Connect with us

Middle East

US move brings Netanyahu to his knees, not Israel

Published

on

The US abstention for the first time on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza has further strained Biden-Netanyahu relations, which have been tense for some time. Netanyahu cancelled the programme of the Israeli delegation that was due to travel to the US to discuss the Rafah operation plan. The US, which does not want to stop Israel’s attack on Gaza but wants to save its own damaged image and bring Netanyahu to his knees, claimed that the UNSC resolution was not binding, which drew the reaction of the UN.

The US abstained from yesterday’s call for a ceasefire after rejecting 6 of the UNSC resolutions calling for a ceasefire since Israel’s attacks on Gaza began, making it the first time since 7 October that the UNSC has called for an emergency ceasefire in Gaza.

In the draft resolution prepared by non-permanent UNSC members Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Switzerland, the phrase “permanent ceasefire” was agreed. At the last moment, the US delegation requested an amendment to the text of the draft resolution, replacing the word “permanent” with “durable”. This is believed to have given the US more flexibility in the ceasefire process.

The resolution, which calls for “an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan that is respected by all parties, leading to a permanent and sustainable ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages,” also calls for access for humanitarian and medical assistance to the hostages.

Reaction from Israel

Following the decision, Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz said: “Israel will not stop firing. We will destroy Hamas”. Netanayhu announced that he had cancelled the delegation’s visit to Washington for the Rafah operation in light of the US abstention. The Israeli opposition blamed Netanyahu for the US abstention.

Why did the US take this step now?

US President Joe Biden, the leader of the Democrats, is facing criticism from his own base as well as on the international stage over the ongoing Israeli attacks in Gaza, which do not spare civilians. Biden is the target of criticism both for his support of Israel and for his inability to rein in Netanyahu. Biden is trying to take careful steps to mitigate the criticism, but not to confront the Israel lobby, which is known to be quite strong. For some time, Biden has been urging Netanyahu to present a credible and coherent vision for post-war Gaza and to prepare a realistic plan for a ground operation in Rafah that would not harm civilians. But the Netanyahu government, which rejected the US plans for the next day, has failed to explain its own vision, nor has it been able to present a convincing plan for Rafah. To sum up, the US does not want Israel to stop the Gaza operation altogether, but to limit it to the extent that civilian casualties are reduced, or at least to present a vision along these lines.

Netanyahu, who rejects all US demands, hopes to stall Washington until the presidential elections in November. The Biden administration has taken several steps to “teach” the Israeli prime minister a lesson for his intransigence. First, he hosted Benny Gantz, a member of the war cabinet and possible next Israeli prime minister, in Washington, despite Netanyahu’s opposition. Then Biden’s close friend, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, said that Israel should go to elections, which was applauded by Biden. Since these moves by the Biden administration were aimed at Netanyahu, they did not elicit a reaction from the Israel lobby.

The reason for the “non-binding” statement

The abstention on the UNSC resolution, however, may not be greeted with the same optimism. Even if it puts Netanyahu in a difficult situation, it has consequences for Israel.

Indeed, in the wake of this resolution, which provoked Israel’s reaction, the Washington administration surprisingly claimed that the UNSC resolution was not binding and reiterated its support for Israel. White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby said that they did not veto the Gaza resolution because of the combination of the demand for a ceasefire and the release of all hostages and the reference to the ongoing hostage negotiations. On the other hand, Kirby explained that they abstained from voting “yes” because Hamas was not condemned in the text of the bill, saying, “Our vote does not represent a change in our policy.Noting that they had seen the release of hostages as the most important part of the ceasefire agreement from the beginning, Kirby said, “We continue to stand behind Israel.We continue to provide them with the resources and military capabilities they need to defend themselves against Hamas. Nothing in this non-binding resolution has changed in terms of what Israel can and cannot do in terms of self-defence.

The US had put a similar resolution, which it claimed was non-binding, to a vote in the UN Security Council, but it was not adopted due to the vetoes of Russia and China.

The US claim that the resolution is non-binding is linked to the fact that the resolution uses the phrase “a ceasefire is requested” instead of “decides on the need for a ceasefire” according to Article 7 of the UN Charter.However, under Article 25 of the UN Charter, resolutions do not have to refer to Article 7 to be binding.

The US “non-binding” statement drew the reaction of the UN and other countries.UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said: “All UN Security Council resolutions are international law. Just as international law is binding, so are UNSC resolutions”. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also stressed that “this resolution must be implemented, its failure is inexcusable”.

Middle East

Ceasefire talks in Gaza intensify before Trump visit

Published

on

Ceasefire and prisoner exchange negotiations in Gaza have accelerated ahead of US President Donald Trump’s planned Middle East visit in mid-May. It was claimed that Hamas agreed to release more Israeli hostages for a ceasefire, and the US promised to pressure Israel to start permanent ceasefire negotiations. In addition, the disarmament of Hamas under Egyptian supervision is on the agenda.

After the first phase of the ceasefire and prisoner exchange agreement between Israel and Hamas, which came into effect in January, was completed, the Israeli administration did not agree to move on to the second phase, in which it had to end its occupation of Gaza. It requested that the first phase of the ceasefire be extended and, in return, Hamas release 11 Israeli hostages. Hamas, which wants to move on to the second phase of the ceasefire, responded to Israel’s new offer by saying that it could release 5 hostages. Israel rejected the proposal and restarted the Gaza attacks on March 18. Since then, attacks and ground occupation have continued, while negotiations for a ceasefire have also been conducted.

According to a report by Saudi Arabia-based El-Arabiya, Israel stated in its latest offer that it was ready to reduce the number of hostages to be released. It was reported that Hamas also agreed to release more hostages. However, no clear number was given.

If an agreement is reached under the proposed draft, the hostages will be released in two stages, and humanitarian aid will be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip.

In addition, it was stated that the US promised Hamas that it would force Israel into negotiations to end the war; it was noted that discussions on whether Hamas leaders could stay in Gaza were postponed to a later date.

The Saudi source also reported that, as part of a possible agreement, Hamas would provide medical reports on the health conditions of the hostages.

According to a report by Haaretz newspaper, based on Palestinian sources, the Cairo and Doha administrations are working with the US on a new phase of the ceasefire agreement reached in January. This phase will also include negotiations to end the 18-month war.

According to the news, Egypt submitted a permanent ceasefire proposal that includes the disarmament of Hamas and that this be done under Cairo’s supervision.

The report also stated that Hamas does not expect major results from the current negotiations, but believes there is an opportunity to reach a ceasefire agreement before US President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar in mid-May.

Meanwhile, according to Ynet, which conveyed its source without explanation, the US assured Hamas that if it agreed to release more than 8 hostages, Israel would participate in negotiations to end the war.

A Hamas official told AFP on Friday that the Cairo delegation, headed by the group’s chief negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya, hoped to achieve “real progress that would end the war, stop the attacks, and ensure the complete withdrawal of the occupying forces from Gaza.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on Sunday evening that Netanyahu emphasized in his meeting with the family of hostage Eitan Mor that efforts to rescue the hostages held by Hamas were continuing “even at this very moment.”

The Times of Israel published on Friday, citing two officials close to the talks, that Netanyahu softened his demands after his meeting with Trump in Washington last week.

The officials who spoke to the newspaper said on Thursday that Israel had conveyed its official response to the latest Egyptian-mediated offer. According to this response, Israel is demanding the release of hostages in the first two weeks of the 45-day ceasefire and rejects Hamas’s previously proposed time-phased release plan.

In addition, the Israeli side wants to reduce the ratio of Palestinian prisoners to be released in exchange for each hostage. These prisoners include those sentenced to life imprisonment. The latest offer also requests the delivery of the bodies of 16 Israelis held in Gaza. In return, the bodies of Gazans held by Israel will be handed over.

On the other hand, it is claimed that Netanyahu has the support of his far-right coalition partners, who threatened to overthrow his government if he ended the war. However, opinion polls also show that the majority of the public supports ending the war in exchange for the release of the hostages. It is thought that only 24 of the 59 hostages held by Hamas are still alive.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Türkiye and Israel in Syria talks, likened to ‘Sykes-Picot’ agreement

Published

on

Israel and Türkiye have initiated direct contacts in Azerbaijan, citing the need to “avoid confrontation in Syria.” The Israeli press has interpreted these meetings as a path toward the de facto division of Syria. A former navy commander described the meetings as “a kind of Sykes-Picot agreement.”

Israel and Türkiye have begun technical-level talks in Azerbaijan to prevent a potential conflict in the Syrian arena after Bashar al-Assad. The primary goal of the meetings is to “reduce the risk of conflict in military movements on the ground and to determine the red lines of the parties.”

However, according to comments in the Israeli press, these contacts may signal a tacit agreement on the de facto division of Syria. Al-Mayadeen reported from Israeli media that Israel’s former Navy Commander Eliezer Marom made a striking comparison, saying, “A kind of Sykes-Picot agreement has been made between us and Türkiye.” According to Marom, “Syria will not remain a single and whole state; it will be fragmented. Türkiye also has interests in some of these fragments.”

Israeli television channel News 13 also interpreted the meetings in Azerbaijan as “a sign of a new era in which Syria will be geographically divided.”

Prior to these contacts, Israel’s attack on the T4 airbase in Syria had raised tensions. This base is alleged to be among the points where Türkiye plans to deploy militarily.

The first confirmation regarding the meetings came from Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. In a statement on CNN Türk, Fidan announced that technical negotiations had begun with Israel to establish a “non-conflict mechanism.” The Ministry of National Defense also announced that the first meeting took place in Azerbaijan. On the same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office also confirmed the direct talks, thanking Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for his mediation.

Israel’s public broadcaster KAN reported that no agreement was reached at the meetings held on Wednesday, and the second round would take place after Passover, which ends on April 20. The same source also claimed that Türkiye did not allow the plane carrying Israeli officials to Azerbaijan to enter its airspace, and the plane had to take a circuitous route via Bulgaria and Greece.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, an Israeli official said that Türkiye establishing a military base, especially in the Palmyra region, is a red line for Israel, and this position was clearly conveyed to the Turkish side at the meeting in Azerbaijan. The same official stated that the new administration led by HTŞ leader Ahmed Shara (Abu Muhammad al-Julani) would be held responsible for possible threats against Israel in the Syrian arena.

Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen also expressed a cautious attitude towards the process, saying, “We do not want a conflict with Türkiye,” but he also emphasized, “We are against the Turkish military presence in Syria.”

However, in Israel, it is assessed that the Netanyahu government does not have many options to balance Türkiye’s influence in Syria.

Gallia Lindenstrauss, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a semi-official institution reflecting the views of the Israeli security bureaucracy, told The Times of Israel, “Ultimately, when it comes to Syria, Türkiye is much more interested in and invested in that country than Israel is. Israel’s interest in Syria is only security-focused. This gives Ankara an advantage.”

Lindenstrauss also stated that US President Donald Trump’s support for President Tayyip Erdoğan further narrowed Israel’s room for maneuver.

Lindenstrauss made the following assessment: “President Trump made it clear during his last meeting with Netanyahu in Washington that he was willing to help Israel on the issue of Türkiye, but that Israel needed to make ‘reasonable demands’ for this to happen. Trump wants to force Israel into a more minimalist approach in Syria. Israel must prioritize and insist only on its most critical red lines, such as preventing the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah via Syria.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

HTS-led Syria forms ties with South Korea

Published

on

Syria, which was an ally of North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) under the Assad regime, has signed a diplomatic recognition agreement with South Korea under the administration of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

According to Al Jazeera, this development is seen as a significant diplomatic achievement for HTS leader Ahmed Shara, who declared himself president. It also represents a strategic blow to North Korea, which has been an ally of Syria for years.

The agreement to establish diplomatic relations was signed yesterday evening in Damascus between South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul and Syrian Foreign Minister Assad Hasan al-Sheybani. Speaking at the ceremony, Minister Cho stated that South Korea is ready to contribute to the reconstruction of Syria with investments and humanitarian aid after 13 years of civil war.

Sheybani stated that they expect support from Seoul in easing the international sanctions on the Damascus government. This statement was also confirmed in a written statement by the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It was reported that diplomatic negotiations between the two countries began in February, gained momentum with the approval of the South Korean cabinet, and were officially completed this week, according to the Yonhap news agency.

This development occurred at a time when both countries are undergoing a political transformation. In December, armed groups led by HTS overthrew the Assad regime and then formed a transitional government. South Korea is also facing a major political crisis. President Yoon Suk-yeol was removed from office last week by a decision of the Constitutional Court. In December, Yoon briefly declared martial law, claiming that “anti-state” and “North Korea-backed” elements had infiltrated the government, which drew strong reactions from the public and parliament.

The country is currently governed by an interim president, and a new leader will be determined by an early election to be held in June.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey