Tag: Palestine

  • Is Trump Pushing for a Gaza Ceasefire?

    Is Trump Pushing for a Gaza Ceasefire?

    The Gaza war, specifically Israel’s military action against Hamas, has evolved, as expected, from a regional conflict into a global issue. People have rallied around religious solidarities across countries, deepening divisions in many societies. In retaliation for the brutal killing of 1,200 Israelis, Israel has now killed over 45,000 people in Gaza and continues its operations with the aim of preventing future terrorist attacks from the region. Though a ceasefire is essential to help those suffering in this punishing war, the Gaza ceasefire remains nothing more than a plea. Despite ongoing discussions over the past 15 months of conflict, no agreement has been reached.

    As Donald Trump prepares to begin his second term as U.S. president on January 20, there is a sense of optimism surrounding his strong relationships with Middle Eastern leaders and his bold, hero-like persona. He is positioned to prioritize the Gaza ceasefire, focusing on securing it as soon as possible. His administration is likely to build on the efforts of outgoing President Joe Biden, whose peace initiatives were thwarted by the competing demands of various stakeholders. Known for his deal-making prowess, Trump now has a significant opportunity to act swiftly in his presidency. Successfully mediating peace could satisfy global calls for resolution and cement his reputation as a decisive and effective leader.

    Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Middle East envoy appointed by President-elect Donald Trump, is leading efforts to broker a Gaza ceasefire. He met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday to push forward with negotiations for a hostage deal and a ceasefire, according to an Israeli official cited by The Guardian. Before meeting Netanyahu, Witkoff met Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on Friday to discuss recent developments and the push for a Gaza ceasefire, as outlined by the Qatari foreign ministry. Qatar plays a pivotal role as a mediator, maintaining connections with various Islamist groups, including those linked to Iran. After his visit to Qatar, Witkoff, who reassured that the U.S. remains committed to a swift resolution, flew to Israel to meet with Netanyahu and accelerate the talks. Trump’s administration aims to engage all its allies to advance peace and strengthen regional ties.

    The main obstacle now lies in the status of the hostages taken by Hamas during the October 7th raid on Israel and their release. Israel has previously stated that it would only engage in peace talks after the release of all hostages, but Hamas has shown no willingness to comply. Following the discussions with Witkoff, Netanyahu’s office announced that the prime minister would send Mossad chief David Barnea to Qatar’s capital to continue pushing for a deal to release the hostages. It remains unclear when Barnea will travel to Doha, but the U.S. is pressing for an agreement before Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Barnea’s involvement indicates that high-level Israeli officials, who must approve any deal, are now directly involved in the process.

    Several rounds of negotiations, mediated by the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar, have failed to yield a lasting ceasefire. Despite officials’ repeated optimism that a breakthrough was imminent, talks have consistently stalled. Over the course of 15 months of war, only one brief ceasefire was achieved during the early stages of fighting, with no substantial agreement since. However, political dynamics have shifted. The initial fury over Hamas’ terrorist actions in Israel has lessened, and the focus has now shifted to the hostages. In recent weeks, the hostage issue and a potential ceasefire have dominated discussions in Israeli media. There are growing doubts that Netanyahu is using the war to prolong his political tenure while also leveraging Trump’s influence. On Hamas’ side, while initial celebrations of their actions in Gaza were widespread, the consequences are now clear, and many have grown disillusioned with the group. The Islamists and their media may still support Hamas, but the wider public recognizes its failed strategy. Hezbollah, and Iran—Hamas’ major supporter—are all reeling from significant setbacks. 

    The call for an end to the war is intensifying, with Trump positioning himself to play a crucial role in negotiations. While any ceasefire agreement he brokers is likely to favor Israel, all parties now need an end. During his previous term, the historic Abraham Accords happened, and his efforts to strengthen relations with Israel and other Middle Eastern nations are viewed as positive moves toward peace. While some of his supporters advocate for a Nobel Prize for him. If Trump succeeds in brokering a Gaza ceasefire, he will further solidify his reputation as a key peace broker, and it truly deserves the Nobel Prize.

  • Does Israel Want To Expand?

    Does Israel Want To Expand?

    Israel is often seen as having no expansion plans beyond the territories of the former British Mandate. Its actions following the Six-Day War support this perception, as it briefly held Gaza and returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, both gained during the conflict. Similarly, Israel reclaimed areas under the British Mandate from Jordan, specifically the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which were previously under Jordanian control. After regaining these territories, Israel negotiated agreements with neighboring countries, promoting mutual respect for borders and significantly reducing regional tensions.

    The territories reclaimed from Egypt and Jordan are now recognized by international authorities as part of the Palestinian state. However, Israel expanded its Jewish population in these areas through planned settlement growth, transforming arid deserts into fertile land, and relocating more people to these regions. Numerous reports, even before the renewed conflict between Israel and Hamas on October 7, 2022, point to Israel’s de facto annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In contrast, Israel has made fewer efforts to establish settlements in Gaza, and the situation has largely remained stable since the withdrawal of settlements in 2005. However, following the October 7 attacks, it is now clear that Israel will likely follow the strategies it used in the West Bank, leading to further encroachment on what some view as the future state of an independent Palestine.

    Israel’s recent actions have raised further doubts, as its expansion plans now appear to extend beyond the former British Mandate. In addition to these territories, Israel continues to control the Golan Heights, which was not part of the British Mandate and which the international community still recognizes as part of Syria, and which it has not returned through peace negotiations. As Israel shifts its military operations toward its borders with Lebanon and Syria, and with Gaza no longer posing an immediate threat from the south, the country seems to be intensifying its focus on the Golan Heights. Israel is following the same strategies used in the West Bank. The Israeli government has approved a plan to invest over $11 million in the occupied Golan Heights, aiming to double the region’s population. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the initiative an important response to the evolving “New Front” with Syria, emphasizing that strengthening the Golan Heights is essential for strengthening Israel at this time. Netanyahu reiterated the government’s intent to retain the area, promote its development, and expand settlements there. 

    Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Israel established a buffer zone by stationing troops on the Syrian side of the border, arguing that previous ceasefire agreements had collapsed due to changes in Damascus. Reports suggest that Israeli troops have extended their presence beyond this buffer zone in several areas. The Golan Heights is home to over 50,000 people, including Jewish Israelis and members of the Druze and Alawite religious minorities. As the Jewish population grows and Syria maintains stable governance, the Muslim population may move towards Syria, which will likely lead to undisputed Israeli control of the Golan Heights. There are now more than 30 Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights, housing around 20,000 people. Netanyahu stated that Israel would continue to hold onto the territory, make it flourish, and expand settlements there. This announcement followed a day after Syria’s new de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, criticized Israel for its ongoing strikes on military targets in Syria, reportedly targeting military facilities.

    As Netanyahu maintains a cruise mode, he is likely to adopt a more aggressive approach. The Golan Heights, surrounding areas, Lebanon, and even Yemen hold historical significance for the Jewish people, with a once-thriving Jewish population that was displaced by Arabs. Given this, Netanyahu may plan to re-establish settlements in these regions to serve Jewish interests. It may seem like an exaggeration, but by observing these trends, it is clear that Israel seeks expansion, citing security as the justification. This pattern is evident in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Lebanon, and potentially Aden. The Jewish people have a deep connection to their history.

  • Will Singapore Ever Recognize Palestine?

    Will Singapore Ever Recognize Palestine?

    As the Israel-Hamas conflict slipped into yet another charged chapter, Singapore retained its measured commitment to a two-state solution, its calls for Palestinian sovereignty growing steadily louder. Yet, despite these increasingly public declarations of support, the city-state continues to withhold formal recognition of Palestine. By contrast, its Muslim-majority neighbors have embraced a more unequivocal stance, championing Palestinian statehood while categorically refusing to recognize Israel. Their position is tethered to the broader contours of the “From the River to the Sea” ideology, a vision that entertains the erasure of the Jewish state altogether.

    If not to dismantle Israel, the question might reasonably arise: why not recognize both? Intriguingly, Singapore sets itself apart not just from its regional peers but also from nations that recognize both Israel and Palestine. Instead, it aligns with countries like Japan and South Korea, which extend official recognition solely to Israel. But unlike these countries, who remain muted on the question of Palestine, Singapore strikes a markedly different tone. Through consistent, though noncommittal, expressions of support, it fosters a posture that is at once active and ambiguous—a calculated ambiguity that renders its stance an exercise in balancing rhetoric and restraint.

    There were fleeting moments when Singapore seemed poised to join the growing list of nations recognizing Palestine, as Spain and Armenia had done in recent years, spurred by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each time, however, Singapore stepped back. In May, a proposed resolution to recognize Palestine sparked cautious optimism across the Islamic world, which saw the potential shift as a significant gesture from a prominent Asian nation. The optimism, though, proved premature. By July, in a parliamentary address, Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan announced that Singapore would recognize Palestine—only for the resolution to be quietly shelved.

    Come September, Singapore once again appeared to take a bold step, supporting a United Nations General Assembly resolution demanding that Israel end its unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territories within a year. Whispers swirled of Singapore leaning favorably toward Palestine, yet the momentum faltered once more.

    Singapore’s delicate balancing act took center stage in a recent podcast episode featuring Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. Reflecting on the Gaza war and its global repercussions, Wong affirmed Singapore’s commitment to collaborating with international partners to help secure a homeland for the Palestinian people while aiding their preparation for eventual statehood. He stressed the necessity of a deliberate and nuanced approach, positioning Singapore as neither beholden to the views of its neighbors nor inclined to alienate the United States. Technical assistance, Wong argued, represents a meaningful and uniquely Singaporean contribution to global affairs—a strategy deeply rooted in the city-state’s diplomatic ethos. Drawing comparisons to Singapore’s well-established support initiatives across Southeast Asia, he suggested that similar efforts could play a critical role in equipping Palestine for the responsibilities of statehood. Over the course of the 46-minute podcast, Wong’s remarks revealed a careful and calibrated strategy—one that seeks to balance principle with pragmatism, charting a course that maintains Singapore’s reputation as a constructive, if cautious, participant in the global dialogue on Palestine.

