Trump, given the Islamic Republic’s substantial losses having seen its external power diminished by over half following the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah capabilities and the downfall of the Assad regime.

The threat is compounded by Trump’s decision to reimpose the oil embargo on Iran and possibly upping the ante with the threat of an Israeli strike on its nuclear infrastructure, risking Iran’s loss of crucial negotiating leverage. 

Of urgent concern is Trump’s project to depopulate Gaza, with more significant challenges anticipated.

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

THE EXTENDED HAND HASN’T BEEN RECIPROCATED

By Marwan El Amine

Nida Al Watan, Lebanon, February 6

Following the steep cost Hezbollah bore in its recent war with Israel, alongside shifts in power dynamics and the emergence of regional and international dynamics that paved the way for the election of Joseph Aoun as president of the republic, the Lebanese people have the potential to unify. 

Aoun’s inauguration speech underscored a pivot toward national commonalities. This address urged unity under the constitution’s umbrella and within a framework of state institutions, emphasizing that any loss suffered by one party affects all. In line with this, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s inauguration speech highlighted an “outstretched hand” approach, signaling a new political era rooted in partnership and understanding, which bolsters a holistic national interest.

However, this gesture of cooperation found no reciprocal response; instead, it faced a slew of actions, indicating a continued dominance and imposition mindset. Among these actions:

Firstly, the opposition attempted to mandate the reappointment of Prime Minister Najib Mikati. When this failed, MP Mohammad Raad issued a statement affirming the persisting use of threats and arrogance, marked by boycotting consultations with the prime minister-designate, a blatant departure from established principles and norms. 

Secondly, there was a steadfast insistence on controlling the Finance Ministry, earmarking it for a candidate loyal to the opposition, sending a clear message that governance will continue under their sway, prioritizing their choices over the designated president and republic’s head, without regard for partnership and consensus principles. 

Thirdly, given Hezbollah’s restricted capacity for military maneuvers south of the Litani River due to possible military repercussions, the group incited the so-called “residents” of the region to stage popular movements, placing the Lebanese army in a precarious position. This was a stark reminder to concerned parties that the group remains at the helm of southern security matters, either through its militias or resident mobilization, aiming to undermine state authority and weaken the army’s role. 

Fourthly, beyond southern movements, Hezbollah orchestrated a provocative sectarian parade through Beirut’s streets, reinforcing its bullying approach and its posture of imposing its will on other community segments. This intimidating behavior mirrors itself in the gunfire salutes at member funerals, which starkly undermine state authority and signal dominance to other factions.

Fifthly, in a contentious judicial turn, a decision was made to close activist and thinker Lokman Slim’s assassination file – a move invoking questions about its legal and political ramifications and timing. This sends a pointed message to the regime, prime minister-designate, political forces, and Lebanese citizens that Hezbollah still exerts a hold over the judiciary and that the impunity policy remains untouched, allowing perpetrators to steer decisions and rulings that bury truth and justice.

While extending a hand is constructive, yielding to the terms of subjugation is an entirely different story. For such an initiative to be genuinely effective, it requires a receiving hand, not one that aims to twist and overpower it. 

In this landscape, Lebanese citizens await the promises of the inauguration speech to materialize into concrete actions and the formation of a government reflecting their aspirations, rather than one acquiescing to the opposition’s dictates, particularly concerning the Finance Ministry and the monopolization of Shiite representation.

Marwan El Amine

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).

Perspectives and insights from writers in the Arab media

Recognising the failure of Hamas to bring any significant benefits to the Palestinian people by initiating the war on Israel on October 7, 2023, Arab writers explore alternate modalities and question Hamas’s future role as a viable and responsible governing body for Palestinians.
The views expressed in these articles are those of the writers and not of Lay of the Land which assumes no responsibility for the content.
David E. Kaplan
Editor of Lay of the Land

(Article translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

BEHIND HAMAS’S CLAIMS OF VICTORY
“True victors liberate, reclaim refugees, and win battles, not lose them”
By Aws Abo Ata

Al-Arab, London, January 31

In the second round of prisoner exchanges between Israel and Hamas, Hamas orchestrated a media spectacle to project the notion that it remains undefeated following the recent conflict. For much of the world’s populace, particularly the Arab community, displaying dignity, pride, courage, and resilience in the face of profound pain and loss is crucial. 

However, this media display, insinuating that Hamas retains its strength and popularity by showcasing its mechanisms, its distributed members, and the congregation of supporters in the aftermath of the Israeli operations in Gaza, muddies the waters of progress.

With Hamas positioned prominently in governance, the process of reconstruction is hindered or potentially stalled, providing a rationale that aligns with the Israeli Right’s narrative, sustaining conflict, and deterring investors from considering involvement in rebuilding efforts.

Militarily, Mousa Abu Marzook, a leading Hamas figure, remarked candidly in an Al-Arabiya interview that “what transpired was not a war between two parties and two military forces, but rather an extermination campaign.” This raises an enduring question: how can one claim victory amidst annihilation? The scope of the devastation is national, not confined to villages like Deir Yassin, Kafr Qasim, or Tantura, where the number of fatalities was in the dozens, not the tens of thousands as witnessed in Gaza. Did past massacres result in victory? Consider that.

Meanwhile, criticisms persist against Palestinian leadership concerning the Oslo Accords. Yet, the Gaza agreement is even less substantive than Oslo, which encompassed the full homeland, liberating significant prisoners and lands, enabling the return of over half a million refugees, all accomplished without bloodshed. True victors liberate, reclaim refugees, and win battles, not lose them, as exemplified by the subsequent reoccupation of Gaza despite its complete liberation.

Furthermore, political analysts highlight clauses in the Gaza agreement facilitating the departure of 1,500 wounded individuals with families, implying the withdrawal of Qassam militants from Gaza. 

Hamas inherently understands that its governance in Gaza is untenable and lacking international support, evidenced by the Rafah crossing’s management, free of Hamas control, compounded by humanitarian fallout from the Oct. 7 conflict and geopolitical tensions resulting from US President Donald Trump’s proposals to relocate Gazans to Egypt and Jordan – a stance met with staunch Egyptian-Jordanian rejection, straining relations with the US.

The Arab region is unwilling to sustain Hamas’s rule in Gaza due to ramifications on both Palestine and its neighbors’ regional security.

Hamas’s claimed victory extends beyond rhetoric, seeking to fortify itself and evade future national accountability for crises it has precipitated for its people and allies, such as with Qatar, which visibly distanced itself, as shown in the Qatari prime minister and foreign minister’s statements during a Paris interview with Israeli media.

Similarly, Syria, recently recovering from turmoil, has not engaged with Hamas representatives; the Syrian administration insists Palestinian relations be conducted through their embassy in Damascus, excluding faction representatives like Hamas.

Meanwhile, Iran, an ally, is preoccupied with internal losses, focused on instigating unrest in Syria while safeguarding its regime and nuclear ambitions amidst a historic period of instability.

Hamas, with limited allied nations and militias for support, faces vulnerability without them, contrasting [with] the Palestine Liberation Organization, which boasts legitimacy from extensive global diplomatic networks, independent of any singular axis or ideology. Unlike Hamas, the PLO’s credibility endures despite geopolitical shifts, illustrated by the endurance of its representation following the Soviet Union’s collapse and Saddam Hussein’s downfall – highlighting a profound paradox.

– Aws Abo Ata

IS THERE ANOTHER WAY WITH ISRAEL?
By Hazem Saghieh

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, January 29

One might argue that one of the unforeseen benefits of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation was that it threw into question the notion of relying solely on force to resolve the conflict. Neither the numerous wars nor the various forms of resistance have effectively achieved their goals. It is now more crucial than ever to voice certain truths, even if they may seem harsh, accusatory, or unsettling to those accustomed to familiar narratives and sentiments.

The immense Palestinian suffering must not continue unchecked, nor should the hardships of the Lebanese and other populations be burdened by the exploitation of their cause. The situation under Trump’s leadership has only worsened, increasing the likelihood of disasters, displacement, and even acts of genocide.

We must acknowledge that bridging the gaps that disadvantage us – Israel’s international relationships with influential world powers, its technical advancements, nuclear capabilities, and its political and social structure, which can navigate internal contradictions even amidst war – will be impossible, both in the near and distant future. Furthermore, our societies have no desire for conflicts whose primary function has diverged from serving Palestinian interests.

Take Syria, for example, a nation once championing warfare and rhetorical grandstanding, now distancing itself as both people and government from such ideologies. This is not to suggest that Israel poses no problem – certainly not. But it does imply the need for alternative strategies to address the issue that do not resort to violence or endanger peace.

History offers insights into major conflicts, providing potential pathways to exit the war mindset and perhaps even influence Israel toward moderation, rekindling the diminished moderate forces weakened by the pervasive culture of violence and militarization. This approach could reinvigorate the possibility of a two-state solution, a prospect that once rallied over two-thirds of Israeli society during the Oslo Accords.

France and Germany’s historical trajectory offers a pertinent illustration. They faced each other in wars, including the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 – where Germany’s victory led to the humiliation of France and the inception of German unity – and during World War I, which saw Germany’s defeat and the articulation of the Versailles Treaty’s severe terms, cited as a factor in the rise of Nazism. 

Yet, after World War II, despite the shame of occupation, France and Europe, under leaders like François Mitterrand, embraced German unification within a European framework, laying the foundations for the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the euro.

Similarly, the chronicles of conflict between Japan and Korea, with the former’s occupation of the latter from 1910 to 1945, saw unimaginable atrocities. Despite longstanding grievances, it took only 20 years post-occupation for relations to normalize, although challenges remain, particularly over reparations. Nevertheless, trade and partnerships in the economic, military, and security sectors endure.

The Anglo-Irish discord, dating back to the mid-17th century with Cromwell’s Protestant conquest and subsequent settlements, eventually transitioned from a violent independence war (1919–1921) to the 1998 Northern Ireland settlement that balanced power to appease both Catholics and Protestants, maintaining their respective affiliations.

India’s partition from Pakistan in 1947 led to catastrophic civil strife, displacing millions and claiming countless lives. The subsequent Indo-Pakistani wars highlight ongoing disputes, most prominently over Kashmir. Yet, diplomatic dialogues and trade interactions persist, emphasizing attempts at conciliation.

The Arab-Israeli conflicts are neither unique nor the most egregious examples of war. Perhaps the solution lies in emulating European strategies akin to Mitterrand’s vision, where the European Union served to contain and mitigate perceived threats from future German aggression.

– Hazem Saghieh

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).

Perspectives and insights from writers in the Arab media

Lay of the Land Editor:
Exasperated with the devastation and suffering of regional wars, Arab writers below from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon, expose the late Hezbollah leader’s failings, acknowledge weakness in regional Arab political leadership and suggest with respect to Lebanon, to exploit “weakness as strength” and push for “greater secularism”.

(*Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

WHAT WILL BECOME OF HEZBOLLAH?

By Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, October 3

Israel has finally succeeded in targeting the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, after 18 years in hiding. This marks a significant blow to Hezbollah and its Iranian allies. 

The sequence of setbacks inflicted on the militia began with the hacking of their communications network, followed by the assassination of over 500 field commanders in the south over the past year. The campaign culminated in the elimination of second-tier leaders and, ultimately, Nasrallah himself. 

For many, Hezbollah’s influence had already waned following Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. Despite this, the party insisted on retaining its arms, thus emerging as the sole armed political entity within Lebanon. This led Hezbollah to impose its will on its Lebanese counterparts, crossing a critical line in 2008 when it turned its weapons inward and occupied Beirut. At that moment, Nasrallah’s credibility diminished, both morally and popularly. His once-revered stature further eroded as Hezbollah became the vanguard in Iran’s regional conflicts. 

Nasrallah’s decision to embroil Hezbollah in the Syrian crisis, despite the Lebanese government’s policy of neutrality, underscored his ascendancy over both government and state institutions. His sectarian belligerence in Syria – marked by attacks on civilians – dealt another blow to his reputation. Moreover, Nasrallah’s endorsement of hostilities against Saudi Arabia and support for the Houthi movement in Yemen drew widespread condemnation. 

