Palestinian State and The Poker Game

Dr Khairi Janbek
Opinion
September 1, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a politician above all else. He is dogmatist in rejecting a Palestinian state, and a pragmatist when he talks about it, but all that depends on the position taken by the United States.

Ever since one can remember from the days of the Oslo Agreements, a Palestinian state, as a term swung between two conceptions: A future project on the ground, and a slogan up-in-the-air to pander on, and as many from my generation remember the rather acerbic comment: Gaza-Jericho First of 1993 which came to be the first and the last.

The Israeli government of that time, believed that it would bring the Palestinians to independenance as interlocutors in determining the occupied West Bank of Jordan that came about by discussing the issue through a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation.

However, the little that was agreed upon started to be eroded by the first Netanyahu government, which at times implicitly and at times explicitly acted in the way so as to negate the Oslo agreements with impunity.

One would like to say that since then plenty of water has passed under the bridge, but when it comes to the Palestinian issue, it’s always the same water and the same bridge.

At this point one must say that everywhere in the media there are supposedly leaks and plans about the day after with regards to the Gaza Strip. However, the only consensus between the international community at large and officialdom of the Arab world, is that Hamas should surrender its weapons. But really what happens next?

Silence in the Arab world rules the scene which is in a way saying what cannot be said, which is in other words don’t involve us directly but we shall try to do what we can. This is habitually the Arab position in always being reactive rather than active.

And now on the international scene is the big drive to recognize a Palestinian state, which is for the time being affirming a point of principle, and towards which Israel is actually debating the annexation of the West Bank, as if to say, if the West Bank is reoccupied by Israel, where is this Palestine you want to recognize?

And adding insult to injury, the Washington administration has refused entry to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the PNA leadership to attend the UN General Assembly meetings. This indicates that it does not recognize that there is a leadership of the Palestinians.

However, and despite saying this, one wishes to be able to say that we might be jumping the proverbial gun, in the sense that, the issue is just a matter of tit-for-tat telling states: You recognize Palestine we take measures to counter that, but alas the Israeli annexation was contemplated long before the international recognition of a Palestinian state.

Now, what will it mean if Israel does go ahead and annexes the West Bank and cancels the Palestinian authority? Well, once again the international community, to the exclusion of the USA, will have to consider the West Bank as and Israeli occupied territory, and once again, the world will have to go back to the Security Council for an attempt to resolve the issue.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian columnist living in Paris, France.

Dr Khairi Janbek

Opinion

An Unholy War!

CrossFireArabia
April 23, 2026

By Robert Stephen Ford

Presidents and popes have disputed wars in the past. Pope Paul VI criticized the American war in Vietnam, saying that America was losing its moral standing. Pope John Paul II called the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 unjust and illegal. However, the clash between US President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, who are the two most influential Americans in the world, about the war against Iran is without precedent.

The rift that preceded the war

The relations between the Vatican and the Trump administration were difficult even before the Iran war. Before the appointment of Pope Leo, Pope Francis in 2025 criticized Donald Trump’s restrictions against immigration and the treatment of refugees and immigrants in American detention centers. In January 2026, three top Catholic Church leaders in the United States issued a report stating that American foreign policy was immoral. They pointed to reduced assistance to world health programs that have harmed tens of millions of people worldwide.

The American surprise attack on Iran on February 28 sharpened the dispute between the Vatican and the White House. The Trump administration portrays the war as a kind of holy crusade blessed by God. In his April 7 social media message threatening to destroy Iranian civilization, Trump exclaimed, “Glory to God!” while also saying that God ensured the success of the mission to rescue an American pilot whose plane was shot down over Iran. On March 26, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a press conference that military strikes against Iran enjoyed protection from God, and at a religious service in the Pentagon on April 1, he quoted from the Old Testament, asking God to “break the enemy’s teeth.”

The Pope responded on April 6 that Jesus called for peace and reconciliation, and he rejected politicians using God to justify war. His rebuke generated sharp counterattacks from Trump and some Republican Party leaders. Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said the pope appeared not to understand the Catholic Church theory of just war. Several American bishops close to Pope Leo responded that it was ridiculous to suggest that the pope did not understand the theology and the theory of just war since Leo himself is from the branch of the Catholic Church founded by Augustine, the Christian thinker who, 1,600 years ago, first set down the principles of a just war. The surprise American attack in the middle of negotiations, the American failure to avoid striking civilian targets and the ambiguous American government goals of the Iran war did not meet the standards of a just war, they noted.

Politics dressed as theology

Trump and the Republicans are politicians, not theologians. They portray the war against Iran as holy because they understand that the war is unpopular in the United States and they need the support of Christian conservatives in their political base. Notably, most Catholics, who are about 20% of the American population, voted for Trump in 2024. Opinion polls since late March have shown that most Americans doubt the war is in America’s national interests. After Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure and civilization on April 6-7, the pope called the threats “unacceptable” and would violate international law. He even urged American citizens to contact their representatives in Congress to demand that the war stop. It was unprecedented for a pope to urge Americans to mobilize this way, and it directly touched a big part of the Republican Party base. Trump responded five days later with his social media message alleging that the pope appears to accept that Iran can have nuclear weapons and does not understand foreign policy. No American president had attacked a pope so personally. With economic damage from the Iran war and opinion polls indicating Democratic Party victories in the November congressional elections, the White House and Republicans are especially sensitive to criticisms towards their war policy.

