Analyses Archives - Page 6 of 32

Israel And Palestinian Heritage Destruction

CrossFireArabia
December 11, 2025

Last month, Palestinian Minister of Tourism and Antiquities Hani Al-Hayek warned that during its 2023-2025 war on Gaza Israel damaged or destroyed more than 316 archaeological sites in Gaza and the West Bank. While most were from the Mamluk and Ottoman eras, others were from the early Islamic centuries and the Byzantine period. He argued that Israel is conducting “systematic targeting” of Palestinian historical sites as part of its long-term strategy of colonising and annexing the West Bank.

While the current right-wing Israeli government flatly rejects withdrawal from Palestinian territories conquered 58 years ago, the Arab world and the international community argue that regional peace depends on the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. This means that Palestinians should be in charge of archaeological remains in these territories.

Hayek was prompted to speak out after archaeologists protected by Israeli troops raided a Byzantine era site near Ramallah and stole five columns. Israel claimed Palestinians had built a structure in the centre of the site, damaging the archaeological remains.

Both Israelis and Palestinians claim a second site, Sebastia, near Nablus in the northern West Bank belongs to their cultural heritage, although it has been ignored and unexcavated for decades. Israel holds the archaeological park, which is in Area C under full Israeli control, while the Palestinian town of Sebastia is in Area B, under joint Israeli and Palestinian Authority security control but Palestinian administration.

Israel has begun to expropriate 1,800 dunams of land for the “preservation and development” of Sebastia which has been settled from the Iron Age (1200-586 BC) through modern times. The site contains layers of history reaching back nearly 3en,000 years and contains Iron Age dwellings, walls, and a palace which exist alongside remnants from Roman times.

Sebastia was the capital of the northern Israeli Kingdom during the first half of the 10th century BC. Conquered by the Assyrians in 720 BC, Sebastia became an administrative centre under the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Romans, Muslim Arabs and Ottomans.

The site and the modern village of Sebastia – which has about 3,200 Palestinian inhabitants – have been declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO as the town is the location of Roman royal tombs, a Roman amphitheatre, medieval buildings, and a historic mosque built within a Christian church.

As the Israeli expropriation order covers the archaeological site and Palestinian olive plantations, Palestinian landowners were given two weeks to file legal objections to the seizure and their expulsion. This is the largest antiquities-related West Bank expropriation order issued by Israel since the 1967 occupation. While international law prohibits occupiers from carrying out excavations in areas they control, Israel has ignored this as well as most other laws governing occupations. In May 2023, Israel allocated $9.2 million for Sebastia.

The Israeli Peace Now movement declared: “Israel continues to harm Palestinian rights, expropriating thousands of dunams in violation of international law and settling the northern West Bank, an area with only a few thousand settlers compared with more than a million Palestinians.” The movement warned, “Israeli greed harms not only the landowners, but also the prospect of a peaceful solution that upholds the rights and heritage of both peoples.”

Emek Shaveh, an Israeli anti-occupation group founded by archaeologists, and Yesh Din, an Israel rights movement, issued a joint report in 2018 which stated, “Since 1967, Israel has endeavoured to appropriate the archaeological assets of the West Bank, based on the view that the Jewish heritage of places and antiquities testifies to a bond between the antiquities and the state of Israel, and constitutes a justification for deepening its control over ancient sites. This perception underlies every aspect of Israel’s archaeological practices in the West Bank.

“Israel’s control enables the physical exclusion of Palestinians from the sites and ancient finds through various means, ultimately weakening their connection to their heritage. It also enables Israel to shape the historical narrative of the sites by highlighting and glorifying their significance for the Jewish people and downplaying the role of other peoples and cultures who also had a part in the history of the region…

“Under the guise of concern for heritage, the government is investing tens of millions ..in turning heritage sites into weapons of dispossession and annexation.” The group added, “The intention to expropriate private land is anything but preservation; its purpose is to establish a tourism settlement that will detach Sebastia’s heritage from the [Palestinian] town and Judaize the area through the tourists who visit the site.”

