Voices from the Arab Press: Franco-American relations and implications for Lebanon

The visit of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Paris, where he met French President Emmanuel Macron and his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian, came to confirm the new and emerging US-French relationship that has grown ever tighter under Macron and US President Joe Biden.

The foreign ministers of the two countries were keen to address each other repeatedly on a first name basis – “Jean-Yves” and “Tony” – as a testament to their close friendship. The rapprochement we are witnessing between the two countries was evident in Blinken’s speech at the conclusion of the meeting, in which he remarked that the United States and the international community are ready to help Lebanon witness real change.

“We need to see real leadership in Lebanon,” Blinken added. Le Drian began speaking by addressing Blinken with “Dear Tony” and said, “We share the same assessment of the situation in Lebanon, from the catastrophic collapse of the country to the inability of the political leadership in Lebanon to face challenges... so we agreed to work together to place more pressure on Lebanese leaders to take the initiative to confront the political situation.”

French and American sources say that these initiatives are still under consideration and have not yet crystallized, but there is a point to putting more pressure on the Lebanese officials who are standing in the way of the government’s formation. There is no doubt that putting the issue of Lebanon on the table of the Macron and Blinken talks at the Élysée Palace indicates the two countries’ interest in Lebanon and preventing its disintegration.

The Americans are clearly interested in pushing for the formation of a new government in Lebanon that will implement at least some reforms – even if they are few – in order to get the country out of its political stalemate. Le Drian’s warm welcome to his friend Blinken indicates a new era in US-French relations and deep French satisfaction with the US coordination with Germany and France on Libya, as well as the new US administration’s support for France’s stance in Mali.

The Berlin II Conference re-emphasized the necessity of withdrawing foreign forces and mercenaries from Libya, similar to the same demands previously raised in the Berlin I Conference that was held in January of last year. It is true that this time around, the issue of withdrawing foreign fighters was not raised as a direct demand to the parties involved in the conflict. However, it was a recurring appeal that was voiced in a series of meetings that took place over the course of the past month in various European capitals – including the G7 Summit in Britain, the NATO summit in Belgium, and the recent meeting between the French and Turkish foreign ministers in Paris.

In all of these events, the topic of the withdrawal of foreign fighters from Libya, especially the Syrian militias imported to the country by the Turkish government, was discussed. The importance of the Berlin II Conference is that it brought together the influential parties in the Libyan conflict, including Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Russia, as well as European parties such as France, Italy and Germany. It was also attended by the US secretary of state.

Thanks to this multilateral participation and international pressure, Russia and Turkey agreed to an interim step of withdrawing 600 militiamen from the country. Ankara’s position was evasive on this matter. It sought to draw a distinction between actual soldiers who were involved in fighting, and military experts and advisers who came at the invitation of the former Libyan Government of National Accord.

Last week, chaos broke out in Kuwait’s parliament during the vote over the state budget. The disagreement over the vote resulted in a physical brawl that escalated into a fistfight. Sadly, such images are no longer shocking to us. We’ve become used to seeing hand-to-hand clashes in our parliament, at our schools, in public gatherings, and even within homes. This is a phenomenon that raises the inevitable question: Why do we resort to physical violence when dealing with disagreements? And what does it say about us as a society?

I dug into this question and was surprised to discover that there are multiple scientific studies on this subject. One recent study, for example, concluded that there is an inverse relationship between empathy and the use of violence: The higher the level of empathy one has, the lower one’s tendency is to use violence to settle disputes. Conversely, the less empathy, the greater the tendency to use violence. Notably, empathy doesn’t mean agreeing to the other party’s point of view or seeing the situation as the other party views it. It simply means being able to acknowledge and accept a viewpoint different from our own.

The study also found a strong relationship between personal distress and the use of violence. People who experience significant emotional duress are less able to empathize and are, consequently, more likely to resort to violence. What is perhaps most interesting about this study is the finding that empathy is not necessarily an acquired skill, but rather an innate ability that is present (or absent) to various degrees among people.

So what can we do to prevent the saddening sights we witnessed in the National Assembly from repeating themselves? It’s almost impossible to educate our people against the use of violence when the popular culture prevalent in our society is one that condones behaviors such as harassment, bullying and toxic masculinity.

A month after the fighting between Israel and Hamas stopped, the situation on the ground shows that little has changed. Once again, the American media ignore Israel’s encroachment on and annexation of Palestinian lands. Attention has focused on the defeat of Netanyahu and the new Israeli government. Although the new leadership’s policies toward the Palestinians are no different from its predecessors, the Israeli propaganda industry is trying to promote this leadership as pragmatic. But as a prominent Israeli peace activist pointed out, American attitudes toward Israel “should be framed within the framework of Israeli policies and not Israeli politicians, and as long as these policies continue, there is no reason to reduce the judgment on Israel just because of the fact that Israel is not led by Netanyahu.”

As for the policies, nothing has changed. Shortly after being sworn in, the new government issued a permit to extremists allowing them to march through Arab neighborhoods, chanting “Death to Arabs” and “Your villages will be burned,” in addition to other inflammatory slogans. Israeli police arrested Arab opponents of the protests. In an unpromising development, the Israeli police set up roadblocks and a new checkpoint around the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. The Israeli police also set up guard posts near Damascus Gate, which are often used to harass and beat Palestinian youths who gather in the square. With each passing day, the intentions of the Israelis become clear: Repeat what they had done in the city of Hebron in the city of Jerusalem.

The Israeli press also reported that the police used a violent method to disperse gatherings even when there was no need to do so. In the rest of the occupied territories, the process of annexation continues with land grabs. In Hebron, the Israelis seized lands adjacent to the Ibrahimi Mosque to complete their seizure of this site under the protection of UNESCO. The area south of Hebron, which are fertile lands owned by Palestinians, was subjected to a campaign of raids by settlers, bulldozing operations, and seizure. The Israeli goal is to link up the settlements around Hebron, cutting them off from the rest of the West Bank.

It also does not bode well for the fact that settlers set up a site known as Evyatar on Jabal Sabih, south of Nablus. It is true that the army declared the site blatantly illegal, but 60 homes have already been built on the site. Soldiers assisted the settlers in transporting building materials to the hill. The government provided the site with water, electricity, and roads. The Palestinians are protesting this blatant land grab. Meanwhile, in Gaza, despite Hamas’s hollow boasts of victory, tens of thousands of Palestinians are still homeless, many others without water or electricity, and the entire population has no hope for the future.

The new Israeli government is seeking to renew a law banning Palestinian family unification; that is, depriving Palestinian citizens of the State of Israel and residents of Jerusalem from bringing their spouses from the West Bank and Gaza or from abroad to live with them, with Defense Minister Benny Gantz asserting that the passage of this law is “necessary to preserve the security of Israel and its Jewish democratic nature.”