During the recent conflict, Nasrallah’s unwavering allegiance to Iran’s agenda overshadowed any efforts to uphold Lebanon’s stability or genuinely aid the Palestinian plight in Gaza. 

Now, Nasrallah has departed, leaving Lebanon teetering on the edge. Hezbollah in disarray, and his legacy is marred among much of the Arab populace, tainted by violence and division. When Nasrallah aligned Hezbollah with Iran’s regional ambitions, the organization transformed from a cohesive ideological entity with clear objectives into mercenaries fulfilling foreign agendas. This change necessitated increasing recruitment and liaison with foreign intelligence services, eventually exposing Hezbollah’s vulnerabilities to Israel. 

As highlighted in an investigative report by the Financial Times, Mossad’s penetration of Hezbollah’s ranks signaled an unprecedented moment of internal collapse reaching up to the group’s leadership, while Iranian overseers appeared indifferent. 

For those poised to succeed Nasrallah, there is a glimmer of hope. A reevaluation of Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon is imperative. The goal should be to evolve into a national entity invested in nation-building rather than acting as a pawn in foreign conflicts, thus avoiding a fate where they are discarded after serving their purpose or becoming a liability.

– Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali

WAR ON HUMANITY AND CIVILIZATION

By Radwan al-Sayed

Al-Ittihad, UAE, October 19

War is erupting across various regions, casting people into a spectrum of despair, leaving them in states of submission and hopelessness. This turmoil is tragically evident in places like Gaza and Lebanon, where combatants are heedless to the calls for peace, allowing the horrors of war to devastate the core of humanity and civilization.

In a recent summit, Gulf countries engaged with European Union counterparts, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and peace, and advocating for international resolutions. They recognize that it’s in everyone’s best interest to avoid shedding blood or falling prey to destructive whims.

The Gulf nations, having already extended significant humanitarian aid to Gaza, are now also mobilizing support for Lebanon, urging an end to the bombings and calling for the preservation of life and stability.

The future remains uncertain for those engulfed in the Gaza conflict. For the displaced inhabitants of Gaza, who have endured multiple upheavals, concerns over victory, the problems experienced elsewhere in our beleaguered region are now secondary.

In Lebanon, however, the solution is apparent: adhere to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, elect a new president, and ensure peace by deploying a robust army alongside international forces at the southern border.

Thus, two divergent paths emerge: one of peace and resolution, championed by Arabs since the 2002 Arab League summit in Beirut; and the other of obstruction and delay, which benefits no one, yet is often pursued by warring factions at the expense of humanity and progress.

For both Gaza and Lebanon, survival and the prospect of a free and dignified existence hinge on embracing peace, maintaining the essence of humanity, and cultivating a future filled with dreams and hopes for children and their families.

This marks the fourth or fifth conflict in Gaza since 2007, each commencing with rocket fire and concluding in devastation and extensive loss of life. The latest war has displaced more than two million people on multiple occasions, while the ongoing sixth or seventh war has resulted in thousands of fatalities and 1.2 million displaced persons. The Lebanese people declare their inability to endure further hardship, with many seeking asylum in Syria.

Global attention is focused on the plight in Gaza and Lebanon, yet the catastrophe in Syria – where half a million have perished and millions more have been displaced internally and into neighboring countries – cannot be overlooked. Syrians are now hosting displaced Lebanese, straining a country already fraught with its challenges and besieged by a bleak future.

Since the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, conflicts have persistently plagued Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Now, fresh and lingering calamities in Gaza and Palestine add to this troubled narrative.

Each faction threatens to usher in a “new Middle East.” What is new about a region stripped of peace and life’s basic necessities? The elderly, reminiscing about happier times, recall the region’s old name: the Fertile Crescent, where the olive tree once stood as a symbol of abundance and tranquility. Alas, this year, Palestine and southern Lebanon have lost their olive harvest, prompting concerns about what remains in northern Lebanon, now crowded with waves of displaced individuals fleeing from the southern Bekaa and suburbs. Yesterday, the city of Nabatiya witnessed devastation unprecedented in its history. What fate awaits Nabatiya, Baalbek, and the many historic and cultural landscapes?

The absence of Arab leadership has been felt in a region where Americans and Iranians wield influence, allowing wars to dominate. It is imperative that Arabs reclaim their presence on the global stage now more than ever before.  

– Radwan al-Sayed

WILL LEBANON DEFEAT ISRAEL? YES – THIS IS HOW

By Raouf Kob

Al-Nahar, Lebanon, October 18

These words were originally meant for introspection, a personal reflection that I now address to the public, hoping they resonate with readers. They are directed at supporters of the group known as the Axis of Resistance, as well as those who stand apart from it. I write from the perspective of a concerned Lebanese citizen who yearns, like all Lebanese do, for a nation that is free, sovereign, and independent. A country shielded from any foreign power attempting to manipulate its security and destiny, be it Israel or any other nation. 

Previously, I’ve penned three letters to late Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, published in this very newspaper. In the third, I pledged it would be my last. These letters served as an appeal, urging Hezbollah to advocate for a secular state in Lebanon. They were not insults, criticisms, or reproaches, unlike the discourse from the party’s usual adversaries. 

I confess openly that I’ve never aligned with Hezbollah’s ideology, nor with the ideology of any Lebanese party or political movement. This is largely because all Lebanese parties are inherently sectarian. Their supporters hail from similar socioeconomic strata, and I’ve never belonged to any religious or political faction. I believe Lebanon’s core suffering stems from this fragmentation among its citizens, a division that estranges them from genuine patriotism and prompts mutual accusations of treason and collusion with outsiders.

