Opinion Archives - CrossFireArarbia

Mad President and Street Brawl

CrossFireArabia
March 1, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

People from my generation remember a pop group which used to sing a song called the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Now, they were not themselves lunatics but merely performing for their audience and their fans, in the same manner. Neither Trump nor his band wagon are necessarily a bunch of thugs, but they are merely performing for their fans and audience.

However one cannot find any reason for world leaders to go to the Oval Office in order to provide US president Donald Trump with the material to entertain his fans and audience.

He ambushed King Abdullah of Jordan with the entry of journalists when that was not supposed to happen in order to market his absurd Gaza plan, president Emmanuel Macron of France provided him with the opportunity of posturing as an antagonist to the EU, prime minister Keir Starmer provided him with the opportunity of showing what Britain was groveling for – a free trade agreement and a role of being a bridge between the US and EU.

Ironically however, the worst of the Trump performance was left for Volodymr Zelensky, though his trip was the only one that made sense.

Zelensky for all intents and purposes, went to sign an agreement to hand the resources of Ukraine to America, but suddenly the situation deteriorated to almost a street brawl. Why? The whole thing was agreed upon by both sides from the start.

Of course, Zelensky expected a protection commitment from the USA in exchange for the mineral resources, but in fairness, without an explicit US commitment protection would have been implicitly there since supposedly, American companies and workers would be working in Ukraine, so what has actually happened to derail the whole agreement?

Of course, any such agreement with potential implicit US protection of Ukraine, is totally against Russian interests, especially according to some speculation, Putin has the intention to occupy the whole of Ukraine, therefore the talk in the corridors, is that Putin has offered Trump the exploitation of Ukrainian resources in the occupied territories of Russia, which in effect sabotaged the minerals agreement between US and Ukraine, and rescued Trump from having to give security guarantees; albeit implicit to Ukraine.

Now, at the peril of repeating the usual cliche of the EU facing a crossroad on its path, something which had happened frequently, this time it’s in fact different. The truth is that the US has been distancing itself from the EU at least from the days of president Obama, but the difference now is that the EU is being attacked by both the US and Russia, and finds itself as the large leviathan with clay feet unable to move.

The dilemma of differences within the EU are prominent, with full support for Ukraine, with some having lukewarm support, while some with no support at all, moreover the NATO future is hanging in the balance, to keep or not to keep that is the question, but what is the alternative? A European army which is yet to crystallize as an idea, or just drop all the effort?

What it boils down to now, is the idea of leadership of the “Free World”, certainly this notion has always been a nebulous idea, still, the US stood by it and projected its image accordingly, but now, it seems the US is not interested in world affairs except in what it can exploit and use and abuse for its own interests, which means, who will be the new leader of the Free World?

In fact, is there a need for a leader of the free world assuming that there is such a world? If the EU has any such pretensions, then big changes are necessary within its membership as it must be realized the road is very long for such an objective. But in the mean time, we have to settle for the theory of the mad president, ie. Trump would do anything, and peace by force with an oxymoron.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Opinion

Putting The Cart Before The Horse

CrossFireArabia
February 26, 2025

With the approach of the Cairo Summit to discuss the Palestinian issue and the reconstruction of Gaza, Arab leaders find themselves facing three main scenarios to make decisive decisions that determine the future of Gaza and the fate of the Palestinians the day after the cessation of the war. The dilemma is no longer limited to reconstruction only but also includes the political and administrative arrangements that ensure the stability of the sector and prevent the recurrence of the devastating conflict.

From the American side, it seems that the Trump administration is adopting a more stringent approach, as it recently stated the necessity of displacing Palestinians from Gaza as a “solution” to ensure regional security, which reflects its traditional position biased towards Israel and complicates any Arab efforts to find an independent solution for the sector.

This American position raises great concerns in Arab and international circles, given the disastrous consequences it carries for the Palestinians and the entire region, especially in light of the widespread international rejection of forced displacement policies.

The first scenario involves adopting a comprehensive regional solution led by Arabs, aiming to place Gaza under temporary Arab administration, which may include Egypt and perhaps some Gulf states, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. In this scenario, a transitional body would be established to administer the Strip, which would undertake reconstruction operations, organize basic services, and reorganize the security situation in a way that prevents the recurrence of the conflict.

This body could also work to pave the way for comprehensive Palestinian elections to be held later, so that Gaza would be part of a unified Palestinian entity.

This temporary administration would work to restructure institutions within the Strip, ensure the regular provision of health and education services, and rehabilitate infrastructure damaged by the war. It would also undertake the tasks of securing the crossings and ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid, while imposing strict control to prevent the infiltration of any elements that might contribute to destabilization.

It is expected that the contributing Arab states would have different roles, as Egypt could handle security aspects, while the Gulf states would contribute to financing and reconstruction. This option requires Arab and international consensus, as well as internal Palestinian acceptance, which may be difficult in light of the differences between the factions.

