( Middle East Monitor ) – The report by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics at the beginning of the new year, 2025, regarding the reverse immigration of Jews was like fuel poured on the fire of political conflicts in Israel, because the bleak number appearing in the headlines of the Israeli media represented the balance of reverse immigration of Jews outside the Occupation state. 82,000 were removed from the population figure, which was bad news for its political and security circles.

This shocking statistic immediately turned into a new political debate among Israelis, added to their series of endless debates, especially since the available data indicated that this immigration was concentrated on professionals, doctors and technicians due to their despair over the conditions of the state.

While right-wing supporters have exploited these shocking figures to criticise those who are migrating from the state, opponents of the government have used them to attack it. Between the two sides, the phenomenon of reverse migration has turned into another battlefront added to the seven-front war fought by the Occupying state, and evidence that life in it has become unbearable.

While Israelis appear in a hurry to disagree and differ about the accuracy of these figures, and to put the blame on each other, it is impossible to understand what is causing the sharp jump in this reverse migration, given the assertions of the Israelis who are migrating outside the state that they have lost hope in it.

At the same time, this data confirms that experts in the fields of technology, economics, medicine and culture are the main examples of those migrating from the state, because they are no longer able to find a place for themselves in a state that promotes laws limiting their personal freedom, stifle creativity and suppress their private property. It is worth noting that reverse migration of Jews began during the time of the protests that took place against the legal coup, with the Gaza war giving many of them the sense that it was time to leave.

Moreover, the unfair economic policy of the right-wing government, the Haredi’s opposition to compulsory military service, the threats against academic institutions, the attacks on the Supreme Court, the ongoing war in Gaza and the failure to return the kidnapped soldiers, have all restored the fears of Israelis, their lack of confidence in their state, and their fear that they will face more trouble and will not be able to return to it in the future.

Along with the media outlets that have reported the data on reverse Jewish immigration, in recent months, Israeli research centres have noticeably focused on the growing trend of educated young Jews leaving the country, which could harm its economy and social structure. Their motivation behind leaving includes political instability, the economic situation, the cost of living, social tensions and fears of a legal coup.

“Exodus,” Digital, ChatGPT, 2024

What truly worries Israel is the age of these immigrants, as 48 per cent of them are between 20 and 45 years old, and 27 per cent are children and adolescents. The vast majority are under 45 years old and are looking for a better quality of life, due to the deteriorating economic situation, the increasing cost of living and the difficulty of obtaining housing and employment, with a greater degree of inability to access good public services.

There is a prevalent belief among Israelis that the repercussions of this reverse migration on Israel will be major, while the right-wing government is content with attacking the phenomenon through “populist” posts on the Internet, without in-depth analysis, and without providing practical solutions. This is because, in practice, these immigrants have a decreased sense of belonging to the state and its culture, and their connection to it has declined, due to the shock of war, the loss of confidence in the leadership and the economic crisis.

The increasing number of Israelis who are reverse migrating from the Occupying state nowadays coincides with the wave of anti-Occupation sentiments and hatred that is raging in the world due to its crimes against the Palestinian people. Given the political and social division that the country is witnessing, the immediate result of this phenomenon is the radical step towards immigrants being separated from the country, family, friends and immediate surroundings and, in some cases, there is no way back.

In conclusion, the phenomenon of Jews’ reverse migration from Israel signifies a moral failure of the state, and an explicit declaration of its failure to strengthen the connection of Jews coming from all over the world to an Occupied land that is not their land. This is an expected result of the deepening social division in recent years, the prevalence of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric among them and the state’s permission allowing extremist fascist forces to drag the rest of the Israelis into dangerous internal conflicts that may destroy what remains of the state’s immunity.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

Middle East Monitor

Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Board of Directors of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom register our profound concern regarding the interruption of education and the damage to Lebanese educational facilities as a result of the intensified Israeli military campaign which began in September 2024. Widespread aerial bombardments across Lebanon combined with a ground invasion in the south have killed more than 4,000 people, of whom at least 316 are children, and injured 16,500, of whom 1,456 are children.[1] The ceasefire announced on 27 November 2024 is a welcome development, but the damage to the education sector will have lasting effects. It remains far from clear whether the ceasefire will be sustainable or whether its terms will protect Lebanese educational facilities, scholars, researchers and students from ongoing Israeli attacks.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) mandated that education facilities, including universities and schools, close on 24 September 2024. The beginning of the school year was then postponed from 14 October to 4 November 2024 for public schools; however, private schools were granted permission to start the academic year using either online or in-person formats, with each school bearing the risk associated with its chosen methods. Over 1,177 facilities, including schools, were transformed into shelters to house the more than 1.3 million people displaced from South Lebanon and South Beirut. Even in the cases of schools that were able to continue providing instruction, traveling to them was a safety risk for students and staff.

Similar to the situation in primary and secondary schools, instruction and related educational activities at universities were suspended between 28 September and 6 October 2024. In early October, the MEHE announced that over 80,000 university students had been displaced. Many universities resorted to online instruction to continue the academic year. Further, as the Israeli bombardments damaged over 50 hospitals and killed health workers, university hospitals had to expand their health care provision. Teachers and students in medical school were redirected to support this expansion. The American University of Beirut, the largest private sector employee in Lebanon, reported that half of its students had been displaced and a further 700 had become homeless. Université Saint Joseph de Beirut reported that 20% of its staff and one third of its students had been displaced.