I am not naive enough to claim that those aligned with Hezbollah betray Lebanon. They are committed to defending their land and its dignity. However, as a Lebanese expatriate, it anguishes me to hear accusations against those outside the Hezbollah camp of cultural and political betrayal. Such behavior is an affront beyond justice; all Lebanese passionately love their country. Just as every sheik has his own methodology, as the Azharites would say, each Lebanese finds unique ways to express love and loyalty to the nation, even taking up arms when necessary. Religious fanaticism sows division, yet some Lebanese do not support Hezbollah in the current southern conflict. These individuals are not traitors, mercenaries, or agents; they are patriots following their own compass, standing against Israel and Zionism as fervently as Hezbollah. 

I recognize the numerous motives for opposing Hezbollah, often rooted in religious inclinations in our multifaceted sectarian society. These inclinations are not novel; they are deeply ingrained in our history and culture and were prevalent before colonial forces invaded. Nevertheless, Lebanon can neutralize Israel without resorting to bullets, and I earnestly implore Hezbollah’s supporters to hear me out with patience. 

During the last century, a notable Lebanese politician, Pierre Gumayel, made the insightful observation that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness. Though not a scholar or ideologist, Gemayel’s statement resonates as a guiding principle. Lebanon’s paradoxical strength and resilience emerge from its perceived fragility. Some might mockingly equate this to Hezbollah’s claim that Israel is weaker than a spider’s web. I argue instead through analogy: when two men brawl on the street, bystanders remain indifferent; however, when a grown man assaults a child, all witnesses stand with the child, ensuring the attacker faces justice. 

Politically speaking, consider if a powerful nation like France decided to invade a small European duchy like Luxembourg. While possible, such an action would be universally condemned, uniting France’s citizens against their government. Luxembourg’s strength stems not just from its petite size but from its peaceful, advanced governance that mirrors the systems of other developed democracies.

This suggests Lebanon should carry arms only to hold an aggressor temporarily at bay until international support arrives. Ultimately, its true strength lies in its “weakness” and its peaceful, advanced reputation. 

Reflecting on whether Israel would have dared to attack a Lebanon that modeled its political system after Luxembourg, Finland, or Norway is telling. Lebanon’s issues stem from a corrupt system built on deceit, exploitation, and religious manipulation. It tragically lays itself bare for exploitation, inviting disaster without concern from the global community.

Historical examples reinforce this: the 1967 Six Day War left a neutral Lebanon untouched due to its armistice with Israel, a peace that endured until the 1969 Cairo Agreement tragically embroiled Lebanon in proxy wars. Consider the “weak” children of the West Bank during the 1980s intifada, how global empathy stood with them, igniting solidarity movements worldwide. This uprising only waned when leaders like Yasser Arafat appropriated and monopolized it, exacerbating the tragedies that befell Lebanon, Palestine, and its people. 

In my previous correspondences to Nasrallah, I advocated for a secular civil system as Lebanon’s salvation – a system fostering unity, aligned with divine laws, protecting Lebanon from the manipulation of opportunistic figures, elevating its global standing, and earning respect. Lebanon will reclaim its dignity and rights only when self-respect prevails. Through reason over instinct and intolerance, a peaceful Lebanon can oppose aggressors like Israel by unveiling their true nature, supporting Palestine, and aligning with Arab causes not through force, but with truth, reason, and steadfast resolve. 

In Kalila wa-Dimna, the famous collection of fables translated by Ibn al-Muqaffa, the author observed that a strong wind may uproot the solid tree but not the resilient grass. Imam Ali emphasized the importance of self-awareness, and Socrates charged us to “know thyself.” Their wisdom reminds us that Lebanon must find strength within its vulnerabilities to emerge as a sovereign, impregnable state immune to external threats. Such understanding is crucial for Lebanon’s resurgence and prosperity, ensuring it stands poised against the turmoil of the outside world.

– Raouf Kob

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).

TARGETING TERRORISTS

Israel for the past two weeks has been on the brink of a major escalation, if not regional war, following the highly sophisticated assassinations of senior terrorist leaders in Lebanon and Iran, although the latter, Israel has not admitted responsibility.

Despite the risks and ramifications, Israel’s strategy of taking out terrorist leaders in precise “targeted assassinations” undermines the efficacy of these terrorist organizations as attested – albeit begrudgingly – by writers in the Arab media.

See article below by Mohammed Al-Saeed writing in Okaz, an Arabic Saudi Arabian daily newspaper located in Jeddah. It was translated by Asaf Zilberfarb for Media Line, a news agency specializing in coverage of the Middle East.

What is interesting to note is that criticism is accompanied by admiration of Israel’s prowess, professionalism and penetration:

• “While Hezbollah leaders delivered public addresses and rallied supporters with fervent speeches, Israeli agents meticulously gathered intel, even in the most private spaces. What Hezbollah perceived as a 2006 victory was likely a strategic deception by Israel, which has now reached unprecedented levels of intelligence penetration.”
• “Property once considered safe – homes, vehicles, and farms -have become targets for Israeli drones and planes.”
• “Israel’s target bank has been years in the making, not a result of recent events alone.”

The full article below is illuminating.

David Kaplan Lay of the Land Editor

ISRAEL’S TARGET BANK IN LEBENON

by Mohammed Al-Saeed

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, July 25

The Israeli state has long been characterized by actions rooted in violence and human rights violations, yet assassination remains a defining feature of its operational strategy. A clear illustration of this can be seen in Mossad’s pursuit and elimination of the masterminds behind the 1972 Munich Olympics attack, orchestrated by the Palestinian militant group Black September. This organization, infamously responsible for the murder of international participants, including Israeli athletes, saw its key planners systematically tracked down and killed by Mossad operatives. Despite some individuals fleeing, disappearing, or hiding in European countries, Mossad’s relentless pursuit ensured their eventual elimination.

Many of these assassinations were carried out discreetly, without Israel officially taking responsibility. It took years to locate some targets, but the determination to execute these missions never wavered.

In the wake of the events of October 7, Israel has been simultaneously pursuing two strategies:

• conducting military operations in Gaza and southern Lebanon to dismantle both civil and military infrastructures supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and
• utilizing intelligence to target and neutralize leaders at various levels within these organizations. 

Hezbollah, which has long prided itself on its robust security apparatus and staunch cadre loyalty, is facing a series of assassinations that challenge its internal cohesion. The growing list of assassinated leaders indicates potential erosion of loyalty, internal disaffection, and even betrayal among key figures who possess sensitive security information. This ongoing assault has deteriorated the image of invincibility that Hezbollah has carefully crafted, subjecting the group to a position of vulnerability. A pressing question emerges: how has Israel managed to infiltrate Hezbollah so thoroughly, executing daily operations with precision and minimal errors? Israel has even hinted at its capability to target Hassan Nasrallah himself. For nearly ten months, Israeli operatives have relentlessly pursued Hezbollah leaders, attacking them in their homes, vehicles, and even when disguised on mules. This persistence highlights weaknesses within Hezbollah’s security administration and hints at internal unrest among its cadres, fatigued by decades of mobilization and empty rhetoric.

Hezbollah’s boast of resilience and follower loyalty has faltered under the pressure of a conflict defined by more than just guerrilla tactics. Israel’s strategy of neutralizing leaders and denying the group any operational initiative has forced many into a continuous state of flight. Property once considered safe—homes, vehicles, and farms—have become targets for Israeli drones and planes. Such precision attacks owe much to a sophisticated ground intelligence network composed of disillusioned former supporters who no longer subscribe to the party’s ideology. Israel’s target bank has been years in the making, not a result of recent events alone. While Hezbollah leaders delivered public addresses and rallied supporters with fervent speeches, Israeli agents meticulously gathered intel, even in the most private spaces. What Hezbollah perceived as a 2006 victory was likely a strategic deception by Israel, which has now reached unprecedented levels of intelligence penetration. The party’s failure is glaring, not only in protecting its members from consistent attacks but also in its inability to dismantle spy cells that could mitigate its growing disgrace.

The current situation reveals an alarming disintegration of the security and operational efficacy once claimed by Hezbollah. The ongoing assassinations by Israeli forces underscore a deep-seated problem within the organization, reflecting both internal vulnerabilities and the formidable proficiency of Israel’s intelligence and military apparatus. 

– Mohammed Al-Saeed

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).

Perspectives and insights of Israel’s current war with Gaza from writers in the Arab media.

While the two Arab writers below predictably display no shred of sensitivity or understanding of Israel’s existential situation, they nevertheless are critical of Hamas and Hezbollah, questioning whether the approach of these organizations serves the best interests of the people they purport to represent.  

(*Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

AN UNHEARD VOICE FROM GAZA

By Hasan Almustafa

Al Bilad, Bahrain, July 4

The human suffering experienced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is profound and overwhelming, particularly for civilians, women, and children. This suffering is not confined to the immediate horrors of death but also extends to those who have been grievously wounded, some losing limbs, and to the deep psychological scars that will undoubtedly burden a generation of children who have endured this tragedy.

The anguish is palpable, with citizens voicing their desperate pleas against the killing, starvation, and displacement imposed by Israel. These anguished voices demand an immediate end to the conflict, pointing fingers at both Tel Aviv and the Hamas movement as responsible parties in the current crisis.

However, many voices among the Gazans criticizing and rejecting Hamas often go unheard, deliberately obscured by media narratives that attempt to downplay their significance, portraying them as mere temporary complaints. There are calls to continue the fight, asserting that perseverance will lead to victory and that this is a historic opportunity to liberate the land and defeat the occupation.

Proponents of this perspective argue that the sacrifices, including tens of thousands of deaths, are the natural price all people pay on the path to liberation and dignity. This “revolutionary” narrative presents a significant cognitive and historical fallacy, simplifying an extremely complex situation.

Liberation and resistance are not solely achieved through armed struggle; there are also civil methods and multiple approaches to building an independent state in line with international legitimacy resolutions. While it is true that an extremist Israeli government currently rejects the concept of a Palestinian state, promotes more settlements, and dismisses regional and international peace initiatives, the operation carried out by Hamas on October 7, 2023, did not pave the way to Jerusalem. Instead, it resulted in a disaster greater than the catastrophe of 1948.

When weapons are wielded without reason, strategy, and policy, they are blind instruments of destruction, not construction. Many individuals, far removed from the conflict, sit behind the comfort of their screens, enjoying songs and dancing to the Palestinian dabke, waving the keffiyeh. Others raise their fists in solidarity, chanting for the continuation of the resistance, only to return to their safe and stable lives. Meanwhile, the true and heavy price is borne by the people of Gaza.

Those intoxicated by the allure of armed resistance should humble themselves and listen to the profound suffering of grieving families whose dreams and children have been torn from their arms and cast into the blazing inferno of Israeli retaliation by Hamas’s actions.

– Hasan Almustafa

THE ARAB LEAGUE: HEZBOLLAH TODAY, ISIS TOMORROW

By Mohammed Al-Saeed

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, July 5

In a surprising announcement, the Arab League’s assistant secretary-general, Hossam Zaki, declared that the organization is no longer classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist entity. This shift marks a significant change in the League’s stance and has already sparked considerable debate and controversy across the Arab world.

The League has long served as the cornerstone of Arab unity, the sanctuary to which nations turn when crises escalate and hope dwindles. We might recall the pivotal role the League played post-1967, particularly at the Khartoum Summit, which succeeded in mending wounds, fostering unity, and supporting the reconstruction of armies shattered by the war. After the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the Arab League provided a crucial platform for legitimizing Kuwait and endorsed vital political and military efforts for its liberation.

A brief historical overview of the Arab League underscores its significance in Arab affairs. Established in 1943, the League was an Arab initiative spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen to foster collaborative Arab action. Many other Arab nations were still under British and French occupation or guardianship at the time. The inaugural meeting in Alexandria included delegates from these founding countries, marking the birth of the Arab League.

A closer examination of the League’s history reveals its tenacity in addressing myriad issues plaguing the Arab world, starting with the Palestinian cause. The League played a decisive role in recognizing the Palestinian Authority, even amid significant conflicts such as the 1948 Palestine War, the Tripartite Aggression, the 1967 Setback, the War of Attrition, Black September, the 1973 October War, the 1978 peace treaty with Israel, the 1975 Lebanese Civil War, the 1980 Iran-Iraq War, and the 1991 occupation of Kuwait [Editor’s Note: The Iraqi occupation of Kuwait began in 1990].