Israel has weaponised archaeology to assert the legitimacy of its take-over of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. While striving to discover, develop and preserve Jewish archaeological remains in Palestine, Israel neglects or even harms non-Jewish or Palestinian heritage at the expense of Palestinians.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Archaeologists are trying to restore damaged sites. They have begun work on the Qasr al-Basha museum, a Mamluk-era palace located on a UNESCO heritage site dating back to 800 BC. After destroying 70 per cent of the museum by bombardment, Israeli troops occupying the site looted 20,000 ancient and medieval artifacts stored there.

UNESCO has reported damage to the Saint Hilarion Monastery, one of the oldest Christian heritage sites in the region, and the 7th century Omari Mosque, Gaza’s main place of Muslim worship. Due to the Israeli blockade on building material restorers have been compelled to scrabble in the ruins of these buildings for material for restoration.

In August, Israel appropriated 63 Palestinian West Bank archaeological sites, 59 in Nablus governate, three in Ramallah governorate, and one in Salfit governorate. Sixty-three were declared “Israeli historical and archaeological sites,” excluding Palestinian ownership. In total, Israel has taken over 2,400 out of the 6,000 Palestinian sites in the West Bank. This process can endanger the study of archaeology and history in this area if archaeologists involved are political motivated and preserve only what suits them while wiping out layers of remnants above and below layers, they explore. Meanwhile, Israeli archaeological organisations and personalities indulge in bitter competition with each other.

This article is written by Michael Jansen for the Jordan Times.

Analyses

Destroying The Ceasefire

CrossFireArabia
November 27, 2025

Dr Marwan Asmar

Since the signing of the ceasefire on 10th October 2025 Israel killed at least 347 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Although the Donald Trump team officials in the White House keeps saying how they satisfied are about the maintenance of the Gaza ceasefire, the truce is in a precarious mode. Many expect the ceasefire to be broken any day because of the bloody Israeli military actions and fire on the whole of the Gaza Strip.

Since it took effect last October, Israel violated the truce over 500 times. Israel begun attacking the Gaza Strip at the end of the first week of the ceasefire, and continued thereafter with the average daily killed standing at seven at least.

However, the highest number of those killed was on 29 October, 2025, when 109 people were slaughtered and a reminder of the carnage days of the war. But after that, the number went down significantly. On 19 October the number of those killed went down to 45, 33 on 19 November and at least 21 people on 23 November. Here as well, and although figures may vary, UN experts say at least 70 of those killed were children. Did they pose a threat to the mighty military machine?

This is not to say anything about the number of those injured, a figure conservatively put at 889 and likely to increase as the days go by especially since there is nobody to stop the Israelis.

While the number of those murdered may have gone down drastically, the Israeli war machine continues to bomb different areas of Gaza, from its north, center and south of the Strip, neighborhoods, communities, cities, towns and refugee camps that exist only in names but already lie in debris, heaps of rubbles and destruction.

Biet Hanoon, Jabalia, Biet Lahia, Gaza City, Al Maghazi, Khan Younis and Rafah and more, once thriving population centers have become mounts of rubble and wreckage unfit for human habitations, gorges stumped into the earth with nothing but skewed bricks and mortar.

The Israeli army, and through its air force, has continued to re-bomb schools, mosques, residential building and tattered infrastructures and/or what remained of them. Israeli pilots and/or quite often through drones, are flying over sorrow horizons of destroyed mounts and bombing what is left of a past society, all in search of illusive Palestinian groups they were unable to “flush out” in the last two years of their genocide of Gaza.

The genocide has created a sence of acceptable madness among the Israeli populace that “you bomb as much as you can” twice, thrice, four times and more so the vicious cycle of violence is indelibly printed on helpless civilians who nevertheless, refuse to be expunged.

Today, Gaza is a horror story with its new cold, calculated and unforegiven Israeli masters refusing to accept their new stalemate. They continue to occupy 53 percent of the enclave with them unwilling to quench their thirst for blood but leap into the misery they have created. Just after 10 October, they have demolished 1500 buildings in the areas they control and this is just the beginning for Israel is planning for a long occupation despite the US plan outlined by president Donald Trump on 29 September to end the war on Gaza and start to redevelop the enclave. This is certainly a pipedream.

The killings continue as Israel pays lip service to a US plan outlined at the heart of which is dismantling Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian resistance groups. But the story as plotted by the new political masters of Trump et el., begins here. With the ending of Hamas, the redevelopment of Gaza is supposed to start.

However, everyone is still stuck at stage of one of the plan. Hamas has already set free the 20 remaining Israeli hostages and is yet to handover the final two of the 28 dead hostages it already delivered to the Israeli hostages. God only knows when they will be delivered.

The movement says it has been finding it extremely difficult to search for the remains of the hostages and finding the final two would be a grueling task because of the mass bombing of the enclave whose geography has been drastically altered with people no longer knowing where former places, houses and roads no longer are. They have become alien to a society they lived in all their lives.

Of course, this has become music to the ears of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist government who feel they can continue to bomb Gaza under the eyes of the Americans in a pretext that the final remains of the hostages are still to be delivered and that Israel continues to fight Hamas.

Within this context many observers are saying Israel wants to “lock” the Trump 30-point plan in phase I and doesn’t want to move to stage II because that would mean it’s war objectives was for nothing apart from destroying Gaza: No Palestinian transfer, No end to Hamas and the calls for a Palestinian state growing by the majority of countries of the world.

Despite the close alliance between the United States and Israel, the ultimate aim of the Trump plan – being its end result – is the call for a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has long realized this and this is why he wants to lock Gaza into an initial ceasefire phase in which he will continue to call the violent shots on Gaza.

Analyses

Genocide: What is it With The Germans?

CrossFireArabia
October 8, 2025

By Tarek Bae

Since the beginning of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, German media have been accused of pro-Israeli bias. A new investigation shows that one of Germany’s largest outlets, public broadcaster ZDF, systematically silences criticisms on Israel.

ZDF is as close as Germany gets to state TV. It is funded through a mandatory broadcasting fee, enforceable by court, and legally obliged to foster free opinion-forming, reflect social diversity, and remain objective and impartial. The gap between that mandate and reality is stark. Surveys show 73% of Germans believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, while only 13% see Israel’s actions as appropriate. Even ZDF’s own polling found 61% think the government should pressure Israel more strongly. These are the opinions of the majority, the “reasonable realities” ZDF is supposed to reflect — yet its coverage does not reflect them.

Instead, ZDF censors them. Internal sources confirmed that its social media accounts automatically hid comments containing “genocide,” “Volkermord,” “war of exhaustion,” and even “Palestine.” When confronted, ZDF admitted the filters existed, claiming they ensured “netiquette” and protected against “criminal-law concerns.” But repeated test runs showed comments with these terms never appeared, while posts denying or belittling Gaza’s suffering were unaffected. That selective standard shows the problem clearly: potential “criminality” was invoked only when Israel was criticized. Blanket blocking of terms central to describing Israel’s actions suppresses legitimate perspectives and breaches ZDF’s mandate of pluralism.

Criminalizing the debate

The absence extends beyond comment sections. “Not only in the comments but also in ZDF heute’s reporting the term genocide is barely visible,” says journalist Fabian Goldmann. “That’s despite major human rights groups, UN experts, and leading legal scholars repeatedly calling it the most precise term for Israel’s actions.”

Palestinian Ambassador Laith Arafeh calls such blocking “regrettable,” stressing that it suppresses vital debate on horrors the Palestinian population faces. He points out that the International Court of Justice found plausible grounds to investigate Israel for genocide. Political scientist Jules El-Khatib adds that calling the term a netiquette violation is “frankly absurd,” since genocide is a legal definition, not an insult. Goldmann argues ZDF’s rationale fits a wider pattern: instead of naming Israeli war crimes, those who do so are criminalized.