Educational facilities located in South Beirut were under consistent threat of aerial bombardment. According to the Beirut Urban Lab, 78% of the schools, universities and vocational institutes in that area were in the vicinity of announced Israeli air strikes. Particularly in Haret Hreik, Azad University was within the area of 27 strikes and Al-Afak Institute was in the area of another 24 strikes.

The Lebanese University, the only public university in Lebanon, was severely impacted by the Israeli military campaign. Its main campus in Hadath in South Beirut, which houses many core faculties, was damaged in an air strike on 9 November 2024. Approximately 30,000 students at the Lebanese University were displaced. In response, the university implemented an emergency plan to provide temporary housing for displaced staff and students, launched online registration and teaching, implemented programmes to pay students fees, and provided psychosocial support. Facilities across Lebanese University branches have further been used to house displaced members of the university.

University communities are also grieving the deaths of students, scholars and staff—from Lebanese University, Lebanese American University, American University of Beirut, Université Sainte Famille Batroun, Phoenicia University, and the University of Sciences and Arts Lebanon, who were killed as a result of Israeli attacks since September 2024.

As described above, the higher education sector faces extreme hardship as it contemplates continuing the academic year. Additionally, revenue shortfalls from tuition fees and the interruption of research activities will impact the future work and sustainability of these institutions. The National Erasmus+ Office in Lebanon, which supports capacity building in higher education, has further reported that foreign staff and students have begun to leave the country. Concurrently, there are fears that Lebanese students may look abroad for higher education opportunities as international scholarships become increasingly available. This will further adversely affect the sustainability of higher education in Lebanon.

The right to education is an internationally protected human right, and educational institutions are protected under international law including under Article 94 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 13 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Israeli military attacks in Lebanon, including on educational facilities and their environs, are direct infringements on these rights and protections, as well as on academic freedom. We express solidarity with our colleagues in Lebanon and urge international organizations to support Lebanese educational institutions as they resume their important activities and rebuild their sector.

( Middle East Monitor ) – When Israel’s far-right extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich acknowledged in October his aim for a Jewish state that encompasses not only all of the Palestinian territories, but also extends to Syria, some speculated about how such a goal would be achieved. In Israel’s classic strategy of “bit by bit”, according to Smotrich, Tel Aviv will eventually have to cut further into Syrian territory as “it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus”.

That ominous admission threw further light on the potential pursuit of the Zionism’s “Greater Israel” project, which would cover Jordan, Lebanon, part of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and part of Saudi Arabia. The occupation state would claim the lands as its own and impose Israeli statehood on the local people, unless they too suffer ethnic cleansing as the Palestinians have.

If Israel’s extremists take Damascus, the region will be destabilised; the regional chessboard will be overturned. They would not simply be taking on resistance groups — as is the case in Gaza and Lebanon — but they would also need to invade and conquer an independent, sovereign state. The more covert, proxy dynamics in place up until now would be replaced by a full-scale state v state war. It’s a risky endeavour.

However, the ouster of the Assad regime on 8 December left a security vacuum that enabled Israel to destroy Syria’s major military defence capabilities and deploy its armed forces further into Syrian territory beyond the occupied Golan Heights. Israeli forces are now just kilometres from Damascus.

Assad’s supporters have responded with glee, of course, because this strengthens their spurious claims that the dictator was the only one standing in the way of such an Israeli invasion; that the “axis of resistance” against Israel is now weakened; and that the new Syrian authorities are complicit with the occupation state and even acting as its agent.

Such allegations, though, can be dismissed, not least because the Assad regime has been in contact with Israel for years, and never took any action to regain its territory annexed by Israel or otherwise challenge the occupation. Moreover, the Israeli attacks and destruction of Syria’s defence capabilities more likely prove that Tel Aviv is extremely wary about its new neighbours in charge of Syria.

More than anything, Tel Aviv saw Assad as a useful buffer against any real threat.

It knew that his regime would never mobilise against Israeli forces, at least not effectively. Israeli policy towards Assad has for decades been to maintain a Syria that was strong enough to oppress its own people but never strong enough to pose a military threat in the neighbourhood.

The new Syrian government’s initial attitude towards the Israeli moves into Syrian territory have done little to discredit the allegations of collaboration with the Zionist state as they grapple with this dilemma. Consider, for example, the comments by the governor of Damascus, Maher Marwan, in an interview with NPR, in which he expressed understanding that “Israel may have felt fear” after the fall of Assad, “so it advanced a little, bombed a little, etc.” He has, on the face of it, taken what is in effect an invasion of his country very lightly indeed.

Damascus aims to have cordial relations with Israel, he claimed, stating that, “We have no fear toward Israel, and our problem is not with Israel.” He reportedly stressed that, “We don’t want to meddle in anything that will threaten Israel’s security or any other country’s security. We want peace, and we cannot be an opponent to Israel or an opponent to anyone.” Moreover, a spokesman for HTS avoided the question of Israel’s 300 air strikes on Syria when questioned by Britain’s Channel 4 News.

Syria’s de-facto leader Ahmed Al-Sharaa – also known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad Al-Julani – has expressed his willingness to return to the 1974 agreement with Israel and once again have UN peacekeepers deployed within the demilitarised zone in the Golan Heights.

“We do not want any conflict whether with Israel or anyone else and we will not let Syria be used as a launchpad for attacks,” Al-Sharaa told the Times in London earlier this month. “The Syrian people need a break, and the [air] strikes must end and Israel has to pull back to its previous positions.”

“The White and Blue over Damascus,” by Juan Cole, based on Unsplash images spliced with IbisPaint and processed by Clip2Comic, 2024

Syria’s interim government, rather than having any genuine sympathy towards Israel and its actions, seems to understand the fact that Syrian forces have little to no significant military capabilities to counter the Israeli occupation forces, let alone to launch any kind of offensive to recapture occupied territory.

Given that Israel is reported to have destroyed around 80 per cent of Syria’s air, land and sea defence capabilities, Al-Sharaa is taking a pragmatic approach. His main mission is to stabilise the domestic situation in a number of ways, chiefly by consolidating the security position and striking an agreement among former anti-Assad groups to unite under the Defence Ministry; disarming former regime soldiers; and trying to absorb Kurdish fighters into the new Syrian Army.

In terms of government, the new authorities are still organising their administration. The interim cabinet will serve until March 2025, at least, and a “National Dialogue Conference” is planned to determine the issue of Syria’s governance.

Al-Sharaa is also making efforts to strengthen Syria on the diplomatic front.

He has hosted numerous delegations from the international community over the past three weeks, and secured a number of significant deals covering the rebuilding of Syria’s infrastructure and the revival of its aviation systems. He now seeks to have all sanctions lifted so that the Syrian economy can be revived, and to persuade the US and other Western powers to remove the group which he heads, Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), from their “terrorist” lists.

Syria’s new leader and the people around him know that doing or saying anything against Israel will likely damage their efforts to stabilise their country. With neither the military capabilities nor diplomatic leverage in place, they know that they cannot force the occupation state to the negotiation table. Moving against Israeli forces in south-west Syria despite the obvious security threat that they pose, will block any real chance of the incoming Trump administration and other Western governments delisting HTS and giving formal recognition to the new government in Damascus.

Nevertheless, Al-Sharaa has a couple of cards up his sleeve to challenge Israel’s encroachment on Syrian territory: Turkiye and the Gulf States. Turkiye’s involvement in the former opposition offensive and the ouster of Assad is no secret, and it has already expressed support for Syria’s new leadership on military, infrastructural and economic terms. Damascus could well utilise that partnership to have Ankara not only strengthen the new administration, but also to serve as a counterbalance to Israel.

While that may be tempting, it is an option that would be perceived as aggressive. Senior Israelis, including former army officers as well as media outlets are already expressing concern that Turkiye is taking the place of Iran and Russia in Syria and this, claim some, is “limiting Israel’s freedom of action”.

The Gulf States, however, provide a more diplomatic option for Damascus.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and even Qatar – although Israel would be sceptical of the latter – have made overtures to the new Syrian authorities, and they could be expected to invest heavily in Syria’s economy and infrastructure in the coming years. Such partnerships could be used to get Damascus and Tel Aviv talking.

For now, therefore, Syria’s administration is using a diplomatic hand to counter Israeli aggression, in the hope that the occupation state will not see Al-Sharaa and his colleagues as a security threat. The big question is: how will Israel respond?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor or Informed Comment.

Muhammad Hussein is an International Politics graduate and political analyst on Middle Eastern affairs, primarily focusing on the regions of the Gulf, Iran, Syria and Turkey, as well as their relation to Western foreign policy.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The United States said that its bombing campaign targeted remnants of Islamic State in the east of the country, hitting 75 targets with 140 bombs and missiles, according to Air Force Times. 

A long-standing force of 900 U.S. troops illegally occupy that part of Syria, partly to divert Syria’s meagre oil revenues to the U.S.’s Kurdish allies and prevent the Syrian government regaining that source of revenue. U.S. bombing badly damaged Syria’s oil infrastructure during the war with the Islamic State, but Russia has been ready to help Syria restore full output whenever it recovers control of that area. U.S. forces in Syria have been under attack by various Syrian militia forces, not just the Islamic State, with at least 127 attacks since October 2023.

Meanwhile, Turkiyë is conducting airstrikes, drone strikes and artillery fire as part of a new offensive by a militia it formed in 2017 under the Orwellian guise of the “Syrian National Army” to invade and occupy parts of Rojava, the autonomous Kurdish enclave in northeast Syria.

Israel, however, launched a much broader bombing campaign than Turkey or the U.S., with about 600 airstrikes on post-Assad Syria in the first eight days of its existence. Without waiting to see what form of government the political transition in Syria leads to, Israel set about methodically destroying its entire military infrastructure, to ensure that whatever government comes to power will be as defenseless as possible. 

 Israel claims its new occupation of Syrian territory is a temporary move to ensure its own security. But while Israel bombed Syria 220 times over the past year, killing about 300 people, Syria showed restraint and did not retaliate for those attacks. 

The pattern of Israeli history has been that land grabs like this usually turn into long-term illegal Israeli annexations, as in the Golan Heights and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That will surely be the case with Israel’s new strategic base on top of Mount Hermon, overlooking Damascus and the surrounding area, unless a new Syrian government or international diplomacy can force Israel to withdraw.

Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Russia and the UN have all joined the global condemnation of the new Israeli assault on Syria. Geir Pedersen, the UN Special Envoy to Syria, called Israel’s military actions “highly irresponsible,” and UN peacekeepers have removed Israeli flags from newly-occupied Syrian territory. 

The Qatari Foreign Ministry called Israel’s actions “a dangerous development and a blatant attack on Syria’s sovereignty and unity as well as a flagrant violation of international law… that will lead the region to further violence and tension.”

