Tag: Palestine

  • Israel Expands War to Southern Lebanon

    Israel Expands War to Southern Lebanon

    After a series of missile exchanges and targeted strikes, it is clear that Israel is now at war with Hezbollah. Having nearly completed its campaign in Gaza, Israel is shifting its focus to the next target, following a well-executed plan. However, this conflict will not be as straightforward as Gaza. In Gaza, Israel primarily dealt with media coverage of civilian casualties – images of dead bodies, crying children, and grieving women that fueled international outrage from left-wing and liberal movements. Militarily, Hamas posed little threat. In contrast, Hezbollah operates from Lebanon, an independent country with strategic advantages, such as its mountainous terrain and easy connections to Iran and other regional militant groups. Nevertheless, Israel appears determined, and the war is already in motion. Lebanon, a nation already devastated by economic and political collapse, faces the grim possibility of becoming the next Gaza.

    Lebanon’s health ministry reports that at least 500 people have been killed and 1,645 injured in a series of Israeli airstrikes on alleged Hezbollah targets, marking the highest daily death toll in the country since the end of its civil war in 1990. As Israel intensifies its offensive, thousands of residents are fleeing towns and villages in southern Lebanon. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the military’s actions as shifting the security balance along Israel’s northern border, though his remarks seemed to downplay the severity of the situation. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, indicated that the military is preparing for the next phases in Lebanon, withholding further details. Israel appears determined to dismantle Hezbollah’s parallel governance in southern Lebanon, which it claims exists solely to target Israel and pursue a religious mandate to kill Jews.

    The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported striking over 1,300 Hezbollah targets in the past day, marking its most extensive assault on the group since the Gaza war began last October, when Hezbollah started attacking in solidarity with Hamas. The success rate of Israel’s missile operations remains high, and more strikes are expected in the coming days, possibly before any ground invasion is considered. Earlier in the day, the IDF issued warnings to Lebanese residents in Beirut and other areas via phone calls, urging them to evacuate and avoid buildings suspected of housing Hezbollah weapons. Israeli media later clarified that these strikes were not indiscriminate missile barrages but were specifically targeting Hezbollah operatives, including Ali Karaki, the group’s third-ranking military commander. Reports suggest the operation was successful. Meanwhile, about 35 rockets were fired from Lebanon toward Israel’s Safed area, with some landing in open fields near the community of Ami’ad, according to the IDF.

    Lebanon is now bracing for the possibility of a ground war, not by mobilizing its military but by focusing on protecting its citizens. A direct confrontation with Israel is beyond the country’s capabilities, and unlike Hezbollah, the Lebanese people do not view martyrdom in battle as a national or religious duty. Families fleeing southern Lebanon are publicly pleading for apartments or rooms to shelter their loved ones. Grassroots housing efforts have quickly emerged, with individuals coordinating calls for available spaces and hostels offering discounted rates to those displaced by the conflict. Meanwhile, international efforts to evacuate foreign nationals from Lebanon are underway, with countries like the U.S. issuing calls for peace, though such interventions often prove ineffective. Hezbollah, for its part, has vowed to continue its strikes in support of Palestinians and Hamas.

    For over four decades, a shadowy and unyielding conflict has simmered between Israel and Hezbollah. Now, with steely determination, and despite the geographic and military risk factors, Israel appears intent on bringing this protracted struggle to a definitive conclusion. Israel’s resolute commitment to pursue this conflict may push Hezbollah into a corner, even though they appear stronger on paper. It is clear that, just as Gazan civilians have borne the brunt of hostilities, Lebanese civilians, too, will face the consequences. While Israel has been forged in the crucible of existential threats and built to withstand aggression, Lebanon, fractured and vulnerable, is far less prepared and could easily collapse. Should a ground war unfold, it would not only devastate Lebanon but also send ripples throughout the region. Such a conflict would signal to militants in Syria, Yemen, and Iran that they need to prepare for what lies ahead.

  • Why Is Saudi Arabia Concerned About the Houthis Attack on Israel?

    Why Is Saudi Arabia Concerned About the Houthis Attack on Israel?