Pressure on staff

Censorship also targets employees. One staff member reports being pressured to delete a private post quoting UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s genocide accusation. ZDF did not respond to questions about the case. The contrast with presenter Andrea Kiewel is striking: she faced no repercussions after wearing on-air a necklace showing a map of “Greater Israel,” symbolically erasing Palestine. Kiewel continues to host Fernsehgarten, one of ZDF’s most prominent shows, broadcasting from her residence in Israel, which she openly describes as “my home.” The asymmetry speaks volumes: criticism of Israel is suppressed, while overt nationalist symbolism in its favor is tolerated.

Another employee alleges ZDF’s editorial independence was compromised by calls from Israel’s ambassador Ron Prosor, who demanded sharper pro-Israel coverage. According to this account, ZDF altered the texts afterwards. Again, the broadcaster offered no explanation. Reporters Without Borders has likewise warned of repeated Israeli embassy pressure on German newsrooms through emails, letters, and calls.

Distortion as practice

Despite these concerns, ZDF spokesperson Thomas Hagedorn insists the broadcaster reports “comprehensively, independently and from many perspectives.” But the record shows otherwise.

A telling example is the BILD scandal of November 2024. Germany’s biggest tabloid published what it claimed was a Hamas “war document,” saying it proved ceasefires would only benefit Hamas. Netanyahu cited the article to justify rejecting a ceasefire. The New York Times later revealed the documents were fabricated at Netanyahu’s behest. Yet ZDF repeated the claim that Hamas was waging “psychological warfare” without verifying the source. No correction or apology followed, even after the forgery was exposed. In effect, ZDF had laundered Netanyahu’s talking points into German public discourse.

Broader content analysis reinforces the pattern. By December 2024, Gaza’s death toll was more than 24 times Israel’s, yet ZDF referred to Israelis as “victims” 33% more often. An Itidal review of 500 ZDF pieces (October 2023–December 2024) found the word “barbaric” overwhelmingly applied to attacks on Israel (90.7% of cases) and never to attacks on Gaza. Even in Ukraine coverage, the term appeared in just 4.6% of cases. This vocabulary echoed government messaging: Netanyahu called the Oct. 7 Hamas attack “barbaric,” a framing ZDF and other outlets quickly adopted.

Political entanglement

ZDF’s structure amplifies the concern. A study by the Otto Brenner Foundation found 62% of its Television Council members belong to political parties, despite a Constitutional Court ruling limiting party representation to one-third.

Public broadcasters already average an excessive 41%, ZDF surpasses even that, making it the German broadcaster closest to “state media.”

This entanglement shapes coverage. ZDF has labeled the slogan “Freedom for Palestine” antisemitic. Right-wing commentator Ninve Ermagan used ZDF to stigmatize protests against Gaza’s genocide as a “radicalized pro-Palestine scene.” Government positions criticized by experts as repressive are given prominence, while dissenting voices struggle to appear. In effect, ZDF often functions as a keyword provider for Israeli hardline circles or as an extension of government messaging.

El-Khatib observes: “In Germany, free speech is too often constricted when Israel is the subject. The idea of banning ‘Free Palestine’ was abandoned as absurd, yet suppression persists in other forms. The term ‘genocide’ is still treated as a combat word, even as human rights groups, legal scholars, and most of the German public consider it accurate.”

Restoring trust

A public broadcaster should broaden democratic language, not narrow it. Restoring trust requires dismantling word filters, disclosing external pressures, protecting staff from censorship, and correcting the record when disinformation has been amplified. Anything less is not a moderation glitch. It is a failure of duty.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu’s editorial policy.

Analyses

Gaza: Changing The Middle East Face

CrossFireArabia
October 8, 2025

By Mohammad Abu Rumman

The Al-Aqsa Flood operation marked a turning point in the modern political history of the Middle East. Its repercussions have gone far beyond the Palestinian and regional arenas, extending to the international system and reshaping the foreign policies of global powers toward the region.