The Saudi Foreign Ministry reiterated that the Golan Heights is an occupied Arab territory, and said that Israel’s actions confirmed “Israel’s continued violation of the rules of international law and its determination to sabotage Syria’s chances of restoring its security, stability and territorial integrity.” 

The only country in the world that has ever recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights is the United States, under the first Trump administration, and it is part of Biden’s disastrous legacy in the Middle East that that he failed to stand up for international law and reverse Trump’s recognition of that illegal Israeli annexation.

As people all over the world watch Israel ignore the rules of international law that every country in the world is committed to live by, we are confronted by the age-old question of how to respond to a country that systematically ignores and violates these rules. The foundation of the UN Charter is the agreement by all countries to settle their differences diplomatically and peacefully, instead of by the threat or use of military force. 

As Americans, we should start by admitting that our own country has led the way down this path of war and militarism, perpetuating the scourge of war that the UN Charter was intended to provide a peaceful alternative to.

“Mt. Hermon,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / IbisPaint, 2024

As the United States became the leading economic power in the world in the 20th century, it also built up dominant military power. Despite its leading role in creating the United Nations and the rules of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, it came to see strict compliance with those rules as an obstacle to its own ambitions, from the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force to the Geneva Conventions’ universal protections for prisoners of war and civilians. 

In its “war on terror,” including its wars on Iraq and other countries, the United States flagrantly and systematically violated these bedrock foundations of world order. It is a fundamental principle of all legal systems that the powerful must be held accountable as well as the weak and the vulnerable. A system of laws that the wealthy and powerful can ignore cannot claim to be universal or just, and is unlikely to stand the test of time. 

Today, our system of international law faces exactly this problem. The U.S. presumption that its overwhelming military power permits it to violate international law with impunity has led other countries, especially U.S. allies but also Russia, to apply the same opportunistic standards to their own behavior.

In 2010, an Amnesty International report on European countries that hosted CIA “black site” torture chambers called on U.S. allies in Europe not to join the United States as another “accountability-free zone” for war crimes. But now the world is confronting a U.S. ally that has not just embraced, but doubled down on, the U.S. presumption that dominant military power can trump the rule of law. 

The Israeli government refuses to comply with international legal prohibitions against deliberately killing women and children, by military force and by deprivation; seizing foreign territory; and bombing other countries. Shielded from international accountability behind the U.S. Security Council veto, Israel thumbs its nose at the world’s impotence to enforce international law, confident that nobody will stop it from using its deadly and destructive war machine wherever and however it pleases.

So the world’s failure to hold the United States accountable for its war crimes has led Israel to believe that it too can escape accountability, and U.S. complicity in Israeli war crimes, especially the genocide in Gaza, has inevitably reinforced that belief. 

U.S. responsibility for Israel’s lawlessness is compounded by the conflict of interest in its dual role as both Israel’s military superpower ally and weapons supplier and the supposed mediator of the lopsided “peace process” between Israel and Palestine, whose inherent flaws led to Hamas’s election victory in 2006 and now to the current crisis. 

Instead of recognizing its own conflict of interest and deferring to intervention by the UN or other neutral parties, the U.S. has jealously guarded its monopoly as the sole mediator between Israel and Palestine, using this position to grant Israel total freedom of action to commit systematic war crimes. If this crisis is ever to end, the world cannot allow the U.S. to continue in this role.

While the United States bears a great deal of responsibility for this crisis, U.S. officials remain in collective denial over the criminal nature of Israel’s actions and their instrumental role in Israel’s crimes. The systemic corruption of U.S. politics severely limits the influence of the majority of Americans who support a ceasefire in Gaza, as pro-Israel lobbying groups buy the unconditional support of American politicians and attack the few who stand up to them.

Despite America’s undemocratic political system, its people have a responsibility to end U.S. complicity in genocide, which is arguably the worst crime in the world, and people are finding ways to bring pressure to bear on the U.S. government: 

Members of CODEPINK, Jewish Voice For Peace and Palestinian-, Arab-American and other activist groups are in Congressional offices and hearings every day; constituents in California are suing two members of Congress for funding genocide; students are calling on their universities to divest from Israel and U.S. arms makers; activists and union members are identifying and picketing companies and blocking ports to stop weapons shipments to Israel; journalists are rebelling against censorship; U.S. officials are resigning; people are on hunger strike; others have committed suicide.   

It is also up to the UN and other governments around the world to intervene, and to hold Israel and the United States accountable for their actions. A growing international movement for an end to the genocide and decades of illegal occupation is making progress. But it is excruciatingly slow given the appalling human cost and the millions of Palestinian lives at stake.

Israel’s international propaganda campaign to equate criticism of its war crimes with antisemitism poisons political discussion of Israeli war crimes in the United States and some other countries.

But many countries are making significant changes in their relations with Israel, and are increasingly willing to resist political pressures and propaganda tropes that have successfully muted international calls for justice in the past. A good example is Ireland, whose growing trade relations with Israel, mainly in the high-tech sector, formerly made it the fourth largest importer of Israeli products in the world in 2022. 

Ireland is now one of 14 countries who have officially intervened to support South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – the others are Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, the Maldives, Mexico, Nicaragua, Palestine, Spain and Turkiyë. Israel reacted to Ireland’s intervention in the case by closing its embassy in Dublin, and now Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has smeared Ireland’s Taoiseach (prime minister) Simon Harris as “antisemitic.”