While some criticize the League’s economic and cultural initiatives as lackluster, it has steadfastly refused to be a voice for terrorist organizations. Imagining figures like Al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi, or Al-Baghdadi at the League’s meeting table is not only inconceivable but an affront to Arab history. The notion of Hassan Nasrallah speaking on behalf of Lebanon, given his role in the bloodshed of Syrians and Lebanese, rather than from his secluded stronghold, is equally abhorrent. It is disturbing that some seek to rehabilitate these terrorist groups that have wreaked havoc across the Arab world.

Throughout its history, the Arab League has staunchly opposed threats to Arab security and any attempts to usurp the role of central Arab states. Al-Qaida, ISIS, and Hezbollah have never been permitted to partake in Arab political action through the League. These organizations remain isolated, parasitic entities with no place in legitimate Arab discourse.

The League has consistently supported the independent security and political actions of Arab countries to defend against transient terrorist threats. Furthermore, the League has played an instrumental role in countering foreign states’ attempts to influence Arab decisions, a testament to the collective resolve of Arab nations against such infiltration.

In summary, the Arab League’s enduring commitment to Arab unity, security, and sovereignty cannot be overstated. It has navigated numerous crises and consistently protected Arab interests against internal and external threats, remaining a pivotal institution in the Arab world.

 – Mohammed Al-Saeed

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).

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).

Disturbing yet illuminating insights from writers in the Arab media opining on Israel’s current war with Gaza.

(*Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)

ISRAEL’S SERVICE TO THE PALISTINIAN CAUSE
By Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab

Al-Ahram, Egypt, April 5

Israeli policies have inadvertently shed light on the Palestinian struggle in recent months, showcasing undeniable evidence of the Israeli army’s heinous crimes against innocent civilians. Through audio and video recordings, the world has witnessed atrocities such as the killing of children, blocking access to essential supplies, and targeting hospitals. This stark reality has debunked Israel’s self-proclaimed image as a modern democratic state, revealing the underlying racism within its leadership. These revelations have surpassed any previous efforts by Palestinians to bring attention to their plight since the conflict with Zionist groups predating the establishment of Israel. As a result, Israel’s close allies may now reconsider their support, not because they were unaware of the war crimes or racism, but because Israel has lost its ability to conceal its actions from the world.

The once formidable façade has crumbled, leaving Israel’s friends vulnerable to scrutiny on the world stage. In addition to exposing Israel’s true nature, recent events have also highlighted the incompetence of its intelligence agencies. The unexpected Hamas strike on October 7 caught Israeli authorities off guard, revealing a lack of foresight and strategic planning. The notion of Israel’s “invincible army” has been shattered, rendering it a subject of ridicule rather than fear among Palestinians. Israel’s oppressive tactics, though brutal, have clearly failed to achieve their intended goals. The rising Palestinian generation now views the Israeli army not as a force to be reckoned with but as a tool for destruction and intimidation that ultimately falls short of its objectives. This shift in perception marks a significant turning point in the ongoing conflict, underscoring the need for a reevaluation of Israel’s actions and policies.

—Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab 

HAMAS THRIVES ON CHAOS AND DISCORD
By Najeeb Yamani 

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, April 4

I was not surprised at all by the crude and direct incitement orchestrated by the leaders of the Hamas movement against the Jordanian public. Their actions sought to destabilize the region, throwing it into the fiery chaos that had ignited in the Gaza Strip following their ill-advised endeavor on the seventh of October under the banner of Al-Aqsa Flood.

The catastrophic consequences we witness today are a direct result of their actions. My lack of surprise at Hamas’ conduct arises from my firm conviction and informed understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood and its operating mechanisms. The Brotherhood’s reckless agenda places human safety and security as secondary concerns, utilizing strong religious emotions to manipulate public sentiment. Hamas’ demagogic discourse, driven by unbridled emotion and inverted reality, often leads to disastrous outcomes. The ongoing humanitarian and military crisis in the Gaza Strip was hoped to be a turning point, a lesson learned, and an opportunity for self-reflection. However, Hamas failed to heed the disastrous results of their actions, paving the way for the Israeli occupier to further suppress the Palestinian cause. By spreading incendiary rhetoric, Hamas directly aimed to destabilize neighboring countries, particularly Jordan, inciting chaos and disregarding sovereignty. Hamas leader Mohammed Deif’s audacious incitement of Jordanians to revolt shows the depth of Hamas’ manipulative tactics. Their inflammatory narrative only fuels the fire of conflict, using ordinary people as pawns in a larger game. Hamas portrays the war against Israel as a battle of enthusiasm and emotion rather than strategic planning, undermining the true complexities of the conflict. This demagoguery serves only as a political lesson to those who fail to grasp reality or evaluate situations with a clear mind. Hamas must acknowledge the consequences of their actions and the misguided adventures they undertake. By targeting neighboring countries and inciting the masses, Hamas only drives the region further into turmoil. The motivations behind Hamas’ incitement must be scrutinized, particularly considering the timing of their actions. Khaled Mashal’s call for a battle of Al-Aqsa Flood and subsequent visit to Iran reveal a larger agenda at play. Hamas’ alignment with Iranian interests and the Safavid agenda raise concerns about their true intentions and loyalties. If Hamas truly cared for the Palestinian cause, it would hold Iran and other supporters accountable for their promises and hollow threats. The Brotherhood’s agenda thrives on chaos and discord, seeking to subvert religious texts for their own gain. The consequences of power in the hands of groups like the Brotherhood are evident in the plight of Sudan today, a cautionary tale of the destruction wrought by unchecked extremism. 

—Najeeb Yamani 

HEZBOLLAH’S WEAPONS FRIGHTEN NOT JUST ISRAELIS BUT ALSO LEBANESE
By Jean Feghali

Nida Al Watan, Lebanon, April 12

In a recent appearance on International Quds Day, Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, declared:

 “We have not employed our main weapons yet, nor have we used our main forces.”

Similarly, back in early March, MP Mohammad Raad, the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, made a statement asserting:

“We have not yet used all our weapons. The weapons reserves for open warfare have not yet been deployed, and the enemy knows it.”

Hezbollah is known for its secretive approach regarding the weapons in its military arsenal. They keep the details hidden due to military secrets, causing unease among Israelis who constantly try to uncover the weapons stockpiled by the party. Nasrallah even claimed that Hezbollah’s budget, weapons, and missiles are supplied by the Islamic Republic of Iran. While it is no secret that Hezbollah’s weapons arsenal has Iranian origins, the organization has been expanding its sources of armament, acquiring new weapons in addition to the ones left by the Syrian Army when it withdrew from Lebanon in 2005. Not limited to Iranian supplies, Hezbollah also manufactures weapons in Lebanon, and receives arms through various means from Iran, Syria, and the Bekaa region.

Moreover, Hezbollah is said to acquire high-quality weapons from the black market, even ones manufactured in the West. There have been instances of Iranian weapons being used, including during the Iran-Iraq war when Iran illegally purchased American missiles through a covert deal orchestrated by American officials. The trend of pragmatism is visible not only in Hezbollah’s weapon procurement strategies but also in the diplomatic actions of the US and Iran. The historical context of arms trading between Iran and the US demonstrates how pragmatism often trumps ideological differences. Hezbollah’s approach, based on pragmatism, aims to wield its weapons not only against Israel but also as a tool in Lebanese internal politics. This versatility and adaptability make Hezbollah’s arsenal a subject of concern not only for Israelis but also for the Lebanese people.

– Jean Feghali

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).

NORTHERN EXPOSURE – A LEBANESE PERSPECTIVE

IS IT TIME FOR A DEAL ON THE LEBANON FRONT?

By Ali Hamada 

Al-Nahar, Lebanon, February 15

(Translated by the Jerusalem Post’s Asaf Zilberfarb)

On Oct. 8, 2023, Hezbollah unilaterally declared war on Israel, citing support for the resistance in Gaza and a desire to ease pressure on the strip. After 131 days of intense fighting along the Lebanese-Israeli border, Israel suffered significant losses, with dozens of soldiers and civilians killed or wounded, military sites destroyed, and a weakening of its deterrence capacity. Hezbollah also faced casualties, with over 200 fighters and several civilians losing their lives, and widespread destruction of residential and commercial areas in border villages. 

Despite the prolonged conflict, Hezbollah’s goals for the war remain unmet. The battle in Gaza rages on with ground operations advancing into key cities like Khan Yunis and Rafah, raising concerns about the aftermath of the battles. As Hamas’ grip on the strip weakens, questions arise about Gaza’s future governance, reconstruction prospects, and regional stability post-Hamas rule. Promises of eradicating Israel within minutes or liberating Jerusalem have proven hollow, exposing the limitations of Tehran-led rhetoric and Hezbollah’s influence in the region. The reality diverges sharply from Iran’s decades-long propaganda campaign, which exploited Arab populations with false promises of resistance.

Internal dissent in Iran, particularly in urban centers, highlights growing disillusionment with the regime’s oppressive tactics and ideological manipulation. In Lebanon, the war underscores Hezbollah’s failure to achieve its stated objectives, as casualties mount, resources deplete, and the nation reels from economic strain and institutional decay. To overcome this crisis, Lebanon must separate itself from the Gaza conflict, pursue an immediate cease-fire, and recommit to UN Resolution 1701. A comprehensive approach involving border negotiations, military reconstruction, and expedited gas exploration initiatives is needed to stabilize the country and pave the way for peace and prosperity. Lebanon must swiftly exit the vortex of conflict and chart a path toward recovery and reconciliation. 

About the writer:
Ali Hamada is a Lebanese journalist writing for the Al-Nahar daily.

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).

Two Arab writers opining on Middle East issues, address:

• the impact of the upcoming US elections might have on bringing
  about a ceasefire in Gaza
• the “true objectives” behind Israel’s war with Hamas.
  

(Translation from the Arabic by Asaf Zilberfarb)

US ELECTIONS AND A CEASEFIRE IN GAZA

By Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab
Ahram, Egypt

February 2nd 2024

Israel is keenly aware that time is not on its side given various factors with the most critical being the approaching climax of the US presidential campaign. Israeli leaders recognize the unique
demands of these elections, with the reelected president historically seeking to defuse contentious issues amid polarized internal opinions and increasing criticism. President Joe Biden,
who is no exception to this trend, is perhaps even more compelled to adhere to it. Gaza stands as a key priority among the fronts he will seek to pacify without deviating from his unwavering support for Israel. However, amid the elections, public outrage over alleged Israeli war crimes and the US administration’s consistent backing of Israel has created a vulnerability ripe for exploitation by Biden’s rival, Donald Trump.

Signs of the Biden administration’s bid to ease tensions in Gaza have begun to surface, with reports suggesting an impending agreement between Hamas and Israel on fundamental points of contention. This potential agreement could see the release of Israeli prisoners by Hamas in exchange for the liberation of a significant number of Palestinian detainees by Israel. Negotiations continue on the duration of the ceasefire, with Hamas aiming for a longer period, while Israel is resistant to anything beyond a few months. While these reports could be deliberate leaks to gauge reactions, the current climate appears conducive to such a proposal. The suffering in Gaza and its impact on Hamas’s decision-making, coupled with an opportunity for Israel to manage its military setbacks, present a compelling case for all involved parties.
– Ahmed Abdel-Tawwab

WHAT ARE THE TRUE OBJECTIVES BEHIND THE WAR?

By Sami Abdullatif Al-Nisf 
Annahar, Kuwait

February 2nd 2024

Since the outset of the ongoing Gaza war, the focus has been on deciphering the true intentions behind the conflict and whether the stated aim of eliminating Hamas truly represents Israel’s
underlying objective. It has become increasingly apparent that the conventional approach of seeking victory through direct confrontation may not be feasible, given the nature of the adversary. There is a recognition that Hamas cannot be vanquished by conventional
military means, which leads to contemplating the genuine purpose of the war. Amid this contemplation, a disturbing prospect arises: the notion of an undisclosed and enduring goal emerging from the conflict – the permanent desolation of Gaza without any prospect
of rehabilitation, essentially consigning it to a state of perpetual ruin and decay.
The prospect of Gaza being reduced to a dilapidated territory devoid of any possibility for growth or recovery appears increasingly plausible. The wider context of conflict and
displacement within the Arab world further compounds this distressing outlook. The absence of basic amenities and infrastructure, coupled with the disarray and suffering of its
inhabitants, portends a future bereft of progress or prosperity, amplifying the sense of despair and hopelessness.

This ominous trajectory is reinforced by reports indicating reluctance among
numerous nations to participate in the reconstruction of Gaza, citing concerns that any efforts to rebuild would only be undone by future hostilities. Compounding this, the resistance to the
implementation of a neutral Arab or international authority to prevent further conflict instills a sense of futility in the prospect of rehabilitation. Moreover, the current and anticipated plight of the people of Gaza is poised to push them toward eventual acquiescence to the notion of relocation, whether to neighboring or distant countries, effectively fulfilling a long-term, albeit
insidious, objective of the conflict. Notably, Israel has unequivocally declared its intention to withhold essential resources such as electricity, water, and financial support from
Gaza in the future. Furthermore, there are indications of intent to obstruct employment opportunities for Gazans within Israel, exacerbating the deprivation faced by the region. Additionally, the potential reduction of American aid, particularly to UNRWA, which
supports a significant portion of Gaza’s populace, further exacerbates the precarious situation.
In conclusion, contemplation of the full spectrum of potential outcomes is essential to guard against the unanticipated and ensure preparedness in the face of future uncertainties, a prudent
approach given historical precedents.
– Sami Abdullatif Al-Nisf

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).

Two Arab writers opining on Middle East issues address – the side war to the Gaza conflict of the Western coalition taking on Iran’s proxies
– An Egyptian perspective of the Houthis who are using the issue of Palestine to further the interests of their Tehran masters

(Translation from the Arabic by Asaf Zilberfarb)

THE LIMITS OF IRAN’S REGIONAL PROXIES

By Ali Hamada
An-Nahar, Lebanon

January 26
In recent months, attention has shifted from Israel’s conflict in Gaza to the aggressive actions of the Houthi militias in Yemen; and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These groups have targeted not only Israeli sites but also international shipping and US and UK naval vessels. These attacks have disrupted global supply chains and threatened international maritime navigation. Fortunately, the Western coalition, led by the United States, has responded strongly to these attacks. They have begun systematically destroying missile launchers, weapon infrastructure, and explosive materials. This response is crucial to safeguarding global security and ensuring the freedom of international trade. Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli forces have remained relatively small-scale skirmishes. However, Israel has treated them as a serious threat and has launched counterattacks. It is clear that these actions by the Houthi group and Hezbollah are coordinated and carried out under the direction of Iran.

Iran is well aware of the limitations of its proxies’ capabilities, compared to the Western coalition. It is important to note that the strength of the Houthis, Hezbollah, and other factions in the region pales in comparison to the resources and capabilities of the international coalition. Iran is merely a dwarf in the face of this alliance. Western strikes against the Houthi group will continue until the security of international sea lanes is ensured. The slogans and rhetoric from Tehran and Sanaa will not deter these efforts. Similarly, Israel will continue its escalation against Hezbollah because it seeks to provoke war. The reality on the ground is far different from what the resistance axis claims. Iran understands the limits within which it operates its armed groups in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. Any violations of these boundaries will be met with swift and decisive action. In Lebanon, we can expect to continue seeing Israeli airstrikes and assassinations in response to Hezbollah provocations.

In Syria, the regime’s lack of involvement in what’s happening in Palestine, Lebanon, and the region speaks volumes. It is clear that the central regime in Syria does not prioritize these causes, and this should be taken into account.

In conclusion, the actions of the Houthi group and Hezbollah are not representative of an unbeatable resistance axis, led by Iran. The Western coalition, backed by formidable military capabilities, will continue to defend international security and ensure the stability of global trade.

– Ali Hamada

THE SUEZ CANAL AND THE HOUTHI WAR
By Abdel Moneim Saeed
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt

January 27

The Suez Canal has endured numerous crises throughout its history. It was closed during the Tripartite Aggression in 1956 and faced further setbacks in June 1967. However, since its reopening in 1975, it has proudly flown the Egyptian flag, faithfully serving global trade. In 2014, the canal entered a new era with the excavation of a parallel canal, the deepening of its waters, and the establishment of an economic zone alongside it, complete with ports, factories, and logistics areas. This development transformed the canal into Egypt’s prized possession, bolstering its financial and economic resources.

Unfortunately, this status quo was ruptured when the Houthi group, a faction involved in the Yemeni civil war, targeted the canal. This civil war, born out of the Arab Spring movement, pitted the Houthi Ansar Allah group against the legitimate Yemeni government. Ansar Allah is an Iranian-backed entity, similar to groups we’ve seen appear in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, which receive weapons, funds, training, and political propaganda from Iran. Seizing the opportunity presented by the Gaza war, the Houthis attempted to use the Palestinian cause as a shield to advance their own agenda and propaganda. The battleground for the Houthis’ war became the Red Sea, where they targeted vessels headed toward Israel with missiles and drones provided by Iran. Thus, their shallow statements claiming to support the Palestinian cause hold little weight, as they had no means of discerning whether the ships they targeted were actually en route to Israel or merely part of a multinational company transporting goods for various countries after transiting the Suez Canal.

Most ships passing through the Red Sea adhere to international maritime law and fly flags representing countries utilized by international corporations engaged in global trade. The Houthis, however, display no regard for the flags flown by these vessels. They have targeted all of them indiscriminately. Despite their supposed interest in international law, when it comes to the people of Gaza they brazenly violate maritime law by jeopardizing international trade, including the functioning of the Egyptian Suez Canal, as well as the security of other Arab nations.

 – Abdel Moneim Saeed

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).