    Pro-Islamic and pro-Palestinian social media accounts across various platforms and countries are celebrating the Houthi militants claim of breaching Israel’s missile defense system and reaching central Israel, near Tel Aviv, with a modern ballistic missile. The reported strike on September 15th caused no casualties but captured headlines due to its strategic significance. A militant group from Yemen launched the missile over Saudi Arabia, breaching Israel’s renowned defense system and reaching the vicinity of Tel Aviv. For the Houthis, this was a notable achievement in their “Holy War”, one Israel likely did not anticipate. However, this development has heightened tensions in Saudi Arabia, the leading nation in the Islamic world and home to its most sacred sites. Saudi Arabia, already engaged in conflict with the Houthis, now faces an increasing security risk. The Houthis striking capabilities and resilience represent a significant threat to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Saudi Arabia, a Sunni-majority Islamic nation that supports Yemen’s official government in its battle against the Shia-majority Houthis, believes that Iran, a Shia power, has been supplying arms to the group and is convinced that the recent strikes were carried out with Iran’s assistance, despite the Houthis claiming they used homemade weapons. The Sunni-Shia conflict has deep historical roots, spanning centuries of violence and mutual hostility, much like the long-standing conflict between Muslims and Jews. Now, Saudi Arabia views the recent Houthi attacks as a growing threat to its own security. The Houthis advanced capabilities, including their weapons and technology, have surprised many observers. Additionally, the group’s involvement in attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea has significantly reduced traffic on this crucial route, leading to increased maritime transport costs and disruptions to the global economy by affecting the Suez Canal. Given these impacts, Saudi Arabia presented Houthis as not just a regional threat, but a global one. 

    In Sana’a, the capital of Yemen and a Houthi stronghold where the rebel group coordinates its attacks on shipping, the leadership celebrated Sunday’s missile strike on Israel, which landed in an open area near Ben Gurion International Airport. They hailed the strike as a breakthrough, attributing it to the efforts of Yemeni technicians, and vowed that more attacks would follow. Prior to the strike, the Houthis had issued warnings of an impending assault on Israel. Previous missile attacks by the group had failed to penetrate deep into Israeli airspace, with one missile in March landing in an open area near the Red Sea port of Eilat. In July, an Iranian-made drone attack on Tel Aviv killed one person and wounded ten others. During Sunday’s strike, Israel activated its Arrow and Iron Dome defense systems, though it remains unclear whether any of the interception attempts were successful.

    Saudi Arabia now faces an urgent need to take stronger action against the Houthis, as the threat they pose could be as significant to the kingdom as it is to Israel, if not greater. A potential attack on Saudi territory is a growing concern, especially given previous incidents. The kingdom also wants to prevent the Houthis from gaining further support and enhancing their reputation for bravery in the name of Islam. If the Houthis gain more support in Yemen, the Saudi-backed official government could be in jeopardy. However, before launching any strikes, Saudi Arabia is likely to seek U.S. approval, and more military operations are anticipated. Saudi leaders are calling for a more robust approach than mere pinprick bombings to effectively sever the Houthis supply lines.

    Saudi Arabia has also pointed to Iran’s interference in Arab nations such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine, expressing disappointment that Tehran has failed to uphold the diplomatic agreement it reached with Saudi Arabia in China two years ago. The kingdom had hoped Iran would take a more proactive role in fostering regional stability and resolving disputes, not just with Saudi Arabia but across the broader region. However, the escalating tensions are likely to exacerbate the Middle East crisis, potentially drawing in additional parties, including the U.S. and the U.K. The Houthis are likely to receive more support, and Saudi Arabia may bear higher costs than Israel in this situation.

  • How Will the U.S. Election Impact the Israel-Gaza Conflict, and Vice Versa?

    How Will the U.S. Election Impact the Israel-Gaza Conflict, and Vice Versa?

    Israel’s war on Gaza shows no signs of ending soon, and countries around the world seem unwilling to intervene. The only country outside of Israel with the capacity to meaningfully intervene is the United States. Despite being the world’s most powerful country, capable of diplomatic and military operations anywhere, the U.S. appears constrained in acting against Israel’s will, a nation it holds dear. With a sizable Jewish and Muslim population – both of whom are divided over the Israel-Gaza conflict – the U.S. presidential election is also expected to be influenced by the situation. In response to growing negative sentiment and campus protests in solidarity with Palestine, the U.S., along with its Arab allies, has attempted to broker a ceasefire and develop a solution, but these efforts have not succeeded. With Biden stepping away from the presidential race, the U.S. now awaits the upcoming contest between hard-right Republican Trump and left-leaning Democrat Kamala Harris to see how future intervention in the Israel-Gaza conflict will unfold.

    While both candidates follow core U.S. policies in the Middle East, their approaches to resolving the conflict differ. Kamala Harris has not outlined detailed plans but remains firmly committed to Israel, continuing the U.S.’s long standing support for the nation. She reaffirmed her backing of Israel, emphasizing the need to secure the release of hostages, while advocating for a two-state solution to provide both Palestinian sovereignty and security, which conventionally the US does not endorse. 