    In the interview organized by Plan B, Prime Minister Wong reiterated Singapore’s steadfast support for a two-state solution, while emphasizing the nation’s recent initiatives to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Since the war erupted in October 2023, Singapore has dispatched five consignments of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Both government-led and citizen-driven contributions have amassed over US$13 million in donations to support relief efforts. Earlier this month, Dr. Maliki Osman, Singapore’s Second Minister for Foreign Affairs, met with Dr. Mohammad Mustafa, the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Palestine, during a conference in Cairo. There, Dr. Maliki reaffirmed Singapore’s commitment to assisting Palestine in its capacity-building endeavors. Moreover, Singapore has expanded the number of scholarships offered under its Enhanced Technical Assistance Package for Palestinians, increasing the annual intake from three to ten. 

    While Singapore’s public stance appears to align with Gaza, its domestic policies exhibit a more restrictive approach, particularly when it comes to managing any form of public protest that could tarnish its image. In October of the previous year, authorities prohibited public events tied to the Gaza conflict, even in the country’s sole designated free speech zone, citing concerns about public safety and security. They also issued a warning against displaying symbols associated with the war. Three women were charged for attempting to organize a group of 70 individuals to deliver pro-Palestinian letters to the president’s office and official residence without a permit. Despite such efforts being stifled, there has been ongoing pressure from Palestinian supporters in the city-state for Singapore to sever its defense ties with Israel and officially recognize Palestinian statehood. This has been accompanied by a surge in public mobilization. A petition demanding the government recognize Palestine as a state has collected over 10,000 signatures since its launch in October.

    The Singaporean government’s sympathy for Palestine is evident, yet its actions reveal the deep constraints of what it is willing—or able—to offer. While there is a notable push for practical support, the more contentious issue of formal recognition remains elusive. This tension speaks to the complex diplomatic landscape that Singapore must traverse. The city-state, often characterized as conservative in practice but progressive in appearance, exemplifies this paradox. On closer inspection, it is apparent in nearly every facet of its policies.

    With 15 percent of its population Muslim and deep business ties to neighboring Muslim-majority countries, Singapore can no longer ignore the Palestinian cause. However, any move to formally recognize Palestine seems untenable without risking its strategic relationships elsewhere. Chief among these is its long-standing military alliance with Israel, which dates back to Singapore’s split from Malaysia in 1965. At that time, Israel played a key role in helping build Singapore’s military—an offer other regional powers, like India, had refused. Caught in this diplomatic web, the city-state finds itself in a precarious position, unable to fully align with either side without facing significant consequences. Though Singapore will likely delay its recognition of Palestine “Until the Right Time.”

  • Assessing the Impact of the ICC’s Arrest Warrant on Netanyahu

    Assessing the Impact of the ICC’s Arrest Warrant on Netanyahu

    International news outlets and social media are celebrating the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is leading a war against Iran’s Axis of Resistance, which has vowed to dismantle the state of Israel. However, the ICC has decided to act during the war. Netanyahu has become the first leader of a modern Western-style democracy to face an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in its 22-year history. He now stands alongside his former defense secretary, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif, although doubts remain about Deif’s current status.

    The ICC’s three-judge panel stated that reasonable grounds exist to believe Netanyahu and Gallant are criminally responsible for war crimes, including using starvation as a method of warfare, as well as crimes against humanity such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The panel also found reasonable grounds to hold them accountable as civilian superiors for directing attacks against civilian populations.

    While anti-war advocates, leftists, and Islamic groups anticipate that Netanyahu will be forced to avoid international travel, the ICC arrest warrant actually benefits the prime minister in several ways. The warrant significantly bolsters Netanyahu’s narrative that international bodies are against Israel and have no support in fostering peace for the country. With the warrant, Netanyahu can now position himself as a leader in a battle against those seeking Israel’s destruction, a role that aligns seamlessly with his political strategy. 

    The ICC depends on its 124 member states, signatories of the Rome Statute that established the court, to enforce arrest warrants. These countries are obligated to arrest individuals wanted by the ICC if they enter their territory. However, neither Israel nor its closest ally, the United States, are members of the ICC, nor are Qatar and Egypt—potential venues for ceasefire talks.  Netanyahu remains free to visit Russia, China, India, and other influential nations as they all are not member states. On the other hand, Germany, a strong ally of Israel, is an ICC member, as are all European Union nations, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, and most Latin American countries, with the exceptions of Cuba and Haiti. Still, it is uncertain whether these countries will act against Israel and the United States in favor of the ICC’s warrant. Last year, Vladimir Putin avoided visiting South Africa amid speculation that authorities might detain him under an ICC warrant for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet, he was warmly welcomed in Mongolia, an ICC member state, exposing the persistent weaknesses in the court’s enforcement mechanism.

    The US strongly criticized the ICC’s decision, with President Joe Biden calling the arrest warrants outrageous in a Thursday night statement. The US National Security Council also issued a statement rejecting the court’s decision, reiterating that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the matter. This position contrasts with the US’s earlier support for the ICC’s warrant against Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Netanyahu’s office condemned the ICC’s decision, labeling it antisemitic and describing the court as a biased and discriminatory political body.

    The ICC’s verdict has united Israeli politicians, with Benny Gantz, a retired general and political rival of Netanyahu, condemning the decision as moral blindness and a shameful stain of historic proportions that will never be forgotten. Israel is clearly using the ICC arrest warrant as an opportunity to attack the international body, which has previously recognized Palestine. Palestine joined the Rome Statute in 2015, and in 2021, the ICC recognized it as a state, extending its jurisdiction to territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. However, this recognition has had little practical impact. Many parts of Palestine lack functioning governance or administrative systems, and Hamas has no means to arrest Netanyahu. So, The ICC’s rulings, while symbolically significant, remain largely ineffective in practice.

  • Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    In the Middle East, there are a lot of Islamic militant groups working in almost every country. To be free from the risk they offer, you need to be rich and an ally of the US. Qatar is one of them; it is rich and a US ally. But This Gulf country is more strict on Islamic laws, a demand of many militant groups in the region. They even follow Islamic way of labor practices that some critics liken to a form of slavery. Qatar’s fondness for Islamic rule has allowed various terrorist organizations to establish offices within its territory, including Hamas, the group that caused the ongoing war of Israel in Gaza. While most Western and Arab countries have shown little interest in supporting the Iran-backed militia, Qatar has often provided a haven for Hamas.

    While Hamas conducted a brutal terrorist attack in Israel and captured many hostages, Many political analysts believed that Qatar could help Hamas negotiate with Israel with the lives of hostages. However, as Israel prioritized war over negotiations, Qatar’s role in brokering a resolution favoring Hamas has diminished. Qatar tried for over a year to save Hamas. And now, after a year, it looks like they are getting out from the side of Hamas. This shift, coupled with Qatar’s realization that its controversial support for Hamas, has threatened its international image, which it built through massive investments, including bribes for securing the World Cup.

    Qatar has decided to step back from its mediation efforts and allow other parties to take over. The Qatari government informed the U.S., Israel, Hamas officials, and Egypt that it would no longer facilitate negotiations to halt the Gaza conflict, citing a lack of good faith among the parties involved. According to The Guardian, This decision followed a recent visit by a U.S. delegation, including CIA Director Bill Burns, for meetings in Doha that ended without progress.

    Qatar concluded that both sides seemed more focused on political optics than on achieving genuine security solutions. This decision is a significant setback to mediation efforts, which had produced minimal results since a temporary ceasefire and limited hostage release deal nearly a year ago.

    Many believe Qatar is engaging in a strategic power play to raise its regional profile and bolster its importance in the eyes of the United States. With upcoming president Donald Trump expected to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar seems uneasy with Saudi dominance in the region, despite the official reconciliation between the two countries.

    Though Israel shows little interest in ending the war,  Trump may eventually pursue negotiations, which could necessitate indirect talks with Hamas. Given Iran’s support for Hamas, it cannot serve as an impartial mediator, and it’s uncertain whether Turkey or Egypt would step into that role. In this context, Qatar could reemerge as the “Rescuer,” promoting itself as a responsible mediator. Al Jazeera, Qatar’s influential media outlet, could showcase Qatar’s efforts, reinforcing its image as a “Good Muslim Ally.”

    With a new U.S. administration set to take office in a couple of months, Qatar has indicated to American contacts that it would be open to resuming mediation if both sides demonstrate genuine interest in reaching a deal. Qatar tried a similar approach months ago, though it fell short of producing any results. This marks the second time Qatar has publicly warned it will not support stalled talks indefinitely.

    The Hamas office in Doha, established in 2012, has served as a critical communication channel  for over a decade, including during last year’s negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire and the release of more than 100 hostages. However, the October 7th attack by Hamas has severely damaged its reputation, and Qatar has faced growing criticism from Israel and segments of the U.S. political establishment for hosting the group.

    As a close U.S. ally that hosts a major American military base, Qatar has previously maintained a positive diplomatic relationship with Donald Trump during his first term. However, its perceived “double game” on terrorism and concerns over its human rights record have made Qatar increasingly unpopular among U.S. senators. Last Friday, a group of Republican senators urged Washington to seek the extradition of Hamas officials from Qatar and freeze their assets.

    These criticisms, especially regarding an initiative that Qatar launched at the U.S.’s request, have caused friction in Doha and influenced Qatar’s decision to distance itself from Hamas and mediation efforts. U.S. officials have reportedly briefed American media that Washington requested the closure of the Hamas office, although the Biden administration has not yet commented publicly on the matter.

    However, some Western and regional diplomats argue for keeping the Hamas office in Qatar, warning that pushing Hamas out would limit engagement with figures potentially open to compromise. Yet, Qatar’s continued support arguably empowers Hamas rather than encourages moderation. For Hamas, there is hope that Qatar might broker a deal with Israel, leveraging hostages, including women and children, to meet its demands. But Qatar has struggled to engage Israel effectively or include other mediators in negotiations, and it now appears uncertain about risking its international reputation for an organization closely tied to Iran.

    Meanwhile, with many key Hamas leaders lost, Hamas itself may be reconsidering its reliance on Qatar and is reportedly more inclined to look to long-standing allies like Turkey, who could be more effective in brokering a truce. Qatar’s wealth may have helped to uplift them in football, but they failed in the game of geopolitics in the Middle East they craved to win.

