Can Joseph Aoun Get Lebanon Out of its Rut?

By Dr Khairi Janbek

We have grown accustomed to Lebanon being in the headlines as a result of blood and destruction, but no longer. Whether due to the weakening of Iran, determination of the international community and/or both, all this appears to be changing.

Lebanon has now officially elected a new president, ending a long period of political crisis that has long left the country without a head of state since the term of former president Michel Aoun expired in late October 2022. After protracted negotiations and intense political maneuvering, not to mention Arab and international pressure, general Aoun, with a tough military reputation who has lead the army since 2017, has become the latest leader of the country.

General Aoun takes office amidst a period of significant economic and social challenges for Lebanon, as the country is grappling with an acute and ongoing financial crisis, soaring rates of unemployment, and the collapse of its currency, in addition to the refugee crisis and deteriorating infrastructure that has left Lebanon hanging by a thread.

In fact to top it all, the powerful sectarian political groups which hindered the election of a president for the past 26 months and more will not likely disappear with the election of general Aoun despite the seemingly robust character of the new leader.

The new 14th Lebanese president in his first address to parliament, vowed to work with all political factions to implement reforms and tackle the pressing economic issues that has long log-jammed the country. His speech was one that had determination and a sense of purpose and appeal with a rallying-cry for all of the fractious political groups of Lebanon.

Having said that, and despite the election in the Lebanese Parliament, the country’s future still remains uncertain with challenges. The new president will need to navigate carefully the deeply entrenched political system which often leads to gridlock and an inability to implement meaningful change.

Additionally, the country’s economy remains in freefall, with millions of Lebanese struggling to afford basic goods and services. Therefore, it is clear the road ahead will be a challenging one to say the least. Logically for many, the focus has already turned to whether the new president can live up to the promise of healing the nation and lead it towards a more stable system.

From the Arab and international perspectives, the messages of support from both seem to be encouraging, but this support will need to be translated into monetary terms for re-building the country. It is said there is the promise of $10 billion earmarked for this effort but frozen on the condition that Lebanon elects a president based.

Now this hurdle has been overcome and passed. At the end of the day as well, General Aoun is seen as the consensus candidate for the Arab countries as well as the international community. In this sense, the release of the re-building funds may look optimistic but there is still the snag of the question of Hezbollah and Israel’s future belligerent intentions towards the country, issues that are still to be ironed out.

The new Lebanese administration needs guarantees from Hezbollah in as much as it needs guarantees from the new Lebanese administration, and the Arab and international community eagerly awaits the results of this dimension because, putting it bluntly, no one wishes to see their investments blown up in another war nor their money burnt in smoke.

All that one can say under the circumstances, is that General Aoun, and he is the fourth president to be chosen from the military establishment, can negotiate with Hezbollah to surrender their heavy weapons to the Lebanese Army while keeping their light weapons; at least for the time being, and stay away from the Litani River as demanded by Israel.

But this will need considerable political dexterity and acumen.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian analyst based in Paris

Continue reading
Netanyahu: Ideologue, Pragmatist or a Proxy?

Dr Khairi Janbek

PARIS – When talking about the Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, we must not miss the point that in effect he is a politician, thus, he is both an ideologue and a pragmatist. He is an ideologue when he feels he can go all the way with brinkmanship and get away with it, and he is a pragmatist, when realizes that he should stop and talk. However, by and large that usually depends on the position of the USA primarily, and on the regional situation in the second degree.

He was a pragmatist, when he originally gave his implicit support to Hamas as a guardian of peace in Gaza, and the guarantor of border security with Israel, and he was an ideologue when he demanded that the PNA accepts that Israel is a Jewish state, and accept moreover, that any form of a Palestinian state ought to be demilitarized and just a guardian of the border with Israel.

https://twitter.com/LegitTargets/status/1847287962024747060

He was an ideologue when avenging the 7 October events and a pragmatist in letting the hostage crisis drag on. He chose to head a government in which he can present himself as the only one whom the world can talk to when compared to his extremist colleagues, through his masque of pragmatism, rather than go into a government with partners whom will make him look as the only ideologue among pragmatists.

Again, this Netanyahu dualism, be that the ideologue who has the freedom to do as he sees fit, or the pragmatist who gets to know his boundaries one cannot say is clear, at least for the moment. For all intents and purposes, the red apple of the so-called Abrahamic Accord, Saudi Arabia, remains illusive, as the Saudis have indicted in no uncertain terms, that any prospects of normalization are conditional on at least, reviving the two-state solution. But at the same time, Netanyahu still has working relationships with the UAE and Bahrain in the Gulf as well as Qatar.