    Harris advocates for a ceasefire, conditioned on Hamas releasing the hostages taken during the October 7 attack and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. She was among the first Western leaders to call for a ceasefire in early March and has been more outspoken than President Biden regarding the humanitarian crisis caused by Israel’s military actions in Gaza. However, she has yet to make progress in advancing negotiations on this issue. Despite her reported disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu over his handling of the war, she has not proposed any actions that would directly affect his government. Notably, she skipped Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in July but met with him privately during his visit to Washington. Harris’s positions can appear inconsistent or impractical, raising questions about the feasibility of her approach.

    Donald Trump, the former president, has clearly stated his position on the Israel-Gaza conflict and claims to have a resolution plan. He has pledged to resolve the issue quickly if re-elected. However, he has not provided specifics on how he would negotiate with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas to achieve a ceasefire and secure the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

    Trump has consistently supported Israel’s war on Gaza, urging the country to conclude the conflict swiftly due to diminishing international support. Although he was initially critical of Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence for being unprepared for the Oct. 7 attack, he quickly retracted those comments and reaffirmed his strong alliance with Netanyahu, with whom he had a close relationship during his presidency. During his time in office, Trump released a peace proposal he called a blueprint for a two-state solution. However, this plan did not propose a fully autonomous Palestinian state and was perceived as heavily favoring Israel. Trump’s administration strongly backed Netanyahu’s government and endorsed hard-liner Israeli policies previously rejected by the U.S. His presidency also saw a significant warming of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, highlighting his skills as a negotiator and businessman.

    Criticism of the current U.S. government’s actions is likely to target Kamala Harris, as American activists have reported on the ongoing casualties from the war. Traditionally, Muslim and Arab voters lean toward the Democratic Party, but dissatisfaction with the current administration’s handling of the situation and its stance on Israel has caused frustration. Additionally, many liberals and anti-war advocates within the Democratic base are unhappy with the government’s response. While Trump is unlikely to gain favor from these groups due to his pro-Israel stance, many believe he might be able to end the conflict with his negotiation and problem-solving skills, which previously helped improve relations between Arabs and Israelis during his tenure. A ceasefire before the election seems unlikely, as the outgoing president, who is not running for re-election, would not gain any political advantage from such a deal.

  • Why Did Outrage Erupt Over the Gaza War in Israel?

    Why Did Outrage Erupt Over the Gaza War in Israel?

    As Netanyahu’s government tightens its siege on Gaza and inflames tensions in the West Bank, a profound wave of protests has swept through Israel. On Sunday night, the streets were thronged with thousands of demonstrators, and a general strike was called in a dramatic response to escalating public outrage, particularly following the deaths of six hostages held underground by Hamas. What initially seemed to reinforce Netanyahu’s position – despite a fractured coalition and persistent corruption allegations – has now emerged as a considerable liability, fueling a growing tide of opposition against him.

    The discovery of the hostages’ bodies in Gaza over the weekend has intensified the divisions over the war, pushing tensions to their breaking point. In Tel Aviv, Israel’s bustling commercial center, around 100,000 people rallied, while demonstrations also unfolded in Jerusalem, amplifying pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to secure a ceasefire and bring the remaining hostages home. That night, protesters blocked the Ayalon highway in Tel Aviv, igniting a bonfire in the road near Hashalom and filling the streets with drumming and chanting. Despite the efforts of a few dozen police officers, the protest continued unabated. The nationwide general strike, the first since the Hamas attacks on October 7, was organized to advocate for a deal to free the hostages. It ended after eight hours with a court order mandating that workers return to their jobs.

    The findings indicating that Hamas executed the hostages did little to shift the widespread anger directed at Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition for failing to secure a US-backed hostages-for-peace deal with Hamas, which has been under negotiation since late May. Hamas believed that holding the hostages would leverage Israel into conducting talks and releasing their members from Israeli prisons. However, Netanyahu chose to use the situation as a bargaining tool, despite warnings that Hamas might kill the hostages. In a statement mourning the six hostages, Netanyahu blames Hamas for rejecting the deal. Hamas official Izzat al-Rishq, however, blamed the deaths on Israel and the US, citing Israel’s failure to agree to a ceasefire deal that he claimed Hamas had accepted. Rishq did not address how the hostages died or comment on IDF claims of executions.

    It seems that the country’s left-wing and center-left factions are increasingly opposed to the war, advocating for a hostage deal that could potentially lead to at least a temporary peace. Announcing the general strike, Histadrut trade union federation leader Arnon Bar-David stated that it was impossible to continue standing by as children are murdered in the tunnels of Gaza. He added that the nation is no longer united and that this situation must be stopped. According to Bar-David, Israel needs to return to normal, as the country is receiving body bags instead of a deal. He concluded that only their intervention might compel those who need to act.

    During Sunday night’s demonstration, many protesters felt that the country might have reached a critical juncture. The strike was supported by the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, a group of relatives of the abductees who have been leading the protest movement and calling for a ceasefire deal. However, the right-wing faction views these leftist efforts as making the country vulnerable to Hamas’s demands and future risks.

    In October of last year, Hamas executed a brutal terrorist attack on Israel, leading to 1,200 fatalities. Of the 250 hostages captured, eight have been rescued, and over 100 were released as part of a temporary ceasefire deal in November. The recent discovery of six more bodies leaves 101 hostages still missing in Gaza. The IDF has confirmed that 35 of these hostages have died after more than ten months in captivity.  The lives of those still presumed alive are highly valuable to Israel, and as protests escalate, political pressure on Netanyahu is expected to mount. If Netanyahu continues to disregard these protests, opposition and anti-Netanyahu sentiment are likely to intensify. The ongoing war, which supports Netanyahu’s coalition government formed with various interest groups, also serves to bolster his position despite the growing unrest.

  • Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Israel’s retaliatory actions against Hamas are now expanding to cover the entire Palestinian territory, including the West Bank – a region governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, and recognized by many countries worldwide. While the global Islamic community and anti-war supporters express solidarity with Palestine and condemn the civilian casualties, Israel continues to cite the October 7th attack, a clear act of terrorism by Hamas, as justification for its actions. Interestingly, this stance has effectively silenced much of the international community.

    However, with rising tensions in the West Bank – a region crucial for establishing an independent Palestine – it is worth considering that Israel may be pursuing a broader strategy aimed at eliminating any possibility of a Palestinian state, rather than solely targeting Hamas. While Israel claims to be focusing on militants, including senior Hamas officials, its actions suggest a more extensive plan.

    The death toll among Palestinians in the West Bank is rising rapidly following two days of Israeli attacks involving helicopters, drones, and ground forces. Between 2020 and October 2023, only six Palestinians in the West Bank were killed in airstrikes. However, this week, the UN reported that since October 2023, 136 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed in Israeli airstrikes – a sharp and alarming increase. Israel justifies its actions as necessary for self-defense, claiming it is responding to attacks allegedly carried out with Iranian-supplied weapons. However, the bombing of civilians from the skies increasingly appears to be an attempt to terrorize the population into submission – a strategy that is intensifying.

    Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank is rapidly increasing as the state seeks to consolidate control over more land. Much of this territory, initially arid and inhospitable, has been transformed into livable space by settlers, yet it remains designated under international agreements, including the Oslo Accords, as part of a future Palestinian state. Fueled by substantial investments and growing political pressures, Israel’s commitment to advancing these projects is unwavering, rendering any withdrawal from them highly improbable and impractical. The challenge of evacuating 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005, which faced intense opposition, stands in stark contrast to the nearly 90 times as many settlers now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jewish dominance is increasingly apparent in many areas of the eastern territory, and Israel perceives it as both a duty and a moral obligation to protect its citizens. In this context, the current conflict may serve Israel’s strategic interests by diminishing remaining opposition and facilitating further territorial expansion under the guise of wartime necessity.

    Despite facing a severe blockade, Gaza remains a separate territory with its own government. Israel argues that a similar situation in the West Bank, should it withdraw, would pose a significant security risk, a concern heightened by Hamas’s actions. Although there is still hope for the establishment of a Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly just one day before the historic ICJ opinion to pass a resolution—co-sponsored by parties within Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition and supported by both right-wing and centrist opponents – rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state. This context clarifies that the ongoing attacks in the West Bank is not simply about targeted attacks akin to those in Lebanon or Iran. 

    The world’s major powers, including the United States, and Islamic countries that have long used the issue of Palestine to evoke Islamic solidarity, have struggled to reach an agreement to end the ongoing bloodshed. Without a resolution, confidence in global institutions, which have so far proven ineffective, risks fading. Hamas has demonstrated that a long-term resolution can only be achieved through diplomacy, allowing both peoples to coexist peacefully. However, it must be noted that either Israel has seized the opportunity, or Hamas has made Israel’s objectives achievable.

  • Are We Really Approaching a Ceasefire in Gaza?

    Are We Really Approaching a Ceasefire in Gaza?

    A ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict is now a demand from the United States as Americans head to the polls to choose their next president in November. Neither Hamas nor Israel seems particularly interested in this. Israel does not feel the need to stop the war at this point because they have successfully framed Hamas as their biggest threat following the October 7th attack. Meanwhile, in Gaza, a Hamas-controlled territory, a severe humanitarian crisis is unfolding, with over 40,000 deaths reported by local health authorities and critical issues such as famine and a lack of drinking water. This situation only strengthens Hamas’s image as a martyr organization within the Muslim world, which aligns with the group’s objectives. For outsiders who do not view this as a holy war, a ceasefire is their primary demand. The UN’s influence seems limited, and the U.S. is seen as the only power that can make a difference. Secretary Blinken’s visit raised some hope, but the situation still appears to be in limbo, with talks expected to continue.

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the urgency of securing a ceasefire in Gaza as he concluded his Middle East tour, with an agreement between Israel and Hamas still out of reach. He stated that the deal needs to be completed soon, ideally within the next few days. Blinken urged Hamas to accept a bridging proposal that Israel has already agreed to and encouraged both parties to work toward finalizing it. Blinken, along with mediators from Egypt and Qatar, is focusing on this bridging proposal to narrow the gaps between the two sides in the 10-month-old conflict. Despite last week’s negotiations pausing without a breakthrough, the U.S. expects ceasefire talks to continue this week.

    However, analysts believe that achieving a ceasefire will not be easy. Hamas is not directly participating in the negotiations and has expressed concerns that the latest proposal on the table leans too much toward Israel’s demands. On Tuesday, the militant group responded to comments by U.S. President Joe Biden, who suggested that they were backing away from an agreement with Israel, calling these remarks misleading. The proposed plan calls for a six-week ceasefire, during which a limited number of female, seniors, and sick Israeli hostages would be freed in exchange for Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. The ceasefire could be extended indefinitely while negotiators work on a second stage, which would include the return of soldiers and bodies, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and the return of displaced Palestinian civilians to their homes in the northern part of the strip.

    A key obstacle to reaching an agreement has been Hamas’s long standing demand for the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from all areas of Gaza, which Israel rejected without any doubts. When asked in Qatar about the terms of Israeli troop withdrawals within the ceasefire framework, and about a report in the U.S. publication Axios that quoted Netanyahu as saying he might have convinced Blinken that Israel should keep troops in the Philadelphi corridor, a strategic strip on the Gaza-Egypt border, Blinken responded. He stated that the United States does not support any long-term occupation of Gaza by Israel. He also clarified that the agreement is very clear on the schedule and locations of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrawals from Gaza, and that Israel has agreed to those terms.

    Concerns about regional escalation have persisted since Hezbollah and Iran vowed retaliation after an attack last month, blamed on Israel, which resulted in the death of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. However, the likelihood of widespread conflict now seems to be diminishing, as the countries that threatened war are now worried that it could further weaken them and lead to internal unrest and civil protests.

    Many believe that U.S. politics are influencing the ceasefire efforts both positively and negatively. There are conspiracy theories on X suggesting that Donald Trump might be delaying the truce with his friend Netanyahu to avoid benefiting Kamala Harris in the election, though no evidence has been reported. However, it is clear that there is now a push for a ceasefire from the U.S. government, as it could provide a significant boost to Democrats in the presidential election. Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza remains a severe humanitarian crisis. A ceasefire would be a notable humanitarian achievement for these politicians.

  • Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    The conflict between Muslims and Jews has historical roots extending over centuries, primarily driven by religious differences rather than just territorial disputes. This is why the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict attracts worldwide attention and involves Muslims and Jews globally. Social media is abuzz with propaganda from both sides. However, on the ground, Israel has a significant advantage as a sovereign state with advanced project management, while Hamas, which governs Gaza and initiated the fresh wave of conflict with terrorist attacks in Israel, finds itself on the defensive with only weakened support from Iran. The conflict appears to be heavily skewed in favor of one side, with the Hamas side suffering greatly.

    In terms of international politics, Israel receives support from superpowers like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, while countries like Russia, China, and India maintain a more neutral stance. This support provides Israel with a substantial advantage. On the other hand, Hamas and Gaza mainly receive backing from Iran, whose capabilities are in question. This raises the question: why are there no superpowers in the Arab or Muslim world capable of challenging Israel?

    The answer lies in U.S. supremacy in a unipolar world. Although there is widespread anger and calls for solidarity with Hamas across the Islamic world, which stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, these are largely limited to public statements. This situation represents a clear victory for U.S. diplomacy, which has either aligned powerful countries with U.S. interests or severely weakened others. A powerful or superpower country typically has strong leadership, economic influence, political influence, strong international alliances, and a strong military, but few countries in the Islamic world possess all these features combined. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey are considered powerful countries within the Islamic world today, but they are all aligned with the United States. Turkey is a NATO member with tight ties to the U.S., while Saudi Arabia and the UAE are highly reliant on business with the U.S., and their leadership maintains strong connections with U.S. diplomats. They also have military defense pacts with the U.S. Qatar, one of the wealthiest Islamic countries, also maintains a close relationship with the U.S. Despite their connections with Islamist leaders and organizations, and their roles in mediating with groups like Hamas and the Taliban.

    All the countries that previously challenged Israel are now weakened and humbled by U.S. strategies and diplomacy. Egypt, home to the largest army in the Middle East and the leader of last century’s Arab movements against Israel, along with Libya, Iraq, and Syria – countries that once challenged Israel—have lost the leadership capable of making such decisions. They are experiencing severe economic decline and face significant domestic challenges. Now, it seems that the Islamic Republic of Iran is currently the only major power from the Muslim world still challenging Israel. However, Iran has also been economically weakened by strong U.S. sanctions and faces serious domestic issues. Iran has been stunned and humbled by Israel through severe attacks. While Iran has vowed revenge, it has not taken any significant actions that are visibly effective. Nonetheless, Iran has not completely withdrawn from its ideological commitment to opposing Israel, unlike other states. Iran continues to fund organizations fighting against Israel, and Qatar is also reported to be providing support. Despite these efforts, no one is currently able to effectively challenge Israel, highlighting the weakness of the Islamic world outside of its elaborate organizations.

    As Israel is not ready for a truce, it seems likely that Gaza will be systematically annexed by Israel. This outcome appears inevitable. The stance of Islamic countries, which avoids a regional war, may bring peace, but it is clear that the position of Muslim governments does not reflect the sentiment of their populations. This could lead to a revival of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the Islamic world, which would bring more challenges in the region.

  • Will the Gaza Conflict Cause ISIS and Al-Qaida Revival?

    Will the Gaza Conflict Cause ISIS and Al-Qaida Revival?

    Palestine is an emotional issue for global Muslims. People who support Muslim solidarity across borders, from the United States to Indonesia, are now feeling angered. So-called rich Islamic countries and secular nations can’t do anything about the Gaza conflict, while the media in these countries continue to report Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. The governments follow the strategy of avoiding animosity with Israel or the United States, but they are not blocking media coverage of the conflict in Gaza, and the media continue to celebrate it as usual. While Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, the state outlets of Middle Eastern governments, strongly propagate the Gaza issue, their own governments can’t do anything about it. Political analysts believe this situation will drive more young Muslims, who are desperate due to various conditions including the situation in Gaza, towards radical Islam, and they are easily swayed by Islamist organizations that fight against mainstream opinions, laws, and governments. The Islamic population feels betrayed by the world, and the media stoke emotional factors, which, combined with tough living conditions and unemployment, as well as patriotic far-right movements opposing Islamism in the West, create what is considered the perfect ground for the revival of the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, and similar groups.

    Security services across the Middle East, including the Gulf countries, fear that the ongoing conflict may lead to a flow of radicalized youth to ISIS and al-Qaeda through social media groups. These individuals might travel to regions controlled by these groups, where they could receive training and indoctrinate more young people to conduct terrorist attacks. The United Nations has published a series of reports highlighting how major extremist groups are exploiting the war in Gaza to attract new recruits and mobilize existing supporters, even though both al-Qaeda and ISIS have condemned Hamas as apostates for decades.

    Officials and analysts are reporting an increase in Islamic militant extremism in various areas. An ISIS branch in the Sinai desert has recently become more lethal, and rising attacks by the group in Syria have raised concerns, with several plots thwarted in Jordan. In a recent attack, seven Syrian soldiers were killed in an ISIS ambush in Raqqa province, northern Syria, with 383 fighters from government forces and their proxy militias killed since the beginning of the year, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Last month, Jordanian security services uncovered a plot in Amman when explosives detonated while being prepared by extremists in a poor neighborhood. Subsequent raids led to the detention of a network of predominantly young men who were apparently radicalized by ISIS propaganda. Reports from India indicate that the Islamic State is trying to recruit Muslim youth willing to fight against the nation and Israel. In Turkey, authorities arrested dozens of people last month to combat an increased threat from an ISIS affiliate with a strong presence there. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen has launched a new effort to inspire followers to attack Western, Israeli, Jewish, and other targets. The issue extends beyond existing terrorist organizations, as increasingly radicalized youth may choose to join new groups or form their own in areas historically free from such threats, due to the borderless nature of the internet.

    The Gaza war may serve as a seminal cause for radicalizing the next generation of jihadis, as they are increasingly exposed to volatile images and videos from Gaza through the internet. Although the immediate consequences may not be apparent, they are likely to manifest over the coming years. The conflict has significantly heightened the terrorism threat and elicited a strong emotional reaction. Regional officials emphasize the impact of continuous exposure to images of suffering from Gaza, available 24/7 on television and the internet, describing the conflict as a ‘Push Factor’ that encourages extremist violence across the Middle East and beyond. According to Palestinian health officials, more than 38,000 people have died in the Israeli offensive into Gaza, with about half of those identified being women and children. 