  • What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    Over the past year, Israel’s conflict with Hamas has escalated into a broader confrontation with Iran. The Jewish state and the Islamic Republic have exchanged missiles and now trading hostile rhetoric. While many fear an all-out war involving multiple states, In reality, it looks like Israel and Iran show little genuine interest in such a conflict. Instead, both countries prefer maintaining tension and inflicting sporadic casualties without escalating to a full-scale war. They each appear very interested in the ‘game’ they’re playing.

    This ongoing rivalry—the geopolitical game between the two countries—dates back to Iran’s establishment as an Islamic Republic, a theocratic state with a declared intent to eliminate Israel. Iran views this as a holy duty, waging what it considers a sacred war through its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The struggle has been perpetuated, with death seen as a martyr’s reward. Meanwhile, Israel does not consider itself safe as long as Iran remains strong. While the tensions between these two countries have always been present, they avoided direct conflicts. However, over the past year, they have begun to engage in fighting directly against each other.

    Many across the globe, especially those with peaceful intentions, struggle to comprehend this intense conflict, which is far from an ordinary territorial or independence dispute. For Iran and its allies, it is a matter intertwined with faith, divinity, and existential beliefs. Meanwhile, Israel’s supporters advocate for survival and security. In the latest development, Israel launched fresh waves of missiles toward Iran. This move, in response to Iran’s barrage on Israel, was carefully measured to avoid severe escalation or interference with the upcoming U.S. presidential election. 

    The direct strikes in between Israel and Iran, avoiding proxies, began on April 1st when Israel targeted the Iranian consulate in Syria, resulting in the deaths of Iranian officials. In response, Iran launched missiles on April 13th, though most were intercepted by Israel’s defense system, which has become quite effective. Israel further humiliated Iran by killing Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31st, followed by the assassination of Iran’s leader’s closest ally and chief of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

    Iran felt compelled to retaliate to maintain its standing in the Islamic world, and on October 2nd, the International Day of Non-Violence, it launched missiles at Israeli cities, some of which breached Israel’s famous Iron Dome defense system, stunning Israeli forces. But On October 25th, Israeli missiles flew toward Iran.

    Interestingly, although there is always fear that missile exchanges could lead to heavy casualties and escalate tensions to the brink of World War III, as noted by X pundits, nothing has happened. Business continues as usual, which raises suspicions of a conspiracy suggesting that there may be some understanding between the two countries, despite the geographical distance and potential U.S. interference to de-escalate tensions.

    There are reasons to believe that there may be a covert understanding between Israel and Iran, as both states appear to benefit significantly from the ongoing tensions. Israel’s government was on the brink of collapse, with key political figures facing corruption trials, while Iran faced a severe internal political crisis between Islamic conservatives and Persians. Initially, the war between Israel and Hamas, and now Israel and Iran, has effectively prevented the collapse of Netanyahu’s government. Hamas’s brutal attack served to unify a deeply divided Israeli society, restoring the country’s prominence on the international stage—a space it had almost faded from as Saudi Arabia rose to prominence in the region.

    Iran, too, has gained from this conflict. The country has managed to unite its deeply divided populace through anti-Israel sentiment, seen by many within the Muslim community as a religious obligation. Across the Islamic world, Iran is perceived as a strong supporter of Gaza and Palestine, bolstering its regional standing. By demonstrating an ability to counter Israel’s missiles, Iran projects itself as a powerful force. Notably, Gulf countries seem more inclined toward cooperation with Iran, as recent statements from the Gulf countries express solidarity with Iran’s territorial integrity following missile attacks. Given that both countries appear to derive considerable benefits from the conflict, the likelihood of de-escalation in the Middle East seems increasingly slim.

    While both Israel and Iran seem to be playing a deadly game that appears to bring them close to open conflict, with missiles flying between them yet causing minimal real harm, several neighboring countries are bearing the brunt—such as Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iraq in the future. These countries, which lack the influence or capability to mount any resistance, are the true casualties in this conflict. If it escalates into a full-scale war, as some pundits predict, these nations will suffer the most. Meanwhile, the U.S. as a ‘referee’ and the U.N. as a ‘sideline referee’ seem ineffective. Worldwide onlookers, watching this heated game, divide themselves between supporters from the global left and Muslim communities on one side and right-wing factions on the other. Both sides eagerly cheer on social media, voicing their support with rage.

  • Is Israel humiliating the UN?

    Is Israel humiliating the UN?

    The United Nations is often portrayed in textbooks as a powerful coalition of states backed by global superpowers and a forum for peaceful conflict resolution, upholding its charter to maintain peace and security. But in reality, It’s not!! It’s neither powerful nor an effective forum. From its inception, its limitations have been evident: the UN struggles to influence superpowers and is often relegated to dealing with smaller states, those with restricted influence. Today, as we face heightened global tensions after the Gulf War, the UN’s failures are increasingly visible—in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, the Middle East, and many other regions.

    This tough phase of the UN is taken as an opportunity by the countries who want to humiliate the Institute. Israel, backed by the United States and right-wing allies, and Palestine, supported by the left and the global Muslim community, including over 57 Muslim-majority countries, are entrenched in a high-stakes standoff that the UN appears powerless to mediate effectively. Unlike the 1940s and 1950s, when Israel abided by certain UN resolutions while Muslim countries were largely disengaged, Israel now disregards UN resolutions and breaches charter principles with apparent impunity, escalating tensions and challenging the UN’s authority. The ongoing Israel-UN tensions underscore a profound humiliation for the UN, as it struggles to assert influence in this protracted conflict, and even UN-affiliated people get targeted.

    UN peacekeepers and UN-affiliated UNRWA workers in Gaza and Lebanon who are refusing to evacuate despite official orders are increasingly under attack, and sustaining injuries. The Guardian, the British left media reported recently that the Israel Defense Forces forced entry into a UN base and repeatedly targeted their positions, wounding five personnel. In Gaza, nearly 230 UNRWA aid workers, who are also part of different Palestinian organizations, have been killed. The UN is confused in this matter while Israel looks assertive. Earlier this month, Israel declared UN Secretary-General António Guterres persona non grata, and in May, its outgoing ambassador to the UN publicly shredded a copy of the UN Charter.

    The UNRWA, short for “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East,” is committed to delivering assistance and promoting the human development of Palestinian refugees. UNRWA’s mandate covers Palestinians who fled or were displaced during the 1948 Nakba and subsequent conflicts, along with their descendants, including legally adopted children. As one of the few non-Islamic organizations dedicated to Palestinian refugees, UNRWA registers over 5 million Palestinians. Amid rising Israel-UN tensions, the agency has drawn particular attention with its action on the battlefield. Israel has long opposed UNRWA’s recognition of Palestinian refugees’ right of return, recently going as far as attempting to classify it as a terrorist organization, despite the agency’s lack of advocacy for violence besides the alleged affiliations with groups like Hamas. However, it does not formally endorse such organizations. But the UN has previously acknowledged that nine of the agency’s 13,000 employees in Gaza might have been involved in Hamas’s October 7 attack—findings that have damaged the agency’s reputation, and that’s enough for Israel to take revenge on the UNRWA.

    Israel is concerned with UNRWA’s great influence and their effort to keep alive Palestinian dreams, and often become a shelter for the terrorists. They also worrying increasing the voice of Muslim states in the UN general assembly and they are concerned about the UN bodies supporting the Palestinian version over even a neutral one. And a country like Israel surrounded by threats can’t neglect the Palestanization of the UN. So they started to target the UN and its agencies, and humiliating them is the way Israel found out.

    The UN is now a beleaguered institution. Its structure, its operation, its works, its opinions everything is getting questioned. The Security Council is questioned now by almost everyone including the countries within it. And has repeatedly been deadlocked, with the US, the UK, and France on one side and Russia and China on the other.  And it’s easy now for Israel to undermine the intuition. While social media and the internet are now well circulating the Israeli version of the conflict,  the UN’s attempt to push the Palestinian version will further collapse belief in the UN.

    The UN, several European countries, and the Islamic world condemn the actions of Israel against UN peacekeepers. They believe because a few people from UNRWA participated in the October 7th attack, and the frequent rising of voices for Palestine, Israel is finding revenge on the UN. But it must be said that the UN can’t do anything; everything will remain on paper. This old man is expecting a death he has long wished for, and Israel enjoys the complaints from him.

  • Is Now the Time to End the War?

    Is Now the Time to End the War?

    Israel has finally killed Yahya Sinwar, the man behind the notorious October 7th attack that stunned both Israel and the world. This attack triggered Israel’s war of revenge, resulting in the deaths of thousands in Gaza and extending into Lebanon and Syria. It also allowed Israel to spread its version of the story worldwide—a success for Sinwar. Israel ensured the targeted elimination of Hamas leaders, even those who sought refuge in safe havens. One by one, Israel eliminated their targets, and by the end of the year, no prominent figures remained on their early hit list. With Israel proving its dominance in the region and its opponents greatly weakened, is it time to end the war?

    Following the deadly attack on October 7th, Israel initiated a counteroffensive with the goal of eliminating threats from Hamas and the Gaza Strip, specifically targeting those responsible for the attack that killed more than 1,200 Israeli civilians. However, as now Israel killed  higher numbers than those inflicted by Hamas. Some Palestinian sources estimate the death toll to be around 40,000, although Israel contests this figure. And Over the past year, Hamas has significantly weakened in the Gaza Strip. Its network of tunnels—which once gave it an advantage—is being destroyed, and most of its major leaders have been killed. No one believes Hamas is capable of mounting a serious threat now, but Israel is not ready to stop.

    Given the religious dimensions of this conflict, both Israel and the Axis of Resistance—comprising the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—consider it their duty to continue fighting and eliminating one another. However, amid this ongoing warfare, countless innocent lives are impacted, becoming collateral damage in what is often described as a holy rivalry.

    Israel is now escalating its response to secure a safer northern border by targeting Hezbollah, another key member of the Axis of Resistance and a major ally of Iran in the region. Several missile strikes have continued even after the confirmed killing of Hamas leaders. It is clear that Israel is now targeting the entire Axis of Resistance. In addition to Hezbollah’s base in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen are considered potential targets for Israel’s immediate strikes. Iran’s infamous October 1 missile response is still anticipated.

    Israel has a reason to show the world that they are not safe unless they eliminate the threats. The October 7th attack by Hamas demonstrated this vulnerability to the world. Israel has also realized that the Arab world is unlikely to unite against them, and Hamas’ actions have generated considerable pro-Israel sentiment in the West, despite some opposition from left-wing and Islamist groups. Domestically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have received a significant boost from the war, recovering from last year’s political struggles, even though Netanyahu still faces corruption charges.

    So, the answer to the question is clear: if Israel is benefiting from the war, why would they stop the process now?

    But the pressure is high from Western leaders. U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister, and the French President, all calling for the death of Sinwar to be converted into an opportunity to seize the war. The mood is similar in the Arab world as well, and within Israel, reports indicate that there are protests urging an end to the war to save the hostages held by Hamas. However, Netanyahu has said No. Israel has its reasons for this stance. Any pause in Israel’s actions would help Hezbollah and other groups, including Iran, to structurally rebuild their organizations and prepare for the next attack. They have all united for this goal: to eliminate the Jewish state.

    It cannot be denied that Hamas may even rise again from the ashes of Gaza with the help of Iran, as they view it as a global Muslim duty. They can easily recruit and continue their efforts. The last video of Sinwar portraying him as a martyr has attracted many Muslim youths around the world.

    So for Israel and the Israeli government, it would be a blunder to stop the war based on the demands of Western states, and they are now in a position where it is not easy to do so. Everyone knows that even a break would only set the stage for the next war.

    For Iran, stopping the war could be beneficial, but it would also reopen existing problems within the state. They cannot bind their people with hatred toward Israel forever. Therefore, the likelihood of the continuation of the war is higher than that of a ceasefire. The war could potentially stretch for more years, ultimately concluding with the end of one state—either Israel or the Islamic Republic. The chance of ending the second one seems greater.

  • A Year That Redefined the Middle East

    A Year That Redefined the Middle East

    It has been a year since Hamas, the organization that controls Gaza, carried out a cross-border attack on Israel. The brutal attack on October 7, 2023, drastically reshaped the politics of the Middle East. The old narrative of a united Islamic front against Jews has faded, shrinking into a conflict between Shia Muslims and Jews, while Sunni Muslim governments have largely withdrawn, appearing more aligned with Israel. Hamas’s attack, likely an Iranian attempt to disrupt the growing relationship between Saudi Arabia, a leading Sunni state, and Israel, seems to have clearly backfired. It shifted the narrative from portraying Palestinians as victims of a cruel Israel to one where Israel is seen as needing counterattacks for security. Deeply humiliated by the unexpected assault from Iran’s proxy, Hamas, Israel is now in full retaliation mode—not just against Hamas, but targeting all Shia militant groups, with Iran as the ultimate focus.

    The Hamas attack is now being commemorated worldwide on its anniversary. Today, many events and rallies are taking place globally to remember the largest massacre of Jews since World War II. More than 1,200 men, women, and children were killed that day in a country built to guarantee their safety. Another 250 people—including a nine-month-old baby—were taken hostage. Many remain captive, and some may never return home.

    Following the Hamas attacks, Israel received considerable global sympathy. The country has since leveraged this support to embark on a mission to eliminate all threats surrounding its borders. Additionally, the attacks successfully united a nation that had been deeply divided over internal politics. Prime Minister Netanyahu, a shrewd and seasoned politician, has skillfully capitalized on the situation.

    At the same time, many pro-Palestinian and anti-war rallies are taking place on the anniversary of Hamas’s attack on Israel. Many supporters view Hamas’s actions as revolutionary and believe they should be commemorated. Interestingly, these pro-Palestinian rallies are widely seen in Europe and parts of Southeast Asia, while countries like India and those in the GCC have remained largely absent

    These rallies condemn Israel, which is now punishing Gaza and Lebanon. They argue that Israel’s right to defend itself does not allow it to violate the laws of war. Protesters are outraged by the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, which, according to Gaza’s health authorities, has killed over 41,500 Palestinians, most of them women, children, and infants—though Israel disputes these figures. Survivors are displaced, starving, and desperate, as the humanitarian crisis deepens with Israel continuing its war. Additionally, around 2,000 people have been reported dead in Lebanon, with deaths also reported in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran in relation to the conflict.

    Destruction and bloodshed in the Middle East are expected to continue, with strong fears that the region is sliding deeper into war. What began with Hamas and Hezbollah has now clearly escalated to involve Iran. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the conflict is primarily between Israel and Iran, with less focus needed on groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis.

    The war on social media, which spreads misinformation and hate, has become more visible over the years and is likely to intensify in the coming days. Over the past year, we’ve witnessed a decline in the reliability of traditional media regarding the Israel-Iran proxy conflict, often labeled as liberal, left-wing, or pro-Islamic by critics online.

    When analyzing the October 7th attack and its aftermath, it is clear that the Middle East no longer resembles the previous era, when Palestine united not just Arab nations but Muslims worldwide. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—once vocal opponents of Israel—seem disengaged now. Many had expected these governments to rally behind Hamas, but that support has significantly faded in recent months.