The pope enjoys a big advantage over Trump in opinion polls in the United States, and Trump over the past four days has retreated a little. He said on April 16 that while he respected the pope’s right to say what he thinks, Trump insisted that he would continue to say and do what he thinks is right. The pope, meanwhile, said on April 18 that he did not want to debate the president. The pope’s role in the end is not to descend to politics but rather to stay on a high level focused on how people should live according to the principles of Christianity. This round of arguments has been winding down, but the Trump administration’s use of Biblical scripture and symbols to justify controversial policies will trigger new fights with the Catholic Church in the months ahead, especially if the war escalates.

The writer is a former US Ambassador to Algeria and Syria and contributed this article to Anadolu

Opinion

Can Israel Create A Lebanese Buffer Zone?

CrossFireArabia
March 25, 2026

By Imad Rizk

Since last Wednesday, the Israeli army has continued targeting the network of roads and bridges that link Lebanon to its south. In addition to pressuring the Lebanese government to make concessions in Lebanon and possibly beyond, the Israeli army claimed that targeting the Qasmiyeh bridge and other bridges is intended to prevent the transfer of military supplies to southern Lebanon. However, military experts questioned this justification, noting that Israeli aircraft maintain intense air dominance over the routes leading to the south, which undermines the credibility of this claim. Sources believe that targeting infrastructure, especially bridges and roads, aims to isolate the southern region in preparation for occupying it and turning it into a “buffer zone”.

After the 1982 invasion, Israel maintained a buffer zone in southern Lebanon for 15 years. It was meant to prevent attacks but instead created local resistance and required constant military presence, ending with a unilateral Israeli withdrawal in 2000.

Buffer zones as a military solution in the region were tested between 1985 and 2000. In the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel avoided re-occupying Lebanon, relying instead on air power and UN peacekeepers (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). Now, in 2026, Israel is returning to buffer zone thinking. Current discussions of a 10-15 km buffer zone show that Israel is returning to a doctrine it once abandoned as distancing itself from its enemy is more important than before.

Meanwhile, air raids continue to target the Lebanese capital, Beirut, and its southern suburbs. Residential areas and neighborhoods near Beirut and in the coastal city of Sidon are also being targeted under the pretext of assassinating figures and cadres linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

On the southern front, the Israeli army has been facing major difficulties in advancing and consolidating its positions since March 2. Hezbollah in Lebanon targeted Israeli troops at dozens of locations.

Ground combat tactics against the Israeli ground maneuver

Hezbollah carried out strikes against concentrations of soldiers and vehicles in different border villages. These attacks were carried out using rockets and artillery shells.

Operations extended beyond the border line, where Hezbollah support units targeted military positions and fixed barracks, as well as newly established sites in Jabal al-Bat and Nimer al-Jamal. Strikes also repeatedly hit the Avivim barracks, as well as Ramot Naftali, Branit, Hounin, Nahal Gershom base, and the Meron Air Surveillance Base.

Both Hezbollah and the Israeli army also carried out psychological and media operations associated with the ground maneuver, including threats, intimidation, low-altitude aircraft flights, and air raids conducted at night or at dawn. Settlers were also used in messaging to suggest that failure to negotiate would expose Lebanon to destruction similar to Gaza, or to incite Lebanese public opinion against a particular sectarian group and the environment that supports confrontation with Israel.

Overall assessment

In summary, the ongoing confrontation since March 2 reveals a gap between Israeli rhetoric and action. Despite statements about deploying three full military divisions, these forces rely heavily on air strikes to flush out Hezbollah fighters positioned inside villages and in the surrounding wooded terrain.

Hezbollah initially responded by targeting troop concentrations with rockets from outside the area south of the Litani River in the early days, and also struck D-9 bulldozers from areas far from the front line, while its special units advanced and seized forward positions. There was also discussion of advances along the Khiam-Marjayoun axis, with the understanding that the advance aimed to encircle the city of Nabatieh in the south and push through the Sahmar axis toward an unspecified town to reach Lake Qaraoun, similar to what Israel did on the Syrian front when it took control of the Yarmouk basin.

A notable development was the use of explosive drones similar to tactics used in Ukraine. On Friday, armed drones were used to strike a rear-area position on the Israeli side. This was considered the second major tactical surprise to enter the battlefield after the previous confrontation in 2024 during the “66-day battle.”

Israeli attacks on Iran and the entry of Iranian missiles targeting Israeli troop concentrations and fortifications around the town of Khiam suggest that the linkage of fronts — from southern Lebanon to Iraq and Iran — indicates that the Khatam al-Anbiya headquarters in Iran is directing a confrontation against Israeli destabilization and US military presence across a theater stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf.

The author is the director of the Institute for Strategic and Communication Studies in Lebanon (Isticharia-ISCS). Anadolu

Or check our Popular Categories...

Or check our Popular Categories...

Palestinian State and The Poker Game

Dr Khairi Janbek

Related Posts

An Unholy War!

The rift that preceded the war

Politics dressed as theology

Can Israel Create A Lebanese Buffer Zone?

You Missed

Israeli Looters in Lebanon

Ayat, Qamar Bid Farwell to Their Martyr Dad

‘We Killed Our Own Then Blamed Hamas’

An Unholy War!

‘Journalist Khalil Trapped Under Rubble Left to Die’

Israel Kills 38,000 Women, Girls in Gaza