As for the older cold peace partners, Jordan and Egypt, Netanyahu is content that at least the situation is stable as it could be.

Now, will Netanyahu be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat when it comes to Trump, or does he really feel that he can take Trump for granted? The current thought in the Middle East fluctuates between those two guesses. But in reality with a paradigm shift, perhaps we can see things clearer. For a start, we are currently living in the age of separation of economics and business from the world of politics, also the separation of interests from principled positions. This age is not created by either Netanyahu or Trump but it certainly suits their relationship fine.

One thing for certain, Netanyahu can rely on Trump’s support as an intransigent ideologue, for Israel is undoubtedly the advanced military post of the USA, but also as a pragmatist, he has to understand to what extent he can be a tool of US foreign interests especially that Trump is very much fond of the concept of proxies and does not like infringements on his business deals.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian historian based in Paris and the above opinion is written exclusively for crossfirearabia.com. 

Continue reading
Can Lebanon’s Ceasefire Lead to a Gaza Let up?

The cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon is raising questions about whether a similar truce could bring an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Statements from around the world have given rise to cautious hope, such as the US saying it aims to use the Lebanon truce “as a catalyst for a potential Gaza cease-fire,” but prospects of something actually materializing remain uncertain.

Palestinian academic Sami Al-Arian believes Israel does not want a cease-fire in Gaza, at least “for the time being.”

“Knowing that (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu will be facing prison once the war ends in Gaza, it doesn’t seem like he’s interested in either getting the hostages out or ending this genocidal war,” he told Anadolu.

Israel, he said, has been trying to “annihilate the (Palestinian) resistance” but failed to do so, or “free their captives with military means.”

“They have been trying for 14 months and they have failed miserably,” he said, adding that going for a cease-fire in such conditions would not fit in with Israel’s goals.

Israeli expert Ori Goldberg also finds chances of a truce in Gaza difficult, pointing to Netanyahu’s own statement rejecting that specific possibility.

He said the Israeli premier, now a man wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, is unlikely to agree to cease-fire terms that risk his political standing.

“Various countries have already stated a renewed commitment to a hostage deal, but a cease-fire in Gaza will have to include a detailed schedule for Israeli withdrawal,” Goldberg said.

“I have trouble seeing Netanyahu agreeing to that in Gaza … If he agrees to it in Gaza, he will seem weaker.”

Another factor, he added, is how much “the Israeli public supports the presence of the Israeli military in Gaza, much more than it does in Lebanon.”

Why did Israel agree to Lebanon cease-fire?

Experts say Israel’s main reason for agreeing to the Lebanon truce was because it failed to achieve its military goals against Hezbollah.

“They wanted to push Hezbollah to the north of the Litani River but that failed. They wanted to disarm Hezbollah, and that failed,” said Al-Arian, adding that Israel opted for a cessation of hostilities because its forces were suffering.

“They wanted to impinge on Lebanese sovereignty and be able to fly over the airspace of Lebanon and control the border. That failed.”

Other goals of returning illegal Israeli settlers to Lebanese lands or creating a buffer zone also failed, he added.

Al-Arian emphasized that the current agreement is “not a cease-fire” but a truce for 60 days, reiterating that Israel’s only reason for agreeing was that “they were not able to bring Hezbollah to its knees and surrender.”

Ali Rizk, a Lebanese security analyst, presented a slightly different view, saying that both Israel and Hezbollah needed the truce.

“Hezbollah needed a cease-fire because it had suffered some heavy blows,” he told Anadolu.

Hezbollah’s supporters, particularly among the Shia community, were targeted by Israel, with many of them being displaced, and there was “immense human suffering with the onset of the winter season,” he added.

For Israel, Rizk believes they “initially had the momentum in their favor, especially after the assassination of Hezbollah’s former leader Syed Hassan Nasrallah, but gradually that momentum appeared to fade away.”

“They encountered some heavy resistance in the south. A lot of their soldiers lost their lives in the south. Hezbollah missile and rocket attacks continued,” he said.

In his own statement, while Netanyahu “didn’t say it, but he was implying that the Israeli military was suffering from some kind of a fatigue,” Rizk pointed out.

The US was another factor, he said, as it never wanted – since October 2023 – the “situation to erupt, to explode in Lebanon.”

“They (US) welcomed any steps and they took the opportunity when they found that these circumstances were appropriate and they sent Amos Hochstein,” said Rizk, referring to Biden’s special envoy.

“There were several factors – Hezbollah’s interests, Israeli interests and US interests – and I think they all converge in the same direction.”

Israeli analyst Goldberg also believes Netanyahu agreed to a truce because his forces were not accomplishing their goals in Lebanon.

“He wants to keep the Israeli military in Gaza. There’s no victory there, so he wanted something that would be a feather in his cap … He agreed to it in Lebanon because these are two sovereign states,” he said.

Will Lebanon cease-fire hold and what comes next?

On the durability of the Lebanon truce, Rizk struck an optimistic tone.

“If you look at what happened in 2006, Resolution 1701, that ended that conflict and it spoke about a cessation of hostilities,” he said, adding that the situation remained calm from 2006 till 2023.

“It’s quite possible that … we could have a long-term calm again … because it’s clear that neither the Israelis nor the Americans have an interest in the situation exploding.”

With Trump coming to power soon, having made clear his aversion to any war or military adventures, it would be fair to say “there is a good chance that this agreement is going to hold,” he added.

Goldberg, however, was more cautious in his outlook.

“I think the cease-fire will hold, even though there are provisions … that suggest that Israel can open fire and use violence whenever it likes. We will see how this happens,” he said.

“I think Netanyahu has an interest in the cease-fire holding because that gives him carte blanche in Gaza.”

Rizk, meanwhile, also believes that a formula could be reached to end the Gaza genocide and go ahead with a hostage deal.

“In July, according to reports, (US President-elect Donald) Trump told Netanyahu that he wants the situation done, and he wants the war to come to an end,” he said.

“If you look at Trump’s appointments and his mandate, it seems that he doesn’t want anything to do with a new conflict in the Middle East. He’s even given indications that he wants to deal with Iran, so that leads me to conclude that his foreign policy priorities are going to be elsewhere, which requires calm in this part of the world.”

Continue reading
Experts: ICC Arrest Warrants is Start For More Israeli Sanctions

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant could open the floodgates for more legal challenges for other Israeli officials, as well as Western nations supporting the ongoing genocide in Gaza, experts say.

On Nov. 21, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber 1 issued warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant accusing them of using starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza, along with the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

Israeli academic and law professor Neve Gordon believes this could be the tip of an iceberg of cases and warrants against other top Israeli military officials and leaders.

“It is clear that while Netanyahu and Gallant were at the very top of the decision-making and policymaking apparatus, but there are several other high-ranking politicians and military personnel that are implicated in the starvation and in the systematic attacks on health care,” Gordon, an international law professor at Queen Mary University of London, told Anadolu.

“I will not be surprised if in the coming months or even coming years, there will be warrants against the chief of staff, maybe some other generals, the current defense minister, and maybe other ministers.”

Legal expert Michael Becker pointed to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan’s statement and reference to ongoing lines of inquiry as an indicator of what could come next.

“It could mean additional charges sought against Netanyahu and Gallant. It could also mean new requests for arrest warrants against other potential defendants,” he said.

“There’s probably no shortage of possible candidates that the court might be interested in pursuing.”

For the initial stage, he said the ICC made “a concerted effort to focus their efforts on the leadership, and those people most responsible for making policy decisions about how to conduct the operation in Gaza.”

“It is, of course, possible that other people could end up being the target or the subject of arrest warrants,” Becker, assistant professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin, told Anadolu.

Also, he added, the warrants issued do not cover all the charges sought by the prosecutor, most notably the crime against humanity of extermination.

“We might see the prosecutor try to challenge that determination as the process goes on, in order to get that charge included,” he explained.


Legal troubles for Israel’s allies

Experts say the ICC warrants could also lead to legal troubles for Western governments that are selling arms to Israel and supporting it militarily.

“The pre-trial chamber has opened an avenue for a whole series of other legal petitions in domestic courts, particularly in Europe, where countries continue to send arms to Israel,” said Gordon.

Given the ICC’s charges against the Israeli leaders, these countries are violating their own laws because most of them have a memorandum of arms trade setting out certain conditions, he explained.

Each country “legally restricts itself from trading arms with entities that carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

“There is a high possibility, according to the ruling by the pre-trial chamber, that Israel has carried out crimes against humanity,” he continued.

“Therefore, by continuing to trade arms with Israel, these countries are in danger of being complicit with crimes against humanity, and that is against their own laws.”

This gives human rights organizations and NGOs in these countries the space to file cases against their governments in domestic courts, he said.

“This can actually lead to an arms embargo on Israel, not by the US, but by Germany, Italy, UK, Spain and France, which are the major European countries that trade arms with Israel,” said Gordon.

As opposed to the US and Israel itself, most of Tel Aviv’s European allies are members of the ICC, part of 124 countries around the world that are now legally obliged to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant should they set foot on their territory.

Most of Israel’s European allies, such as France and Italy, have said they would uphold international law and execute the warrants. Other European nations that have said the same include Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

The UK has also vowed to “always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law and indeed international law,” but has not explicitly said it would arrest the duo.

Germany has pledged continued support for Israel, with a government spokesperson saying the country generally supports the ICC, but it has not yet decided whether it would actually implement the arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant.


Parallel investigations in West Bank, East Jerusalem

In his statement on the warrants, ICC Prosecutor Khan said his office is also “taking forward additional lines of inquiry in areas under the Court’s jurisdiction, which include Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”

Palestinians in the occupied West Bank have been subjected to ever-escalating Israeli violence and repression in parallel to the genocide in Gaza, with at least 797 killed and more than 6,000 wounded since last October. According to the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now, there are more than 720,000 illegal settlers in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

“I think that one of the things that we have been witnessing particularly since October 2023 is the kind of efforts to displace communities in the West Bank from their ancestral lands, particularly in the South Hebron Hills and in the Jordan Valley, not far from Ramallah,” said Gordon.

“I think there is a chance that the prosecutor will look at the kinds of efforts to displace Palestinians and replace them with Jewish settlers, which is part of the settler colonial logic of cleaning the land from its indigenous inhabitants.”

Earlier this month, Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly called for annexation of the occupied West Bank, drawing worldwide condemnation.

Smotrich, defying international law, declared that “the only way to remove the threat of a Palestinian state from the agenda is to apply Israeli sovereignty over the settlements in Judea and Samaria (West Bank),” vowing that 2025 will be the year for Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territory.


Impact on ICJ case

Becker, a former staffer at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), pointed out the interplay between the ICC charges and those in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ.

He said the ICC prosecutor’s decision to focus on the war crime of starvation when he filed for warrants in May arguably was encouraged or facilitated by the ICJ’s provisional measures order in March.

“Out of the three different provisional measures, the risk of starvation and famine was really the focus of that March order. So, it was interesting to see that was what the prosecutors seem to be focused on,” he said, adding that starvation was again a focal point in the warrants.

While any concrete progress at both courts could take years, the ICC warrants could impact the ICJ case in other ways, he said.

The language used in the pre-trial chamber’s decision to justify the warrants “tracks exactly some of the language from the Genocide Convention, even though the charges that the prosecutor has sought are not charges of genocide,” he explained.

“That’s important in the sense that it might give the ICJ further grounds, or the ICJ might find themselves operating on firmer ground, if they also find that Israel’s actions in Gaza have created conditions of life intended to destroy a part of the population, because that’s the language we see in the pre-trial chamber and that tracks language from Article II of the Genocide Convention.”


‘Disincentive for Israel to de-escalate’

On the question of whether the ICC warrants or threat of more legal troubles could stop Israel’s assault on Gaza, Becker fears it could end up having an “opposite effect.”

“If Israel’s defense all along, as it has been, is that we’re not doing anything wrong and we are complying with international law, Israeli officials might say we actually now have no incentive to change our tactics,” he said.

The thinking there could be that if they do make changes, they would “risk that being framed as some kind of admission that what we were doing before was wrong.”

“So, perversely, I think that the ICC arrest warrants might actually be a disincentive for Israel to de-escalate,” he added.

Since last Thursday, Israel has killed at least 150 Palestinians as it continues its relentless attacks on Gaza, raising the overall death toll to nearly 44,200, most of them women and children.

More than 105,000 Palestinians have also been wounded in Israeli attacks, while a crippling siege on water, power, fuel, and all humanitarian essentials has left more than 2 million Palestinians facing death and starvation.

Continue reading
Israeli Army Fails in Ground Campaign in Lebanon

On 1 October, Israel announced the start of its ground military operation into Lebanon, which included air strikes, artillery shelling, and assassinations, but the Israeli occupation army has not yet been able to position itself in any village or town its soldiers have entered due to the resistance from Hezbollah fighters.

High Death Toll

According to Hezbollah the toll of Israeli army losses since the start of what it called the “ground maneuver in southern Lebanon” reached more than 100 dead and 1,000 wounded officers and soldiers, in addition to the destruction of 43 Merkava tanks, 8 military bulldozers, 2 Hummer vehicles, 2 armored vehicles, and 2 personnel carriers, and the downing of 4 Hermes 450 drones, and 2 Hermes 900 drones.

Despite talk of an imminent truce, Israel is still continuing its military escalation and announced the start of a second phase of the “ground incursion” targeting Lebanese villages outside the scope of its first operation in the south of the country.

Military experts told Al Jazeera Israel was surprised by the intensity of the resistance it faced during the ground incursion, despite its success in assassinating a large number of military leaders at the first and second levels.

This partial success prompted it to modify its strategy and shift to a new tactic based on entering areas, booby-trapping buildings, then detonating them, and quickly withdrawing to avoid further human losses, especially after the resistance succeeded in setting up ambushes.

Why has the Israeli army not been able to occupy any Lebanese village despite the military buildup on the northern border for more than a month?

Unable to occupy a single village

Military expert Brigadier-General Hassan Jouni confirmed to Al Jazeera the Israeli military buildup. Despite its five divisions with between 50,000 and 60,000 soldiers according to the Hebrew media, the Israeli army was unable to occupy a single village. He explained there is a fundamental difference in military science between the concepts of raid and occupation.

According to Jouni, a raid is defined as an advance towards a specific target with the aim of detonating or booby-trapping it or carrying out a security or military mission, such as arresting or liquidating someone, followed by a rapid withdrawal. Occupation means controlling a specific target and positioning oneself there, while establishing defensive centres to protect it.

Regarding the events in the south, he considered that what happened was advanced raids targeting specific villages with the aim of destroying them and withdrawing without the intention of remaining.

Jouni pointed out the Israeli decision not to station themselves in those locations came as a result of the fierce resistance their forces faced there, as they realized that any attempt to remain would make them vulnerable to continuous attacks by the resistance, which intensified its targeting of their movements towards the border villages and towns with artillery and missiles.

Does this situation reflect the strength of the Lebanese resistance and/or is it a military strategy followed by the occupation army?

According to Jouni the concentrated ground operation aimed to penetrate deep into Lebanese territory to reach the Litani River, especially after the harsh strikes against the Hezbollah leadership. However, Israel, after believing the resistance had been exhausted, was surprised by its intensity and steadfastness, which prompted it to modify its strategies. Therefore, the actual penetration was less than expected and was limited to a depth of no more than three kilometers.

What is the military significance of the strategy of the occupation army entering border villages and booby-trapping them without completely occupying them?

Blowing up cities

Military expert Brigadier-General Ali Abi Raad told Al Jazeera Net the Israelis seek to achieve two basic goals by blowing up cities. They are:

First, to facilitate the movement of their forces during military operations. In areas that contain buildings, progress becomes more difficult due to the risk of the presence of resistance fighters inside them, which forces them to destroy these buildings to open the way for their movements.

Second, to make these areas uninhabitable, especially those that are considered an “environment for resistance”, such as southern Lebanon. By destroying them, the Israelis isolate the environment that supports the resistance, and punish the residents who may be part of it. This strategy is known as “punitive deterrence”.

Abi Raad confirms that this strategy is not new, but part of the Israeli occupation’s approach in all areas it controls, whether in Gaza, West Bank and/or Lebanon. This approach has been witnessed in several wars, including the 2006 war on Lebanon.

Burned areas?

Is the Israeli occupation seeking to impose a new reality by turning the border areas into burned areas instead of being demilitarized?

Military expert Abi Raad points out the Israelis are seeking to impose a fait accompli by using internationally banned weapons, such as phosphorous and vacuum bombs, and stated that MK84 bombs were used in the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary-General of Hezbollah, and are currently being used in the bombing of the southern suburbs and a number of Lebanese border villages.

He explained that the effects of these shells are clear, as buildings fall completely to the ground and turn into ash, and that the resulting craters reach a width of 3 meters and a length of 7 to 8 meters, or more in some cases, reflecting the extent of the great destruction.

In his opinion, this problem represents a major threat, as the goal of the destruction is to eliminate life in those areas in the long term. He explained that if the war stops now, the reconstruction process is expected to take at least two years, wondering what the situation will be like if the destruction continues and the war worsens?

Do these tactics form part of a strategy aimed at pushing Hezbollah away from the border areas?

Brigadier-General Abi Raad says Hezbollah is part of the population of the south who are closely connected to their land and this war is “defending their lands”, as the border strip is close to homes that were built at huge costs, making it difficult for people to leave them easily, and they will return to them no matter what. Therefore, the idea of ​​​​removing the party from the south or the area south of the Litani is “unrealistic”.

On the political level, he believes an agreement may be reached on stripping  Hezbollah of its weapons in those areas, but the issue is not limited to a range of only 10 or 20 kilometers.

He explained the issue goes beyond the type of weapons the party possesses and the areas in which it is present. When it possesses missiles with a range of up to 100 or even 250 kilometers, then removing it to the north of the Litani will have little effect.

Continue reading