    In global politics, Israel has regained its importance and is enjoying a stronger position. Another political shift is evident: while Europe, with its large Muslim population, is witnessing more pro-Palestinian rallies, Asia, which used to be the epicenter of such movements, now appears more pro-Israel, especially in countries like India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This conflict between Israel and Iran also highlights a unipolar world, with Russia and China appearing weaker in international politics. Most importantly, the Palestinian dream—the global Muslim dream of Palestinian statehood—seems to be fading.

  • How Israel Could Destabilize Iran

    How Israel Could Destabilize Iran

    Iran, the land of the Aryans and the cradle of civilization, has a rich history shaped by the rise and fall of many kingdoms over the centuries. This diverse and multicultural nation has experienced unity under the formidable leadership of great rulers. Today, modern Iran, known as the Islamic Republic, encompasses a diverse array of cultures and ethnicities, even as it is predominantly characterized by its Shia Islamic identity. The current theocratic regime is infamous for its forceful enforcement of Islamic laws and values, and it also applies considerable pressure on various ethnic groups within the country while extending its influence over other nations through religiously motivated militant organizations.

    Iran keeps many Islamic issues alive and is known for challenging Saudi Arabia over the leadership of Islam. Its long standing desire for leadership in the Muslim world has contributed to ongoing tensions with Israel. Relations between the two states are at an all-time low, marked by missile exchanges and targeted attacks on leaders. Though Iran and Israel do not share a direct border, Iran’s political influence extends into areas near Israel, and both have engaged in a proxy conflict for years, often framed as a holy war. Now, however, Israel seems determined to end this indirect conflict and neutralize the threat from Iran.

    Many believe that rising tensions could lead to a full-scale war, while others argue that Israel will refrain from such actions, as Iran’s geographic position—controlling the strategic Strait of Hormuz—gives it significant leverage. Iran’s geography has always made it a difficult country to conquer. However, Israel seeks revenge, as retaliation has been a defining part of its history. Therefore, most likely, they will adopt a highly strategic approach, with the ultimate goal of dismantling the Islamic Republic. Political experts believe Israel may exploit Iran’s complex ethnic makeup, which has only been held together by the tougher actions of the Islamic regime thus far.

    Iran has consistently accused Israel and the West of exporting Western values into the country, which it believes could threaten its theocratic government. It has also accused foreign governments of attempting to influence various ethnic groups within Iran that share cultural ties with other sovereign nations. As a result, Iran has closed many communication channels to the outside world. However, Israel is likely to breach these barriers to provide more information to the Iranian people, considering information a powerful tool to undermine the Islamic Republic. Israel may also play a role in promoting the growing celebration of pre-Islamic Persian glory, which could challenge the Islamic Republic, a regime accused of sacrificing Persian identity for an Islamic one.

    Iran is at risk of fragmentation if Israel decides to act. While Iran’s mountainous geography provides a strategic advantage, it also serves as a natural barrier that isolates various communities with different ethnicities, languages, and identities. Many of these groups, such as the Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baloch, Turkmen, and Mazandaran, maintain foreign connections or share ties with neighboring countries. These regions have preserved their distinct identities despite the challenges posed by Tehran. Some of these regions demand greater autonomy, while others lean toward separatism. However, the Islamic Republic will not tolerate such movements and continues to attempt to unify the population through religious identity and increasingly authoritarian measures.

    During the 1979 Islamic Revolution, three ethnic groups—Kurds, Turkmens, and Arabs—backed by their counterparts abroad, attempted to ascend and form an independent state. The Azeris demanded more autonomy, and although they were suppressed, the situation remained volatile and could flare up again. Israel could potentially assist in this regard. The United States and the United Kingdom, known for similar practices, might ally with these ethnic groups and their kin abroad based on Israel’s interests. The Azeris will seek to unite with Azerbaijan, and the Kurds in Iran will likely also pursue the formation of a grand Kurdistan.

    Additionally, the oil-rich Arab regions in Iran could attract special U.S. support, and such a move could completely collapse Iran’s economy. In southeastern Iran, the Baloch have maintained close ties with their counterparts in Pakistan, aiming for a separate state from the very beginning. This cross-border ethnic solidarity could easily destabilize Iran, especially since Tehran currently has poor relationships with its neighbors. If they lose control over these territories or make them volatile again, the Persian-majority region could shrink to a landlocked state, jeopardizing all its geopolitical advantages.

    It needs to be considered that Israel is already stretched in its efforts to build strong relationships with Azerbaijan regarding Azeri separatism and with Saudi Arabia concerning Arab separatism. Through the growing relationship with Saudi Arabia, Israel can also exploit the Sunni-Shia conflict. The Baloch territories, which are demanding separatism, are predominantly Sunni.

    Recognizing the challenges posed by Israel, Iran is also developing counter-strategies. They present themselves as the saviors of Muslims, not only for Shia but for all branches of Islam. They demand unity from other Islamic countries to carry out their religious task of eliminating Jews. Mass arrests of protesters or separatists from various ethnic groups, accused of terrorism, are also taking place. However, Iran is playing a risky game; as long as they target Israel, they are at risk of collapse.