The timing of the operation was particularly significant: it came at a transitional moment in the regional order, in the absence of consensus among international and regional actors on the rules of the game. While a fragile balance of deterrence existed between the so-called “Axis of Resistance”—led by Iran (alongside the Syrian regime, Hezbollah, Shiite political forces in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad)—and Israel, the latter was in the midst of a new phase of regional integration through the Abraham Accords.

Several Arab capitals had already normalized relations, and others were on their way, creating an unprecedented political landscape. This shift coincided with the declining influence of traditional Arab powers such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria, and the rising centrality of the Gulf states. Many analysts began describing this new configuration as a “New Middle East”: wealthy, economically driven, and detached from historical conflicts—unlike the “Old Middle East,” where entrenched crises defined politics.

Turkey, meanwhile, had entered its own phase of recalibration. Once a champion of the Arab Spring and regional Islamist movements, Ankara sought reconciliation with Arab states, even attempting to restore ties with Bashar al-Assad’s regime (though rebuffed by Damascus), while focusing more narrowly on national security and northern Syria.

On the Palestinian front, Israel had grown complacent toward Gaza, convinced Hamas had no incentive to disrupt the status quo. Tensions, however, were mounting in the West Bank, with small armed groups emerging in places like Nablus, Tulkarm, and Jenin. Within Israeli and Western policy circles, talk was spreading about the prospect of a “mini-state in Gaza” as a substitute for a Palestinian state.

At the international level, President Joe Biden’s administration lacked enthusiasm for either the Abraham Accords or Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” yet it effectively followed the same trajectory: pursuing “regional peace” by integrating Israel into a new economic order and reducing the Palestinian question to daily livelihood concerns—employment, services, and economic relief in Gaza and the West Bank—rather than a political resolution.

The Al-Aqsa Flood and the subsequent two-year genocidal war in Gaza shattered these calculations and fundamentally restructured strategic assumptions. Whether the outcome will ultimately benefit or harm the Palestinian cause remains too complex to assess in simple terms, but what is clear is that the pre-October 7 regional order no longer exists.

From a Palestinian perspective, the conflict has restored international attention to the cause, leading to a renewed recognition of its centrality. In the Gulf, the previously dominant security paradigm—which cast Iran as the chief threat while framing Israel as a potential partner—collapsed entirely. A new consensus has emerged: Gulf security is inseparable from the Palestinian issue, and the notion of Israel as a “strategic friend” has been critically reassessed.

Skeptics may argue that these shifts have not altered the balance of power on the ground, and they are partially correct. Yet the strategic narrative has changed. Before October 7, the trajectory was toward the erasure of the Palestinian cause (closing UNRWA, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, normalization, and de facto annexation of the West Bank). Today, there is growing recognition—regionally and internationally—that Israeli policies themselves are the root of instability, not Iran or other regional actors. As Emirati political scientist Abdulkhaleq Abdulla put it on X (September 25): “When weighing who poses a greater threat to Gulf security and regional stability—Iran or Israel—the evidence points clearly to Israel. Israel’s brutal behavior has made it more dangerous than an exhausted Iran. The Gulf needs a new defensive and geopolitical strategy for the Middle East beyond Iran.”

Israel, however, now perceives a surplus of power and is pressing for a new political and security order that extends beyond the occupied territories. With the partial unraveling of the Iranian alliance and the breakdown of the “Syrian corridor” that once linked Tehran to the Mediterranean, Israel has set its sights on even more ambitious goals, including the proposed “David Corridor” and establishing buffer zones around its borders in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.

In response, a tentative regional coalition has begun to take shape, bringing together Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar, with notable support from Turkey and Pakistan. The latter signed a defense pact with Saudi Arabia following Israel’s strike on Qatar and has since become more engaged in regional diplomacy. While fragile and constrained, this alignment presents a rare historic opportunity to rebuild a regional balance of power and establish a new deterrence framework.

