ISMAIL HANIYEH, HASSAN NASRALLAH AND THE SO-CALLED ‘NATION’
Al-Nahar, Lebanon, August 12
In a recent interview with Iranian national TV, Hamas Political Bureau head Ismail Haniyeh revealed the content of a recent meeting he had with Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah. Describing his conversation with Nasrallah in a clear way, Haniyeh claimed that the “nation” has become more and more ready to transition from the strategy of “support” to the strategy of “active partnership” in the liberation project of Palestine.
What this means in reality is that the “nation” – which is, in fact, nothing more than an alliance of a few military fronts associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps – is actively preparing for an open and coordinated war with Israel and the United States of America. This announcement is meant to galvanize Hezbollah supporters and give them hope of a tangible goal around which they can orient themselves.
Sadly however, Haniyeh, while diligently transcribing his conversation, forgot to tell the peoples of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen (among others) how Nasrallah plans on leading them through such a major war. In fact, what the people of this so-called “nation” are most concerned with isn’t an external enemy, but rather an internal one: political collapse, hunger and poverty. These people are dying of starvation, they commit suicide out of despair, they die due to shortages of medicine, and they try to flee their homelands on makeshift boats.
No one can deny this terrifying reality created by the Haniyeh-Nasrallah duo under the auspices of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Perhaps these tragedies are the source of “readiness” that the two men were talking about? Maybe Haniyeh and Nasrallah understand that the people of this nation have nothing to lose. With their dignity and livelihoods gone, perhaps they are willing to sacrifice themselves in a pointless war. Instead of dying of starvation, they can die in confrontation. But the truth is that the peoples of the Arab world are rebelling against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. In Lebanon alone, the circle of those who oppose Hezbollah is consistently growing, after the Lebanese public sobered up from Hezbollah’s grand illusions.
The international community has also made it clear that it will not condone this kind of behavior. In a recent statement, the European Union emphasized the importance of “Lebanon’s commitment to a policy of disassociation from all regional conflicts.” This unequivocal position, taken by the last remaining international body that is willing to salvage Lebanon from its political and economic turmoil, completely contradicts the agenda announced by Haniyeh.
Yet Hamas and Hezbollah don’t seem to understand this new reality. This delusion helps explain the recent missile salvos launched from Lebanese soil into Israeli territory. What Hamas and Hezbollah are forgetting is the basic lesson of modern warfare: that the key to winning a war rests not merely with having the strongest ammunition, but also with having the most steadfast civilians. And while Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen are places where missiles abound, they are also places where the civilian infrastructure – food, medicine, oxygen, gasoline, electricity, water, money and above all, hope – are extremely scarce.
This tragic reality suffices to explain which side will ultimately prevail. On the one hand, there is the nation of Israel. On the other hand, there is a group of militias claiming to be a “nation.” – Faris Khashan
TUNISIA 2021 AND EGYPT 2013
Al-Ittihad, UAE, August 13
The developments that have taken place in Tunisia since the outbreak of the widespread popular demonstrations against the Ennahda Movement aren’t entirely surprising.
On July 25, a large group of Tunisians celebrated the 64th anniversary of the republic in a different way: they took to the streets and squares and protested against a movement that has lost its legitimacy and maintained its control over Tunisia despite enjoying only a meager majority in parliament (52 of 217 members). This crisis was getting worse day by day. Warnings of the seriousness of the situation and its potential consequences also grew with time.
But the Ennahda Movement didn’t realize the outcome of their country’s deteriorating conditions, just as it didn’t understand its consequences. It remained entrenched in its positions and refused to do anything about the crisis that threatened Tunisia’s state institutions with complete paralysis. The deterioration of economic and social conditions, the weakening of the health system due to COVID-19, and political disputes threatened Tunisia with implosion.
Interestingly, the positions of the Ennahda Movement in the days prior to July 25 were very similar to those of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt on the eve of June 30, 2013. The Tunisian movement didn’t learn the lesson of the Egyptian revolution and the ultimate collapse of the Brotherhood. Ennahda suddenly took a step back and had to demonstrate some flexibility when it realized that the Tunisian street was mobilizing against it. However, it soon returned to its original positions and entered a direct clash with Tunisia’s political institutions.
This isn’t the first time that a Brotherhood offshoot has failed to learn the lessons of its sister organization. This was the case with the Brotherhood in Egypt, which was unable to absorb the lessons of its first clash with the government, which led to its dissolution in 1948. Three years later, it regained its legal status, which it maintained until it entered into a new clash with the government in 1954. After it seemed to many that the Brotherhood finally learned its lesson – when the late president Anwar Sadat brought it back into the political arena under specific conditions – it became clear that the Brotherhood mentality is hard on political realization. As soon as it came to power in 2012, its leadership thought that its takeover of the presidency was sufficient to achieve its ambitions, so it entered into a clash with several parties, and with the broader Egyptian public.
And, today, the Ennahda Movement is following the same path, reproducing the experience of its mother group in Egypt, and proving that it is no different from other so-called political Islam groups, contrary to what some Arab and foreign scholars and analysts believed in recent years. – Dr. Waheed Abdul Majeed
MAJ. GEN. OMAR SULEIMAN: AN EGYPTIAN MODEL AND AN EXAMPLE
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, August 14
Our nation never forgets its heroes and those who deserve credit for its revival. President Abd Al-Fattah El-Sisi’s decision to name the new bridge constructed at the Gamal Abdel Nasser neighborhood in Cairo after the late Maj. Gen. Omar Suleiman is a reflection of this commitment. It’s a well-deserved honor.
Maj. Gen. Omar Suleiman was a true Egyptian patriot to his core. He lived and died for Egypt, and spent his entire life serving his nation. He led the Egyptian Intelligence Service, which played a pivotal role in protecting our country from both internal and external enemies and preserving our national security. The emblem of the General Intelligence Directorate consists of the famous Eye of Horus, which symbolizes the monitoring of all dangers. Directly beneath it is a powerful hawk that pounces on a poisonous snake to snatch it from the ground, representing the seriousness and commitment with which the Intelligence Directorate tackles dangers threatening our country.
Maj. Gen. Omar Suleiman represented both. He bravely confronted Egypt’s enemies and stood guard over the Egyptian nation. Under his leadership, the General Intelligence Directorate played a great role in preventing the country from slipping into chaos. The Egyptian School for Intelligence gave rise to great leaders who played considerable roles in the history of our nation. It is therefore important to stop and remember the men and women who pledged their lives to the Egyptian homeland. President Sisi decided to honor great leaders, including a true hero, Maj. Gen. Omar Suleiman. – Hamdi Rizk
PREPARING FOR A CLIMATE DISASTER
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, August 15
Despite warnings coming from the scientific community about the acceleration of climate change, most countries around the world have refused to take action on the issue so far. The only exception is the European Union, which recently adopted a series of legislative proposals setting out how it intends to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This was followed by US President Joe Biden’s announcement of his plan to double the number of electric vehicles in the US by 2030.
These measures were considered harsh by some observers, and were therefore met with opposition from industries relying heavily on coal, as well as from the automobile and airline industries. However, the report published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was issued a few days ago, exceeded our worst nightmares by confirming that the pace of climate change far exceeds previous estimates.
Although it’s still possible to slow down the pace of climate change and the severity of its impact, some adverse effects have already become a reality that cannot be changed. For example, while previous reports indicated the possibility of sea levels rising by 0.5 meters by the year 2100, the current report raised this number to an estimated two meters by the same time. The report also forecasts a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees centigrade within 10 years if no change is made. In other words, the slow and reactionary plans we’re used to hearing of simply will not suffice.
It’s interesting to note that the highest level of acceptance of the harsh measures required to combat climate change were witnessed in countries that have been directly impacted by natural disasters. This includes places like Germany and Belgium, which experienced deadly floods that wiped out entire villages. In the Netherlands, the damage was far less noticeable thanks to a robust infrastructure built to combat rising waters in a low-lying country. Therefore, the country witnessed much more objection to the EU plan, which was described as “costly” and “harmful” to the European economy.
But the biggest opposition, if not apathy, can be found in the Arab world. Despite facing droughts and massive wildfires in recent years, the peoples of the region refuse to take climate change seriously. There are even some political officials who propagate conspiracy theories describing climate change as a hoax. The Arab world must follow in the footsteps of the European Union and enact an emergency plan to combat climate change. This plan must address not only the need to reduce carbon emissions, but also focus on curbing the impacts of climate change and devising strategies to deal with this new reality. – Najib Saab
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb