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

U.S. relaxes sanctions on Syria, supports HTS leadership

Published

on

U.S. President Joe Biden and his administration, soon to be succeeded by Donald Trump, have decided to relax the stringent sanctions regime on Syria, which has been in place for years, in favor of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), following the ouster of Bashar al-Assad.

The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General Authorization No. 24, signifying a major shift in U.S. sanctions policy towards Syria.

This new authorization, valid until 7 July 2025, eases restrictions on specific transactions involving Syria. For instance, transactions with Syrian administrative institutions will be permitted starting 8 December 2024. Key provisions of the authorization include authorization for the sale, supply, storage, or donation of energy resources, such as oil, natural gas, and electricity, to or within Syria, and permission for processing non-commercial personal remittances to Syria, including through the Central Bank of Syria.

However, military and intelligence organizations remain excluded. Transactions involving the governments of Russia or Iran, as well as their goods or services, are still prohibited. Additionally, importing Syrian petroleum products into the United States remains banned, and new investments in Syria are restricted, with limited exceptions for employee salaries.

This new policy represents a considerable easing of sanctions, potentially allowing U.S. allies in the region to offer humanitarian assistance, engage in economic reconstruction, and increase interaction with Syria’s governing institutions.

Speaking to Reuters yesterday, Maher Khalil al-Hassan, HTS’s trade minister, stated that Syria has struggled to secure deals for importing fuel, wheat, and other essential commodities due to strict U.S. sanctions, despite interest from many countries, including Gulf Arab states. Al-Hassan mentioned that Syria’s new leadership has managed to amass enough wheat and fuel to last several months but warned of an impending “catastrophe” if sanctions are not suspended or lifted soon.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

Does India take advantage of current rising tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Published

on

At the height of the current tensions between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan, India condemned Pakistan’s airstrikes in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan with a delay of two weeks. India is the second country that has officially reacted to these attacks.

In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India supported the position of the Taliban and condemned the killing of civilians in Pakistan’s attacks. Delhi made no mention of Pakistan’s claim that it had struck four hideouts of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), a group that has become a security problem for the Pakistani military. Delhi ironically said that “Islamabad always blames its neighbors.”

Pakistan traditionally holds India and Afghanistan responsible for internal insurgencies and attacks by terrorist and separatist groups on its soil. Recently, Pakistani officials accused the Afghan Taliban of colluding with India to destabilize Pakistan.

Trust-building

India’s new stance can be described as a clever political game or even political opportunism. India, which has always considered the Taliban as Pakistan’s proxy force in the region and was one of the main supporters of the former Afghan government, now plans to use the tension between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan to get closer to the Taliban.

Over the past three years, New Delhi has tried to reduce its longstanding mistrust with the Taliban. Expelling the ambassador and diplomats of the previous government from Delhi, handing over the Afghan embassy and consulates in India to the Taliban, cutting ties with former allies such as the leaders of the resistance front, and stopping the issuance of visas to former officials have been part of this trust building and rapprochement.

Revival of lost influence

Afghanistan has always been important for Delhi due to its geographical proximity to Pakistan. Pakistan says that Delhi’s purpose in getting closer to Afghanistan was to destabilize the tense areas in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

India has traditionally supported Afghan governments against Pakistan. Due to the dispute with Pakistan over the “Durand Line”, Afghanistan has had enough incentive to get closer to India. India has also provided various economic, technical and diplomatic assistance to Afghanistan to strengthen this relationship.

With the return of the Taliban, India was forced to close its embassy and consulates in Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Nangarhar and Kandahar provinces. Following this, India severed all ties – even people-to-people links – with Afghanistan.

Thousands of Afghan students were prevented from continuing their studies in Indian universities due to lack of visas. After the political collapse in Afghanistan, many believed that the history of India’s influence in Afghanistan was also over.

But the Taliban, unlike the previous period, is trying to establish relations with all countries in the region and is not dependent on a particular country, and took steps to strengthen relations with India.

Yaqoob Mujahid, the Minister of Defense of the Taliban, in an unprecedented statement said that the Taliban is ready to send its forces to India for training. India also responded to the goodwill of the Taliban by sending its diplomats to Kabul.

Recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian about expanding relations with Afghanistan through Chabahar port. The government of Iran said that “the talk about Afghanistan was made because of the interest of the Indian side.”