Another striking development is the shift in Europe’s stance toward Israel. For the first time, Israel has lost significant ground in Western public opinion and media narratives, particularly among younger generations and in universities. This has pushed Israel closer to isolation—a position from which former U.S. President Donald Trump had tried to rescue it through his proposed Gaza peace plan, which was largely about securing U.S. and Israeli interests, without offering real guarantees for Palestinian statehood or ending the occupation.

In conclusion, it is still too early to judge the full strategic consequences of the Al-Aqsa Flood and the war in Gaza. Scenarios remain open, and outcomes uncertain. Yet one thing is indisputable: the region today is no longer what it was before October 7.

Abu Rumman is an Academic Advisor of the Politics and Society Institute and Professor of Political Science in The University of Jordan and published this article in The Jordan Times.

Analyses

Can Trump Impose His Plan on Gaza?

CrossFireArabia
September 29, 2025

By Dr Amer Al Sabaileh

Leaks continue to emerge from Washington about the vision of the US administration and President Trump for the next phase in Gaza. From the so-called “Riviera” plan floated months ago, the discussion has now shifted to a proposal for a new governing structure: an “International Transitional Authority” that would oversee Gaza for no less than five years. If granted a UN mandate, this body would become the supreme political and legal authority in the Strip.

This is not the first time such ideas have surfaced. Throughout the past year, many debates revolved around possible frameworks for Gaza, including new local councils or administrative bodies—always with a firm insistence on excluding the Palestinian Authority’s return. But the latest leak appears more realistic than turning Gaza into a real estate project. It now points to a future shaped by new Palestinian technocrats, operating under international oversight, with figures close to Arab decision-making circles such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair being floated as possible players. The plan also shows more detail and coherence than previous notions, echoing elements from earlier UN initiatives, especially the principle of rejecting forced displacement or mass expulsion of Palestinians—something Netanyahu has openly opposed.

It is only natural that such ideas are presented not just as trial balloons but as potential answers to an intractable dilemma. The notion of internationalizing Gaza was laid out earlier, following the failure to stop the war and the inability to craft a viable local compromise. Any solution today is being imported from outside, yet still built on immovable foundations: stripping Gaza of weapons and removing Hamas from the Strip. This means we remain far from implementation. Demanding the release of all hostages, the disarmament of Hamas, and its full withdrawal reduces the problem to its simplest form, while in reality, the crisis is still at its peak, not at the stage of post-war arrangements.

The Arab role, increasingly visible in recent months, could prove decisive in shaping any solution. Gulf states, in particular, have stepped up their influence over the Trump administration’s regional outlook. This was evident in their opposition to annexation plans for the West Bank, which Trump raised in talks with Arab leaders. Israel, however, has already taken steps on the ground and shows no sign of reversing them. US pressure, therefore, is focused less on halting annexation altogether and more on blocking its formal declaration. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar even clarified that the debate is not about annexing Palestinian-owned land, but about applying Israeli law to settlements in Area C, signalling a plan to consolidate control without directly clashing with Trump.

Against this backdrop, Netanyahu used his speech at the UN to stress that the war is far from over. While showcasing Israel’s achievements against Iran and its allies, he reaffirmed his concept of the “seven fronts war,” insisting the threat is ongoing and escalation remains possible. This message was clearly aimed at Trump, but Netanyahu also sought to tap into Trump’s interest in a peace legacy, hinting at possible peace with Syria and Lebanon. Still, he tied this to guarantees for minority rights—particularly for the Druze—framing concessions within security needs while keeping escalation elsewhere on the table.

All of this suggests that the region, from now until the coming anniversary of October 7, will remain open to potential flare-ups. Israel’s government, under pressure to deliver even symbolic victories, will continue to play both cards of potential peace and the threat of ongoing confrontation as the second anniversary of the October 7 attack approaches.

The author is a columnist for the Jordan Times