    A vast regional occupation by the Islamic State, similar to their previous control stretching from Iraq to Syria, is expected to reestablish itself. Despite the opposition forces in this area being highly equipped and prepared for battle, ISIS has launched over 100 attacks on government forces and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria in recent months, with violence peaking in March at levels not seen in several years. ISIS cells are operating at higher levels than before. Kurdish forces opposing ISIS face severe challenges from the armies of Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. In this complex war zone, combined with poor governance, the presence of individuals willing to fight and die for the cause could contribute to the creation of a caliphate and expansion into new areas. As more Islamic factions demand separate regions and attempt to overthrow democratic governments, anarchy is resulting. Consequently, the emergence of a more effective caliphate can be expected.

    Islamic extremist groups are inundating the internet with material that supports Gaza, Hamas, and Islam, while inciting anger towards Jews, Israel, the United States, and even Islamic Gulf countries. They are spreading instructions for bomb-making, violence, coups, and Islamic methods of killing, which easily influence the youth. The foundational ideas of Islamizing the world and killing infidels are more aggressively propagated through the internet than ever before. A new generation is growing up with an ideology that threatens peaceful coexistence in many countries. As more Muslim countries descend into anarchy, radicalization becomes increasingly feasible, and the revival of notorious Islamist terrorist organizations seems imminent, posing a growing risk to global stability.

  • Is Turkey Really Going to Fight Against Israel?

    Is Turkey Really Going to Fight Against Israel?

    Turkey and Israel maintained a good relationship, while other Islamic countries, from Morocco to Indonesia, do not even recognize the state of Israel. Israel and Turkey formally established diplomatic relations in 1949, shortly after Israel was founded. Both countries prioritized cooperation in economics, diplomacy, military, and strategic affairs. Although disputes have arisen, diplomats from both sides have worked to keep the relationship intact.

    However, in recent decades, under the leadership of Islamist leader Erdoğan, the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated considerably. Relations worsened further after Israel’s retaliation in Gaza, with Turkey condemning Israel and supporting Hamas. As tensions escalate, many question the likelihood of Turkey intervening, given Erdoğan’s strong support for Hamas and his advocacy for global Muslim solidarity. Will Turkey fight against Israel to save Palestinians?

    During a meeting with his ruling AK Party in his hometown of Rize on Sunday, President Tayyip Erdogan suggested that Turkey might intervene in Israel, similar to its previous actions in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh. In the televised address that was trending on X, he stated that there was no reason Turkey could not undertake such actions and emphasized the need for strength to pursue these steps. Although he did not specify the form the intervention might take, he confidently highlighted Turkey’s defense industry  throughout his speech.

    Erdogan has demonstrated a readiness to engage in significant interventions in the Middle East, often citing Turkey’s strategic interests and invoking a sense of Ottoman heritage. He has participated in attacks in Nagorno-Karabakh alongside Azerbaijan, showing hostility toward Armenia and advocating for a grand Turkic ethnic union. Erdogan also supports the faction in Libya that controls Tripoli, which opposes the faction backed by France and other groups. Additionally, Turkey frequently conducts operations along the Syrian border, targeting Kurdish-controlled areas, and there are reports suggesting potential intervention in Kurdish territories in Iraq. It’s interesting that while Turkey does not support the creation of Kurdistan, it actively advocates for the Palestinian cause.

    Erdoğan has been highly critical of Israel’s actions during its conflict with Hamas, accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of genocide. Turkey has halted all trade with Israel and recalled its ambassador. The Turkish foreign ministry compared Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler, claiming that, just as Hitler’s reign ended, so too will Netanyahu’s. The ministry also declared that those who seek to destroy the Palestinians will be held accountable and that humanity will stand with the Palestinians, who will not be defeated.

    In response, Israel recalled its diplomats from Turkey and accused Ankara of supporting terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Iran. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz comparing Erdoğan to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Katz suggested that Erdoğan’s threats against Israel are reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s actions and cautioned Erdoğan to remember the outcome of Saddam’s threats.

    Turkey, where about 99.8% of the population are Muslims, was regarded as secular until Erdoğan’s leadership. If Turkey were to enter the war, it could be perceived as a reestablishment of Ottoman Turkey. While the global Muslim population is frustrated by the lack of punitive action against Israel, especially as Lebanon, Syria, and Iran face frequent attacks, Turkey’s intervention could restore some of the historical significance associated with the Ottoman Empire and potentially position it as a leading force in the Islamic world.Such a move would likely have a significant impact on the global order.

    There is no doubt that Turkey is a major military power, boasting NATO’s second-largest military and advanced munitions technology, including its renowned drones. Its involvement could present a significant challenge to Israel, unlike Iran, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, which face geographical limitations and a lack of war experience. However, the likelihood of Turkey intervening remains low due to US influence over the country. If a conflict does occur, Turkey’s economy may struggle to sustain it, potentially leading to hardship for its people. Additionally, the US might then support the creation of Kurdistan, an expanded Armenia, or a unified Cyprus, which could threaten Turkey’s existence.

    Despite international media reports, it is more realistic to view Erdoğan and the Turkish government’s comments as part of a strategy to maintain his image as the defender of Islam. This is particularly relevant given that the Muslim population, who are staunch supporters of Erdoğan, are discontented with the situation in Gaza. If public dissatisfaction persists, Erdoğan faces a significant challenge as the opposition gains support among the people.

    Although direct confrontation is unlikely, Turkey is exploring all possible options against Israel. Reports indicate that Turkey may formally submit a declaration of intervention in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel regarding the Gaza conflict to the International Court of Justice. As a seasoned politician, Erdoğan knows that without addressing the concerns of the Islamist populace and taking a strong stance on the Palestinian issue, he cannot maintain his political position or assert Turkey’s leadership in the Muslim world.

  • Iran Is Forced, But Are They Capable?

    Iran Is Forced, But Are They Capable?

    Iran is deeply humiliated by Israel’s killing of the Hamas chief in Tehran. Although it was anticipated that Israel might target him, the attack did not occur while he was in Gaza or Qatar. Instead, Israel chose to act when he arrived in Iran for the new president’s inauguration. As a major player in the Islamic world and the only country actively opposing Israel, Iran views this as a significant humiliation. This incident is not unprecedented; Israel has previously targeted several high-ranking Iranian officials, and some experts even speculate that Ebrahim Raisi might be a target. Iran’s regime feels compelled to retaliate to maintain its strong image domestically and its status as a defender of Islam globally. While previous responses have involved ceremonial missile launches, such a response may no longer suffice. But are they capable?

    Iran is undeniably a superpower in the Middle East, boasting a formidable military force. As of 2024, the Iranian Armed Forces are the second-largest in the region, surpassed only by the Egyptian Armed Forces in terms of active troops. Iran’s military consists of approximately 425,000 active-duty personnel and an additional 100,000 reserves and trained personnel available when needed. These numbers do not include the Law Enforcement Command or the Basij. Despite its numerical advantage over Israel, Iran faces more challenges than opportunities. 

    Most of Iran’s imported weapons are American systems acquired during the shah’s regime before the Islamic Revolution. Following international sanctions, Iran initiated a strong domestic rearmament program, resulting in an increasingly indigenous military inventory. By the 2000s, Iran had become an exporter of arms, although the effectiveness of its domestically manufactured items remains. The country has invested significantly in an ambitious ballistic and cruise missile program to enhance its mid-range strike capability, though updates on its progress are scarce. Additionally, Iran produces a variety of arms and munitions, including tanks, armored vehicles, drones, and an array of naval assets and aerial defense systems, which could be crucial in a conflict.

    Iran has purchased some munitions from Russia in addition to its indigenous weapons. However, since Russia is currently at war, it cannot meet Iran’s demand. It is uncertain whether other superpowers in Asia, such as China and India, will supply munitions to Iran. Supplying munitions would likely invite U.S. sanctions, so Islamic countries will probably refrain from doing so.

    The biggest challenge for Iran is that it does not share a border with Israel, so the size of its army does not provide an advantage. War through waterways is possible, but on all the routes through land and sea, U.S. allies are present and will likely stop them. Through the air, missiles are available, and they have been launched at Israel before, but Israel successfully blocked them. The only way that might work for Iran now is a joint attack with its allies in the region. However, there are doubts that these countries will cooperate with Iran now because they would suffer more than Iran if they intervened. However, it is certain that militant groups in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen will fight alongside Iran, and a joint attack with them is the only possibility for Iran. Iran is trying its best to partner with Islamic countries.

    Iran has called in foreign ambassadors to Tehran to assert its moral duty to hold Israel accountable for what it views as provocations and violations of international law following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Tehran has also requested an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Wednesday to seek backing from Arab states for potential retaliatory measures against Israel. Many Gulf leaders have expressed their condemnation of Israel’s actions but are advising Iran to show restraint.

    Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s Security Council Secretary, arrived in Tehran on Monday for talks with Iranian leaders, including President Masoud Pezeshkian. While discussions are advancing quickly, it remains uncertain how many countries will support Iran in its war against Israel.

    Experts suggest that Iran is striving to maintain its image. To potentially promote peace, the U.S. might indirectly assist Iran by allowing a token attack, enabling Iran to claim retaliation. Iran could then shift blame to other Gulf states. At this stage, a full-scale war seems unlikely, as Iran recognizes the significant challenges and potential internal problems that such a conflict would create. Although missile strikes or proxy attacks might continue, the likelihood of a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel remains low.