The Taoiseach’s spokesperson replied that Harris “will not be responding to personalized and false attacks, and remains focused on the horrific war crimes being perpetrated in Gaza, standing up for human rights and international law and reflecting the views of so many people across Ireland who are so concerned at the loss of innocent, civilian lives.” 

If the people of Palestine can stand up to bombs, missiles and bullets day after day for over a year, the very least that political leaders around the world can do is stand up to Israeli name-calling, as Simon Harris is doing.

Spain is setting an example on international efforts to halt the supply of weapons to Israel, with an arms embargo and a ban on weapons shipments transiting Spanish ports, including the U.S. naval base at Rota, which the U.S. has leased since it formed a military alliance with Spain’s Franco dictatorship in 1953. 

Spain has already refused entry to two Maersk-owned ships transporting weapons from North Carolina to Israel, while dockworkers in Spain, Belgium, Greece, India and other countries have refused to load weapons and ammunition onto ships bound for Israel.

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) has passed resolutions for a ceasefire in Gaza; an end to the post-1967 Israeli occupation; and for Palestinian statehood. The General Assembly’s 10th Emergency Special Session on the Israel-Palestine conflict under the Uniting for Peace process has been ongoing since 1997. 

The General Assembly should urgently use these Uniting For Peace powers to turn up the pressure on Israel and the United States. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has provided the legal basis for stronger action, ruling that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories Israel invaded in 1967 is illegal and must be ended, and that the massacre in Gaza appears to violate the Genocide Convention.

Inaction is inexcusable. By the time the ICJ issues a final verdict on its genocide case, millions may be dead. The Genocide Convention is an international commitment to prevent genocide, not just to pass judgment after the fact. The UN General Assembly has the power to impose an arms embargo, a trade boycott, economic sanctions, a peacekeeping force, or to do whatever it takes to end the genocide. 

When the UN General Assembly first launched its boycott campaign against apartheid South Africa in 1962, not a single Western country took part. Many of those same countries will be the last to do so against Israel today. But the world cannot wait to act for the blessing of complacent wealthy countries who are themselves complicit in genocide.

(The Conversation) – The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has opened a new front for geopolitical competition in the Middle East.

Now, however, instead of Iran and Russia playing the most influential roles in Syria, Israel and Turkey see an opportunity to advance their conflicting national and regional security interests.

Under their respective leaders, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, relations between the two countries have deteriorated sharply in recent years. This sets the stage for a bitter showdown over Syria.

A new rivalry is emerging

Turkey is widely reported to have backed the offensive led by the Sunni rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), to drive Assad from power, thus backstabbing Syria’s traditional allies, Iran and Russia.

Tehran has intimated that without Turkey’s support, HTS would have been unable to achieve its blistering takeover.

Now, with Assad gone, Erdoğan is believed to be positioning himself as de facto leader of the Sunni Muslim world. He also wants Turkey to be one of the dominant powers in the region.

Erdoğan has said if the Ottoman Empire had been divided in a different way following its defeat in the First World war, several Syrian cities, including Aleppo and Damascus, would have likely been part of modern-day Turkey.

Turkey immediately reopened its embassy in Damascus after Assad’s fall and offered help to HTS in shaping the country’s new Islamist order.

As part of this, Erdoğan has opposed any concession by HTS to the US-backed Kurdish minority in Syria’s northeast, which he regards as supporters of the Kurdish separatists in Turkey.

Meanwhile, Israel has taken advantage of the power vacuum in Syria to advance its territorial and security ambitions. It has launched a land incursion into the Syrian side of the strategic Golan Heights and has executed a massive bombardment of Syria’s military assets across the country.

Israel’s foreign minister said destroying these assets – which included ammunition depots, fighter jets, missiles and chemical weapons storage facilities – was necessary to ensure they didn’t fall into the “hands of extremists” that could pose a threat to the Jewish state.

Turkey sees Israel’s recent actions in Syria and the occupied Golan Heights as a land grab. Israel’s actions have also been denounced by Arab countries, who demand Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected.

Israel is clearly concerned about the rise to power of an Islamist group and the transformation of Syria into a jihadist state.

This is despite the fact that HTS leader Ahmad al-Sharaa (also known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani) has signalled he does not want conflict with Israel. He’s also pledged not to allow any groups to use Syria for attacks on Israel.

At the same time, al-Sharaa has called for the withdrawal of Israel from Syrian territory according to a 1974 agreement that followed the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

Bitter foes

Erdoğan, Turkey’s moderate Islamist president, has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause and a fierce critic of Israel. But tensions have significantly escalated between the two sides since the start of the Gaza war.

Erdoğan has called for an Arab-Islamic front to stop what he’s called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza. He has equally berated Israel’s invasion of Lebanon earlier this year.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has lashed out at Erdoğan over the years. He has called him a “joke” and “dictator” whose jails are full journalists and political prisoners. He has also accused of Erdoğan of committing a “genocide” of the Kurdish people.

Washington, which is allied to both Turkey and Israel, has launched intense diplomatic efforts to ensure that HTS moves Syria in a favourable direction. It is keen to see a post-Assad system of governance aligned with America’s interests.

These interests include HTS’ support for America’s Kurdish allies in northeast Syria and the continued presence of 1,000 American troops in the country. The US also wants HTS to continue to prevent the Islamic State terror group from regaining strength.

“In this Corner . . .” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

The US will also have to manage the emerging geopolitical rivalry between Israel and Turkey in Syria.

Some observers have not ruled out the possibility of an Israeli-Turkish military showdown, should Israel turn what it calls its temporary occupation of the demilitarised zone on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights into a permanent territorial acquisition.

This is not to say a war between them is imminent. But their clashing interests and the breadth of mutual hostility has certainly reached a new level.

Iran’s loss could be costly

For Iran, Assad’s ouster means the loss of a critical ally in its predominantly Shia “axis of resistance” against Israel and the United States.

The Iranian regime had worked hard to build this network over the last 45 years as a fundamental part of its national and wider security. It had propped up Assad’s minority Alawite dictatorship over the Sunni majority population in Syria at the cost of some US$30 billion (A$47 billion) since the popular uprising against Assad began in 2011.

And with Assad now gone, Iran is deprived of a vital land and air bridge to one of its key proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Assad regime’s sudden demise is now causing soul searching in Tehran about the wisdom of its regional strategy – and whether it will have any significant role at all in the new Syria. This seems unlikely, as al-Sharaa (the leader of HTS) has declared his disdain for both Iran and Hezbollah.

Al-Sharaa has prioritised the establishment of a publicly mandated Islamist government and Syria’s reconstruction and national unity over a conflict with Israel, Iran’s arch enemy. This will no doubt lead to contention with the hardliners and reformists in Iran.

Only time will tell how all of this will play out. At this stage, the future of Syria and the region hangs in the balance. And much depends on whether HTS leaders will move to set up an all-inclusive political system and unite a Balkanised Syria.

Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Khamenei on December 11 also implicitly blamed Turkey for the lightning push of Syrian rebels who reached Damascus from their strongholds in the northwest with little resistance.

“It should not be doubted that what happened in Syria was the product of a joint American and Zionist plot,” he said.

“Yes, a neighboring government of Syria plays, played, and is playing a clear role…but the main conspirator, mastermind, and command center are in America and the Zionist regime,” Khamenei added.

The U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its allies — some of whom are linked with Turkey — ousted Assad on December 8, less than two weeks after launching their offensive.

Syria under Assad served as a crucial part of a land corridor connecting Iran to the Levant, which was considered the logistical backbone of the so-called axis of resistance — Iran’s loose network of regional proxies and allies.

Iran spent billions of dollars and sent military advisers to Syria to ensure Assad remained in power when civil war broke out in 2011.

Russia — where the ousted Syrian leader has been granted political asylum — also backed Assad, while Turkey has supported rebel groups who aimed to topple the regime.

A Khamenei adviser once described Syria as the “golden ring” in the chain connecting Iran to its Lebanese partner, Hezbollah. With the ring broken and Hezbollah’s capabilities degraded after a devastating war with Israel, experts say the axis has become severely weak.

“Foiled,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Khamenei said only “ignorant and uninformed analysts” would assess that the axis has become weak and vowed that its reach “will expand across the region more than before.”

Reza Alijani, an Iranian political analyst based in France, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that Khamenei’s comments were more “trash talk” than anything else.

“The axis may not have been defeated, but it has suffered a serious blow and the Islamic republics arms in the region have been deal major hits,” he said.

Alijani argued that factions within the Islamic republic’s core support base may be starting to question Khamenei’s policies and vision after the recent setbacks, which he said is a cause for concern among the clerical establishment’s top brass.

With reporting by Hooman Askary of RFE/RL’s Radio Farda

Via RFE/ RL

Copyright (c)2024 RFE/RL, Inc. Used with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Human Rights Watch determined that Israeli forces carried out the attack using an air-dropped bomb equipped with a United States-produced Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance kit. The US government should suspend weapons transfers to Israel because of the military’s repeated, unlawful attacks on civilians, for which US officials may be complicit in war crimes.

“Israel’s use of US arms to unlawfully attack and kill journalists away from any military target is a terrible mark on the United States as well as Israel,” said Richard Weir, senior crisis, conflict and arms researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli military’s previous deadly attacks on journalists without any consequences give little hope for accountability in this or future violations against the media.”

The attack took place in the early morning at the Hasbaya Village Club Resort in Hasbaya, a town in southern Lebanon, where more than a dozen journalists had been staying for over three weeks. Human Rights Watch found no evidence of fighting, military forces, or military activity in the immediate area at the time of the attack. Information Human Rights Watch reviewed indicates that the Israeli military knew or should have known that journalists were staying in the area and in the targeted building. After initially stating that its forces struck a building where “terrorists were operating,” the Israeli military said hours later that “the incident is under review.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed eight people who were staying at or near the resort, including three injured journalists and the resort’s owner. Human Rights Watch also visited the site on November 1 and verified 6 videos and 22 photos of the attack and its aftermath, plus satellite images. There has been no response to letters sent to the Israeli military on November 14 with findings and questions and to the Lebanese military on November 5 with questions.

The attack on the building in which the journalists were staying took place just after 3 a.m., based on interviews and CCTV footage with the same time code. Most of the journalists were sleeping. Zakaria Fadel, 25, an assistant cameraman for Lebanon-based ISOL for Broadcast, a Lebanese satellite and broadcast services provider, said he was brushing his teeth when the blast threw him into the air.

A munition struck the single-story building and detonated upon hitting the floor. The blast killed Ghassan Najjar, a journalist and cameraman, and Mohammad Reda, a satellite broadcast engineer, both from Al Mayadeen TV, and Wissam Kassem, a cameraman from the Hezbollah-owned outlet Al Manar TV. Al Mayadeen is a Lebanon-based pan-Arab television station politically allied with Hezbollah and the Syrian government.

Human Rights Watch verified videos taken minutes after the attack which show the targeted building completely destroyed and nearby buildings damaged. The strike collapsed a wall in the adjacent building, seriously injuring Hassan Hoteit, 48, a cameraman for ISOL for Broadcast, and substantially damaged the wall of a small building about 10 meters away, injuring other journalists, including Ali Mortada, 46, a camera operator for Al Jazeera.

Mortada said he woke to the blast and pieces of concrete falling on him, injuring his face and his right arm. When the debris stopped falling, he went to see if his colleagues were okay. He and others found Hoteit injured, and the building struck destroyed. Mortada said he saw the bodies of Kassem and Najjar nearby. They found Reda’s remains further away.

Soon after, the resort’s concierge approached them, saying he had found two human legs in one bedroom. Ehab el-Okdy, a reporter for Al Jazeera who was staying at the resort, said that he also saw the bodies and body parts of the dead reporters. “We saw the bodies,” he said. “We saw Mohammad Reda was shattered all over the place.”

Anoir Ghaida, the resort’s owner, said the journalists had arrived on October 1, following an evacuation order from the Israeli military for an area south of Hasbaya. The journalists had been reporting from Ibl al-Saqi, an area included in the evacuation order.

The journalists said that from October 1 until the day of the attack, they made routine and repeated trips, reporting from the Hasbaya area, frequently doing live television reports from a hilltop that overlooked large parts of southern Lebanon. The journalists and Ghaida said they would leave the resort in the morning and return in the evening, about the same time each day. Most of the vehicles at the resort were marked “Press” or “TV.”

The journalists and Ghaida said they constantly heard the buzzing of aerial drones in the area, indicating it was most likely under Israeli surveillance. Prior to October 25, there had been no attacks on Hasbaya town.

Since the current hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah began on October 8, 2023, the Israeli military has attacked and killed journalists and targeted Al Mayadeen TV. On October 23, Israeli forces attacked and destroyed an office used by Al Mayadeen in Beirut. Al Mayadeen had evacuated their staff from the building.

Israeli strikes killed at least six Lebanese journalists between October 8, 2023, and October 29, 2024, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Human Rights Watch found that the October 13, 2023 attack, which killed the Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah and injured six other journalists, was an apparent war crime. On November 21, 2023, an Israeli strike killed two Lebanese journalists reporting for Al Mayadeen TV, Rabih al-Maamari and Farah Omar, and their driver, Hussein Akil, in Tayr Harfa in southern Lebanon.

“Journalism Targeted,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

Human Rights Watch verified a photo and video from Najjar’s funeral that showed his casket wrapped in a Hezbollah flag and buried in a southern Beirut cemetery where Hezbollah fighters are buried, near the grave of al-Maamari. A Hezbollah spokesperson told Human Rights Watch on November 14 that Najjar had asked to be buried near his friend and colleague al-Maamari, but that Najjar “was just a civilian” and “had no involvement whatsoever in any military activities.”

Human Rights Watch found remnants at the attack site and reviewed photographs of remnants collected by the resort owner and determined that they were consistent with a JDAM guidance kit assembled and sold by the US company Boeing. Human Rights Watch identified one remnant as part of the guidance kit’s actuation system that moves the fins. It bore a numerical code identifying it as having been manufactured by Woodard, a US company that makes components for guidance systems on munitions, including the JDAM. The JDAM is affixed to air-dropped bombs and allows them to be guided to a target by using satellite coordinates, making the weapon accurate to within several meters.

Human Rights Watch wrote to Boeing and to Woodard on November 14, but did not receive responses. Companies have responsibilities under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, and related guidance to stop, prevent, mitigate, or remediate actual and potential violations of international humanitarian law that they cause, contribute to, or are linked with. 

Given Israel’s record of widespread laws of war violations and lack of accountability, companies should end arms sales, recall already sold weapons wherever possible, and stop all support services for already sold weapons.

Human Rights Watch has previously documented the Israeli military’s unlawful use of US-equipped weapons in a strike in March that killed seven aid workers in southern Lebanon.

International humanitarian law, or the laws of war, prohibits attacks against civilians and civilian objects. Journalists are considered civilians and are immune from attack so long as they are not directly participating in hostilities. Journalists cannot be attacked for their work as journalists, even if the opposing party considers the media biased or being used for propaganda. When carrying out any attack, warring parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm and damage to civilian objects. This includes taking all necessary actions to verify that targets are military objectives.

Individuals who commit serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent—that is, intentionally or recklessly—may be prosecuted for war crimes. Individuals may also be held criminally liable for assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime.

Lebanon should urgently accept the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction to give the court’s prosecutor a mandate to investigate serious international crimes committed on the country’s territory.

Israel’s key allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany—should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel, given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses. US policy prohibits arms transfers to states “more likely than not” to use them in violations of international law.

“As evidence mounts of Israel’s unlawful use of US weapons, including in apparent war crimes, US officials need to decide whether they will uphold US and international law by halting arms sales to Israel or risk being found legally complicit in serious violations,” Weir said.

(The Conversation) – Is Iran poised for a succession in leadership? Well, that depends on what you read.

For weeks, rumors have been swirling about the health of the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as a possible replacement. In late October 2024, the Jerusalem Post picked up a New York Times report that initially suggested the octogenarian leader, who has served in the role since 1989, was seriously ill. While the Times report was updated with a correction saying it had erroneously reported on what was known about his current health, it did say that a “quiet battle” had emerged over his succession, including that his second son, Mojtaba, could succeed him.

The rumor mill again kicked into overdrive in late November, with various media outlets, including those in Israel, suggesting that Khamenei had fallen into a coma and that the race was on to appoint his successor should he remain incapacitated or worse. Iranian sources quickly refuted the speculation.

Such conjecture is nothing new, with reports as far back as 2007 and more recently in 2022 pointing to the supreme leader’s purportedly ill health.

The truth of Khamenei’s health aside, the speculation points to an ever-present reality: The conflict between Iran on one side and Israel and the West on the other is not just about military might and threats – there is also an information battle being waged.

In that battle, the narrative of Khamenei’s poor health can be seen as a proxy for the health and stability of the Islamic Republic. One story has it that the Islamic Republic is unstable and just one major event away from wholesale change; the other, that the government in Tehran is well positioned to deal with both internal succession and external ideological foes.

The war of words

The speculation regarding Khamenei’s health comes amid a particularly tense moment in Israeli-Iranian relations. For the past year, the long-time foes have exchanged fiery rhetoric, which has been exacerbated by a series of escalatory events, including high-profile assassinations of Iran-alligned figures in Gaza, Lebanon and Tehran, and more lately direct military confrontation.

Throughout, both sides have utilized media and online platforms to push opposing official narratives that then find digital echo chambers.

Take the tit-for-tat missile strikes in October. Israel and Iran sought to downplay the impact of the respective strikes on their own territory by feeding media with statements suggesting little damage had been done.

At the same time, media sources from inside both nations were quick to suggest that the strikes had fulfilled their goals. Iranian media suggested Iranian missiles hit about 90% of Israeli targets; Israeli media countered that major Iranian nuclear research facilities had been hit and severely impaired Iran’s research capabilities.

“Competition,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, Clip2Comic, IbisPaint, 2024

Such narratives are designed not only to send self-proclaimed messages of victory to the other side but also to appease domestic audiences. For Tehran, the messaging is intended to extend further, namely to regional partners – suggesting that Israel had been weakened by Iran’s attack and that Tehran still has their back.

Social media has played a key role in getting these counter messages across to a wider public. Since 2010, Iran has sought to distort the social media landscape through the establishment of pro-regime “sock puppets” that amplify pro-government propaganda. Former Iranian Intelligence Minister Heider Moslehi acknowledged back in 2011 that Tehran had made a large investment in “heavy information warfare.”

Meanwhile, Israel and other opponents of the Iranian government utilize online platforms to carry messages directly to the people of Iran, too. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former Shah of Iran, have used YouTube and other platforms to encourage rebellion against the government in Tehran.

Iran has used similar digital channels, with veteran diplomat Mohammad Javad Zarif using the platform to highlight Iran’s culture and history and shared values with Jews, while at the same time slamming the Israeli government for its role in pushing the Trump administration to abandon the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

What does it all mean?

The exchange of missile strikes by Iran and Israel in October prompted widespread speculation among media outlets, politicians and diplomats that the region was on the brink of a full-scale conventional war.

Indeed, the rhetorical exchanges between Tehran and Tel Aviv include explicit threats of devastating retaliatory measures and warnings of significant escalation. Yet the cycle of reciprocal strikes has, to date, appeared to satisfy the strategic objectives of both sides’ military leadership.

And for now, the information and messaging war is again seemingly taking precedence over actual hot war.

After the last missile strike, carried out by Israel on Oct. 26, Iran stated that it retained the right to respond at a time and method of its choosing. But that, too, was perhaps an extension of the media narrative campaign.

Rather, the current situation suggests to me a deliberate and calculated strategy by both Iranian and Israeli forces to conserve their respective military resources, while attempting to achieve domestic and regional objectives via the information war.

For Israel, this means pushing the narrative that it has displayed the capability to reach critical Iranian infrastructure and sensitive security targets as desired. For Iran, it takes the form of saying it has reestablished sufficient deterrence against a stronger Israeli military.

Having escalated into direct military confrontation, the Iran-Israel conflict appears to have entered a new transitional phase.

Iranian state media continue to condemn Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon, while simultaneously issuing statements from senior military commanders reaffirming Tehran’s readiness to respond to perceived acts of aggression.

But for now, at least, warfare is being conducted via information and disinformation rather than through conventional military weapons.

Shirvin Zeinalzadeh, Graduate Teaching Associate, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“The Kingdom renews its condemnation and categorical rejection of the genocide committed by Israel against the brotherly Palestinian people,” Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said at an Arab Islamic summit, echoing comments by Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal Bin Farhan Al Saud, late last month.

He urged the international community to stop Israel from attacking Iran and to respect Iran’s sovereignty.

The Crown Prince said in September the Kingdom would not recognise Israel unless a Palestinian State was created.

US President Joe Biden’s administration had sought to broker a normalisation accord between Saudi Arabia and Israel that would have included US security guarantees for the Kingdom, among other bilateral deals between Washington and Riyadh.

Those normalisation efforts were put on ice after the 7 October, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas fighters from Gaza and Israel’s subsequent retaliation.

Israel’s military assault on Gaza in the last 13 months has killed tens of thousands, displaced nearly its entire population, caused a hunger crisis and led to allegations of genocide at the World Court, which Israel denies.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

—-

Related video added by Informed Comment:

Al Jazeera English: “Saudi Crown Prince demands Gaza, Lebanon ceasefire”