Israel may not view this scenario favorably, as it strengthens the Arab role in Gaza and limits its influence there. In addition, the success of this scenario depends on the Arabs’ ability to impose a unified vision and work to reduce external interventions that may hinder this solution. Ultimately, this scenario remains a realistic option, but it is fraught with challenges that require active diplomacy and strong political will.

As for the second scenario, it is to support the restructuring of the Palestinian Authority and grant it full control over Gaza after reaching internal understandings with the various factions, including Hamas. In this framework, the security services are integrated into a unified framework under the supervision of the Authority, and the administrative institutions are unified, with an Arab and international commitment to provide financial and logistical support to ensure the success of this transition.

One of the main pillars of this scenario is rebuilding trust between the various Palestinian factions, which requires intensive efforts from regional and international mediators, especially Egypt and the United Nations. This proposal also requires providing guarantees that the faction leaders will not be targeted or excluded from the political scene, which necessitates establishing a joint governance mechanism for a transitional period.

This scenario depends primarily on the ability of the Palestinian Authority to impose its effective control over the Strip, which is doubtful, especially in light of the deep differences between the West Bank and Gaza, and the lack of trust between the Palestinian parties.

In addition, Hamas’s acceptance of this proposal may be conditional on effective participation in governance, which may not be acceptable to Israel or some regional powers. Moreover, this solution faces obstacles related to the extent of the international community’s ability to commit to funding reconstruction, and to ensuring that Israel does not obstruct any efforts aimed at strengthening the Palestinian Authority’s control over the Strip.

The third scenario, which may be the most complex, is to impose an international solution under the auspices of the United Nations, whereby international peacekeeping forces are deployed to oversee the administration of Gaza for a transitional period, during which the Strip is rebuilt, and the political conditions are prepared to find a comprehensive Palestinian settlement.

In this scenario, the infrastructure is rehabilitated, security guarantees are provided to prevent the outbreak of new confrontations, while the way is opened for an internal Palestinian dialogue under international auspices to reach an agreement on the future of governance in Gaza.

This scenario also includes international supervision of the rehabilitation of civilian institutions in Gaza, ensuring the distribution of aid, and preventing the use of resources in any military activities that may lead to a renewal of the conflict.

It could also contribute to reactivating the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis through an international mechanism that ensures the implementation of any understandings reached.

However, this option faces several obstacles, most notably the rejection by some Palestinian forces of any direct international intervention in Palestinian affairs, and Israel may refuse to deploy international forces near its borders, preferring to keep Gaza under siege or in a state of instability that keeps it weak and unable to pose a security threat.

Moreover, any international intervention will require consensus among the major powers, which may be difficult to achieve in light of global political tensions. Each of these scenarios carries its own challenges, and the optimal choice remains linked to the extent of the Arabs’ ability to unify their positions and make bold decisions that go beyond narrow political calculations.

The main challenge lies in reaching a solution that spares Gaza further destruction, establishes a new phase of stability and development, and ensures that the Palestinian issue is not exploited in regional conflicts. The question remains: Will the Cairo Summit be able to overcome Arab differences and present a unified vision to save Gaza and its future?

Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University

Opinion

Seismic Shift Across The Atlantic

CrossFireArabia
February 25, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Even before Trump’s coming of age, which is a long way away, or more accurately so, coming to power, one often wondered about the status of the European Union (EU) in the world of changing circumstances and the existential meaning of its presence on the world power map among the increasing differences among its member states.

Although and frankly, differences always existed within the Union, the Russian invasion of Ukraine made those differences more acute, sharper and penchant materializing between those Europeans fearing being next on the Russian menu, those who want an assertive position against Moscow, those reluctant either way, and those who are out rightly pro-Russia.

Evidently, having unity among the 27 European countries which are not necessarily different in their political structures, yet having necessarily different strategic interests end up with infighting, recriminations and threats.

As well what makes things near-impossible, is that the EU does not have a mechanism to expel a fellow-member from the Union, so one is always beleiving that there is hope that an obtrusive member of the Union would walk out voluntarily in the manner made by the British Brexit.

Now it is more complicated. Not only the EU is having to deal with a possible Russian threat, but also a looming trade war with the US that is compounded with the distinct possibility that America may be withdrawing its protection umbrella from Europe.

Of course, this legitimately raises the question about the future of NATO; a question which was raised before especially after the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. This ultimately means a new form of a military alliance will be required for the EU.

Ideally, one would have thought a smaller EU entity, leaner and meaner, with incorporation of Britain in it, would the best option, while the rest of Europe, from its center to its eastern side, hitched by accords with Russia and the USA.

This would be far better instead of the current large European crippled Levathian with Britain running like a headless chicken proposing to be the bridge between the USA and EU, a link both sides of the Atlantic believe it’s too far a gap for any meaningful effect.

Having said all that, there is a window of opportunity now with the new government in Germany, showing more courageous initiatives in wanting to see a reset of the Atlantic relationship, which falls well with President Macron of France, the other core member of the EU which has the idea of creating a single European army to protect the EU and its interests.

When it comes to transnational trade, the absurdity of the war of tariffs will hurt all including the American economy, though European companies whose main market is in the USA will go and invest in America, but those US companies whose main market is Europe, will invest in the EU.

Essentially, the seismic shift in relations across the Atlantic is set to commence with most probably less profits but more fairness.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Opinion

Who is Going to Rebuild Gaza?

CrossFireArabia
February 25, 2025

No official announcement was made following the Riyadh Summit, which was considered fraternal, friendly, and consultative rather than formal. The summit, held a few days ago, was attended by the Gulf states, along with Jordan and Egypt, in anticipation of the Cairo Summit scheduled for March 4. The Cairo Summit is expected to approve and announce a new Arab plan for rebuilding Gaza as an alternative to Trump’s plan. However, more importantly, the Arab plan presents a comprehensive political approach linking the Gaza issue to the establishment of a Palestinian state and a peaceful resolution in the region. This approach counters Israel’s new policies, which are based on political hegemony—not only in Palestine by eliminating the two-state solution but also by expanding Israel’s security boundaries to include parts of Syria and Lebanon and inciting the U.S. into a confrontation with Iran.

The Egyptian-Arab approach is still in its final stages of preparation. It takes into account a combination of financial, technical, political, and security aspects concerning Gaza. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa has proposed modifications to the plan originally put forward by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the European Union, which estimated the cost of rebuilding Gaza at over $50 billion in a rapid and preliminary needs and damage assessment report (IRDNA). Instead, Mustafa proposed a more realistic and feasible plan costing no more than $20 billion, to be implemented in three phases. The Egyptians have incorporated this into their reconstruction plan, which includes dividing Gaza into three safe zones, using temporary housing (caravans) and tents, and developing a technical vision for redesigning the sector’s infrastructure through specialized Egyptian companies.

The Arab approach links the reconstruction plan to several key elements. The first is the technical, logistical, and financial aspect of rebuilding. The second is reforming the Palestinian Authority (PA) to counter Israeli claims of its incompetence, with reform measures covering political and security aspects. The third element concerns the administration of Gaza in the post-occupation phase. A significant development has occurred with the Palestinians agreeing on a temporary administrative committee responsible for technocratic affairs. Hamas has accepted this arrangement, and President Mahmoud Abbas has reluctantly agreed to it, as it implicitly means that the PA will not return to Gaza.

The most challenging aspect of the Arab plan lies in the security arrangements during the reconstruction phase. Arab states refuse to deploy security forces or enter Gaza without a clear vision for ending the Israeli occupation and establishing a Palestinian state. As Arab diplomats emphasize, what is needed is not just a roadmap for resolving the Palestinian issue, but rather an agreement on final-status issues and recognition of a Palestinian state—followed by a roadmap for implementation, not the other way around.

The most contentious issue in the Arab approach is Hamas’s weapons. Israel, along with the United States, will not accept Hamas retaining its weapons in Gaza. Israel has made it clear that it links the second phase of the process to this condition, and the U.S. has accepted this demand. On the other hand, the Arab side ties the issue of disarming non-state actors to the establishment of a Palestinian state that would have the exclusive right to possess weapons. The key question remains: Who would disarm Hamas? The only legitimate entity that could do so is a recognized Palestinian state, which remains the missing piece in U.S. policies that align with Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision.

The Arabs hope that this approach will establish a new framework for relations with the United States and offer alternative strategic options. They even believe it could persuade President Donald Trump to secure several achievements—perhaps even earning him a Nobel Peace Prize in the end.

This is undoubtedly a highly optimistic approach, but it represents a new Arab attempt to present a united position and alternative strategic options. However, the biggest challenge this vision overlooks lies in the details. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” What kind of Palestinian state is actually possible under the current circumstances? What was previously proposed by Trump himself? Is there a single Palestinian—any Palestinian—who could accept a state comprising only 30% of the West Bank, without East Jerusalem, and without control over borders? How could Hamas and its supporters—or even the majority of Palestinian refugees—be convinced of such a proposal, even if there were Israeli and American acceptance of the new Arab approach?

Mohammad Abu Rumman is a columnist in The Jordan Times.

Opinion

Israel’s War on Palestine

CrossFireArabia
February 25, 2025

Israel’s intensification of its military assault against the northern West Bank and its forced displacement of its Palestinian communities marks a dangerous grave violence and human rights violations.

The Israeli army has been conducting the military operation “Iron Wall” in the northern occupied West Bank since January 21, killing until date more than 56 Palestinians and displacing thousands.

The assault came amid rising tensions in the occupied West Bank, where at least 917 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 7,000 others injured in attacks by the Israeli army and illegal settlers since the start of the Gaza war on October 7, 2023, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

Since the start of the operation several refugee camps have been nearly emptied of their residents, the largest displacement in the occupied territory since the 1967 Mideast war.

DAILY SABAH @DailySabah
The unfolding tragedy in East Jerusalem – by Najla M. Shahwan / DS Opinion https://t.co/9yOiTfxAZS pic.twitter.com/fG9KhC5PGQ
— Erhan Yalvaç (@ErhanYalvac1) June 12, 2023

Starting in Jenin Camp, the operation has expanded to Tulkarm, Nur Shams, and El Far’a refugee camps witnessing a comprehensive, Israeli -driven war of destruction that led to the forcible displacement of more than 40,000 Palestinian refugees.

Repeated and destructive operations have rendered the northern refugee camps uninhabitable, trapping residents in cyclical displacement. However, in 2024, more than 60 per cent of displacement was a result of Israeli Forces operations, an increasingly dangerous and coercive environment absent any judicial orders.

Daily reports from displaced residents described a pattern where they were led out of their homes by Israeli security forces and drones under the threat of violence.

They were then forced out of their towns with snipers positioned on rooftops around them and houses in their neighborhoods used as posts by Israeli security forces according to the UN Human Rights Office.

“Leave this place and forget the camp. You will never return. Move now before we destroy it completely,” the Israeli security forces threatened the residents.

Other eyewitness testimonies also recounted similar statements by Israeli security force members who reportedly told displaced residents to “forget” and “say goodbye” to their homes, stressing they would not be allowed to return.

One resident reported being told to “go to Jordan.”

Besides, Jenin refugee camp roads were bulldozed recently with new signs apparently giving several streets Hebrew names, UN Human Rights Office said.

This is happening while statements by Israeli officials persist in communicating open plans to annex the region, empty it of Palestinians, and expel them out of the occupied Palestinian territory.

The use of air strikes, armored bulldozers, controlled detonations, and advanced weaponry by the Israeli Forces has become routine, militarised approach that is inconsistent with the law enforcement context of the Occupied West Bank, where there have been at least 38 airstrikes in 2025 alone.

Moreover, on February 19, the Israeli army has prevented thousands of displaced Palestinians from returning to their homes in the Jenin refugee camp and the

Camp stands empty today, evoking memories of the second intifada.

This scene stands to be repeated in other camps.

On the other hand, accompanied by soldiers, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered a Palestinian home in the Tulkarem refugee camp in the northern West Bank on February 21, announcing a new military operation in the occupied West Bank.

“We are destroying entire streets, eliminating militants, and I have instructed reinforcements in the West Bank along with additional military operations,” Netanyahu said in a recorded statement from Tulkarem, released by his office.

Earlier on the same day, the Israeli army announced the deployment of three additional battalions to the occupied West Bank following Netanyahu’s directive for a “strong operation.”

All this is a part of a plan to uproot Palestinian refugee camps, similar to the events that took place in Gaza and reminiscent of the 1948 Nakba.

This lines up with Israel’s vision of a war declared since a long time on the UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees which has reached the climax during the war on Gaza.

Under the Knesset laws implemented on January 30, UNRWA no longer has any contact with the Israeli authorities, making it impossible to raise concerns about civilian suffering or the urgent need for the delivery of humanitarian assistance which puts at grave risk the lives of Palestine Refugees and the UNRWA staff that serve them too.

UNRWA reiterates that civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected at all times and that collective punishment is never acceptable.

There are about 912,879 registered Palestinian refugees in the occupied West Bank, around a quarter of whom live in 19 refugee camps mostly densely populated camps, located next to major towns and others are in rural areas, according to UNRWA.

Israel views these camps as incubators of armed Palestinian struggle, as it seeks to eradicate the refugee issue and the right of return.

Any forcible transfer in or deportation of people from occupied territory is strictly prohibited and amounts to a crime under international law.

Rather than abide by these rules, Israel has openly defied international law time and again, inflicting maximum suffering on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory and beyond.

Displaced Palestinians must be allowed to return to their homes and Israel must comply with its obligations under international law, which include ending its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible and evacuate all occupied West Bank settlements.

In the meantime, as the occupying power, Israel must ensure the protection of Palestinians, the supply of their basic needs, and the respect of their full range of human rights.

Najla M. Shahwan is a Palestinian author, researcher and freelance journalist. Author of thirteen books in literature and a children story collection. Chairwoman of the Palestinian Center for Children’s Literature (PCCL). Founder of Jana Woman Cultural Magazine. Recipient of two prizes from the Palestinian Union of Writers.