India is seriously trying to reduce the Taliban’s dependence on Pakistan and strengthen its relations through Chabahar.

Approaching the enemy border

The importance of India’s efforts to improve relations with the Taliban and open a foothold in Afghanistan should be seen from the eyes of Pakistan. Islamabad has consistently complained about India’s diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, especially in its border areas.

Pakistan considers India a vital threat and does not accept the country’s proximity to its borders. In the previous government of Afghanistan, relations between Kabul and Islamabad were cold.

Pakistani officials had repeatedly expressed concern about the activities of Indian consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar in meetings with Afghan leaders. Even some Pakistani leaders had made cooperation in securing peace and stability in Afghanistan conditional on reducing relations with India and closing the country’s embassies in the mentioned cities.

Analysts are unanimous on the point that Pakistan considers Afghanistan as a barrier or an area free of Indian influence. This country has continuously supported the paramilitary groups and the subversive central government in order to establish a pro-Pakistan government.

India sees an opportunity to expand its influence in Afghanistan in the worsening relations between Islamabad and the Taliban. However, it is not clear how far this tension will make the Afghan Taliban rely on Delhi.

What is certain is that Pakistan finds the closeness of the Taliban and India intolerable, just as it was angry about the close relations of the former Afghan government with New Delhi.

Of course, we should not ignore the fact that the Afghan Taliban is as much a double-edged sword for Delhi as it is for Pakistan. Because the Afghan Taliban has not cut off its relations with militant and terrorist groups.

Strengthening the Afghan Taliban also means strengthening Pakistani militant Islamist groups, which Delhi considers a tool in the hands of Pakistan and a threat to its national security.

Rising unrest in Pakistan by TTP, a close ally of the Afghani Taliban has benefited India

In recent decades, part of India’s strategy in Afghanistan has been to weaken Pakistan. Supporting separatist groups and creating unrest in Pakistan is an important part of this policy.

Rising unrest in Pakistan by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a close ally of the Afghan Taliban, has benefited India. From 2020 until now, the level of insecurity in Pakistan has increased steadily and 2024 was the most unstable year in Pakistan in a decade.

Pakistan believes that the insecurity and violence in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is organized from the soil of Afghanistan and that the Afghan Taliban have collaborated with India.

Understanding the depth of these tensions, India has taken steps to intensify the differences between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban by supporting the Taliban. India seeks to increase the dependence of the Afghan Taliban on New Delhi in order to exploit these relations in the long run to weaken Pakistan.

The statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India can probably increase Islamabad’s skepticism towards the Taliban. To solve the problem of militants, Pakistan has increased military and political pressure on the Taliban. However, this pressure will make the Afghan Taliban more inclined towards Delhi.

Despite the absence of three years in the diplomatic arena of Afghanistan, India has been able to advance its goals. Pakistan has suffered the most from the recent developments in Afghanistan. The increase in insecurity in Pakistan is largely related to the events after the fall of the republican system in Afghanistan.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

Biden approves $8 billion arms deal for Israel amid Gaza conflict

Published

on

The Joe Biden administration has provisionally approved an $8 billion arms sale to Israel in a last-minute demonstration of support for the U.S. president’s close ally after more than a year of war in Gaza.

The U.S. State Department announced the sale to Congress late on Friday through an informal notification, according to Financial Times (FT) sources. This step precedes a public announcement and requires approval from the Senate and House Foreign Affairs Committees before implementation.

The arms package includes $6.75 billion worth of precision-guided missiles and small bombs, $300 million worth of 155 mm artillery shells, $600 million worth of Hellfire missiles, and $300 million worth of Amraam air-to-air missiles, according to one source familiar with the matter.

Another source indicated that while some of the weapons would come directly from U.S. stockpiles, most deliveries would take a year or longer.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently accuses the United States of delaying arms and ammunition deliveries—claims the Biden administration denies.

In November, Netanyahu stated that he had agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon to allow Israeli forces to replenish their stockpiles. Around the same time, the Biden administration informally notified Congress of its intention to supply Israel with $680 million worth of precision weapons. This notification followed an unsuccessful attempt by some Democrats in Congress to block a $20 billion arms sale to Israel last summer.

In April, Congress approved an additional $26 billion in war aid to Israel, supplementing the $3.8 billion in annual U.S. security assistance to the country.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey