For Israel, It Pays to Be a Winner
In Beirut on Monday, Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, said he was 'unbelievably satisfied' by the response he got from President Joseph Aoun of Lebanon on U.S. proposals to disarm Hezbollah, reportedly in exchange for critical financial aid after a six-year economic crisis. Aoun's government is the first in the country's history to make progress in disarming Hezbollah's strongholds near the Israeli border — a basic condition for Israel to withdraw from five military outposts it still occupies in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah is not a group that will go quietly — not if it has any other option. But it's because Israel destroyed it as an effective fighting force last year that it's now possible for the Lebanese state to again possess the most basic form of sovereignty, a monopoly on the use of force within its borders. And it's only because of Israel's victory that there's a realistic prospect of a peace agreement between Jerusalem and Beirut as part of an expanded Abraham Accords.
There's a similarly hopeful story in Syria, where last week the Trump administration lifted sanctions on the government of President Ahmed al-Shara. The United States has been a step ahead of Israel in warming to al-Shara, who once led a branch of Al Qaeda and whom some Israeli leaders still see as a closet jihadist. Now there are reports of talks between Jerusalem and Damascus aiming at a de facto peace agreement.
Where that goes remains to be seen. But it's unlikely that al-Shara's insurgents could have come to power if Israel hadn't first destroyed Hezbollah, depriving the regime of Bashar al-Assad of one of its most effective military arms. And neither Jerusalem nor Damascus might have been amenable to talks if Israel hadn't first destroyed many of Syria's remaining weapon stockpiles in December, giving al-Shara an incentive to seek a diplomatic outcome and Israel confidence that it wouldn't face another menace to its north.
Then there's Gaza. After President Trump's White House dinner with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Monday, Israeli officials suggested they were close to a deal that would pause the fighting in exchange for Hamas's release of more hostages. Trump has speculated that an agreement could happen this week.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
If there is a ceasefire tomorrow, were the last four months of fighting 'worth it?'
How much more did Israel really defeat Hamas than it had already done, and how much did it lose in doing so? Whether it is one day, a few days, or a couple of weeks, the chances of another ceasefire is growing – possibly one that ends the war entirely – which will leave the question of whether Israel's returning to fighting since March and other new moves were worth it. How much more did Israel really defeat Hamas than it had already done – and how much did it lose in doing so? On the con side of the coin, 37 IDF soldiers have been killed since March, and another approximately 200 have been wounded. The numbers especially increased since the anti-Hamas operation picked up its intensity in early May, with more soldiers standing in fixed spots and performing patrols in repetitive patterns in order to hold territory, which makes them easier to target. All of this was once again highlighted on Tuesday with the IDF announcing that five soldiers had been killed and 12 wounded in an ambush in Beit Hanun in northern Gaza – one of sometimes weekly, sometimes daily announcements of soldiers' deaths and injuries in recent months. Another con is that throughout this time, the 20 remaining live hostages have continued to suffer unimaginable conditions that they might not have suffered if the January-March ceasefire had continued and Israel had ended the war. Extending the war for four more months has seen between 20% and 40% of reservists' commitment to serve become shaken in many units (there is a constant debate on the real number), with potential long-term negative impacts on the IDF. This has neutralized and overtaken some of the unusual 'rally round the flag' effect that was seen at the start of the war. On the pro side, the IDF invasion progressed into new areas, and destruction of more tunnels helped it finally locate and kill Mohammed Sinwar, who had replaced his brother Yahya Sinwar as head of Hamas since the latter was killed in October 2024. Moreover, the IDF rescued several bodies of deceased hostages in multiple special operations, which it likely was only able to do after it held complete and extended control of specific areas it had not dared to remain in for any length of time at earlier stages of the war. Leaks from Israel-Hamas ceasefire negotiations have indicated that increased military pressure since March has led Hamas to give up on getting Israel to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor. In addition, the Gazan terror group seems ready to handover more hostages without a loud and precise Israeli commitment to end the war, something it was not ready to do four months ago. Whether this is because of added IDF military pressure or a greater readiness by Hamas to trust that US President Donald Trump will hold Israel back, after he called back an Israeli airstrike following the ceasefire with Iran, is an open debate. But either way, the events of recent months do seem to have weakened Hamas's negotiating positions somewhat. Maybe the largest issue in determining success or failure is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's aid initiative. The purpose of this initiative was to break Hamas's control over food in Gaza, and therefore, to take a major bite out of its political control of Palestinian civilians there. GHF has had some notable successes, but also some notable failures. Although some of them have not been the 'fault' of the foundation, they have been failures nonetheless. On the overwhelmingly positive side, GHF has now provided 66 million meals from four different food distribution centers in southern and central Gaza to Palestinians since it started operating in late May. For several hundred thousand Palestinians and possibly far more, Hamas no longer controls their food needs as a threat to hold over them. This is a radical change in the reality of Gaza and one of the first major challenges to Hamas's political rule. The initiative has yet to help Palestinians in northern Gaza and some other areas, but it is a potential game changer in many ways if it manages to continue. On the other hand, somewhere between several dozen and several hundred Palestinians have been killed with some kind of connection to the new GHF project. According to the aid organization, and there is no contrary hard evidence to date, no Palestinians have been killed within their facilities. That said, critics of Israel and the GHF, mostly based on Hamas-sponsored statistics, have claimed that several hundred Palestinians have been killed by the IDF near or on their way to GHF sites. Confusingly, the IDF is not present within those food centers, but does supervise entry to travel lanes that lead to them. Even the IDF has admitted that it has probably mistakenly killed several dozen Palestinians in three to four incidents where soldiers mistook Palestinian crowds for Hamas or otherwise lost their cool when those crowds were running toward the food centers in close proximity to the soldiers. Some of these incidents are under investigation by the IDF and could even lead to charges being brought against some soldiers, but the military still says that the Hamas-sponsored numbers parroted by much of the global media are highly exaggerated. One reason to believe the IDF regarding the GHF controversy is that it has not challenged the idea that it has mistakenly killed tens of thousands of Palestinians during the 20-month war, though it frames that point with reducing the Hamas sponsored numbers of dead by over 20,000 killed Hamas fighters and blames the terrorist group for using civilians as human shields. Taking all of this into account, the fact is that if not for Israel and the GHF starting this new food distribution project, at least dozens of Palestinian civilians would probably not have been killed, even if their food needs would still be wrongfully controlled by Hamas. However, Israel tries to spin that fact, in broad terms, it is clearly on the failure side of the 'balance sheet' in grading the last few months of the war. There are other, smaller negative incidents regarding the mix of the IDF and the GHF. In fact, the aid group, though clearly supportive of Israel, even filed a series of complaints against soldiers for 'harassing' their food trucks near the central Gaza food center for several consecutive days. GHF never explained the nature of the harassment, but it was significant that they publicized the criticism of the IDF and that it took several days to be resolved. There have been two incidents in which foundation workers were either killed or wounded due to attacks by Hamas. These workers knew the risks they were taking and their deaths or injuries may not have strategic significance, but they are certainly cons in the overall scheme. Meanwhile, the UN and the NGO community continue to boycott the GHF. This boycott may be well-meaning, in a vacuum divorced from reality, in terms of general humanitarian principles that the GHF should not restrict food distribution to anyone, including members of Hamas. But in the real world, the boycott is unfair and short-sighted in that it puts pressure on Israel to allow Hamas to retain its control over food for Palestinian civilians. And yet, after around seven weeks of operations, the GHF has made no progress bringing the international humanitarian community in to assist it. The reasons for this may ultimately be irrelevant, and the foundation may not be viable long-term. There have always been concerns about its funding, with largely undenied or not fully denied reports that Israel has provided some funding through odd side channels and straw companies, and with other funding coming on a temporary basis from the US or American Evangelicals supportive of Israel. But is that mix of sponsors a steady permanent source of support for food for over two million people? Also, in terms of the food distribution process within the GHF facilities, top Israeli officials have simultaneously praised the aid group while labeling the process 'chaos,' with Palestinians dashing in first come first serve to grab food, and not always leaving enough food for slower or weaker sectors. The GHF has responded to questions from The Jerusalem Post on these matters, saying, "GHF is the only aid organization providing food safely and reliably. In just a few short weeks, we have proven that we can deliver food directly to those who need it in one of the most challenging and complex environments in the world. We are actively working to scale up food aid operations to meet the urgent and overwhelming needs of the population in Gaza." Regarding reports of chaos at aid distribution sites, saying, "There is a food insecurity problem in Gaza. In Gaza's current environment, marked by severe food shortages and widespread desperation, failing to address the reality on the ground is having deadly consequences." "Until there is enough food in Gaza, chaos will persist, and that chaos must be managed responsibly," a representative noted. The GHF also clarified that despite the threats to its personnel, it remains committed to distributing aid to Gazans. "GHF has repeatedly warned of credible threats from Hamas, including explicit plans to target American personnel, Palestinian aid workers, and the civilians who rely on our sites for food. Despite this violence, GHF remains fully committed to its mission: feeding the people of Gaza safely, directly, and at scale." "Attempts to disrupt this life-saving work will only deepen the crisis. We will continue to stand with the people of Gaza and do everything in our power to deliver the aid they urgently need." GHF Interim Executive Director John Acree also pointed to a financial commitment from the US government to the amount of $30 million for funding for continued operations, saying, "This commitment reflects a simple truth: Americans deeply care about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and want to see real action, starting with getting food to those who need it most without interference from Hamas and other terrorists." "We are grateful for the support from President Trump and his administration in getting life-saving aid directly into the hands of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Now is the time for unity and collaboration. We look forward to other aid and humanitarian organizations joining us so we can feed even more Gazans, together," Acree concluded. Returning to the broader picture, reigniting the war in March also led to a return of Yemen's Houthis firing rockets into the home front. While not a strategic problem, this is a large negative for Israel economically, as well as for terrorizing Israelis psychologically. Some may try to debate how the Iran war works into all of this, but Jerusalem could have struck Tehran with or without an ongoing war with Hamas. The Israeli win against Iran may have helped make Hamas more ready to make certain concessions, but it did not completely change its attitude. Looking through this whole list of factors, the question of whether the last four months of war were 'worth it' is highly complex and not one-sided. Ultimately, in deciding whether all of this was 'worth it,' most observers will probably look at what terms Israel and Hamas agree to and how truly different they are than the terms the terrorist group offered for a return of the hostages and an end to the war in March.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Steve Bannon Urges MAGA to 'Fight' Amid Disagreements With Trump Admin
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon urged the MAGA movement to "fight" amid heightening fissures and disagreements over President Donald Trump's policies. Why It Matters Bannon's call comes as the MAGA base has grown increasingly frustrated with the Trump administration's foreign policy, as well as some issues on the domestic side. The split has been most evident in the right-wing media sphere, with influencers like Bannon and Tucker Carlson publicly criticizing U.S. policy vis-à-vis Ukraine and Iran and questioning the Trump administration on its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon speaks during the Red Tide Rising Rally for Republican candidates on October 24, 2018, in Elma, New York. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon speaks during the Red Tide Rising Rally for Republican candidates on October 24, 2018, in Elma, New York. Jeffrey T. Barnes/AP What To Know "WE'RE IN THE FIGHT CLUB," Bannon wrote Tuesday on Gettr, a social media platform geared toward conservatives. "ACT LIKE IT." "For all of you WarRoom Posse and MAGA, let's not curl up in the fetal position," Bannon added, referring to fans of his War Room podcast. "Let's not get in the mumble tank. Let's not say, oh my God, he's going to war in Iran, he's getting sucked into Ukraine, he's pushing amnesty, it's Epstein. Yes, it's all of those, and maybe more. That's fine. You're in the fight club. And in the fight club, what do we do? We fight." Bannon and Carlson are the face of MAGA's isolationist wing, publicly breaking with hawkish lawmakers who have advocated for the U.S. to play a larger role in both the Russia-Ukraine war and the Iran-Israel conflict. In June, Bannon vocally criticized Ukraine's decision to target Russian air bases with a series of drone strikes, saying on War Room that if Ukraine didn't consult with the Trump administration before carrying out the strikes, the U.S. should "condemn this immediately and pull all support [for Ukraine]." He also targeted Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for supporting the strikes while on a congressional visit to Ukraine, saying Graham should "come home or we are going to put you under arrest when you come home." After Israel started a war with Iran last month, both Bannon and Carlson immediately took to the airwaves to speak out against U.S. involvement. "You think we're going to join in the offensive combat [operation]?" Bannon asked Carlson on the June 16 episode of War Room. "Yes, I do," Carlson said. "I do." "Well, we have to—we can't—we have to stop that," Bannon said. Five days later, Trump announced that the U.S. had joined the conflict on Israel's side, launching a series of strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites that Trump said "obliterated" Tehran's nuclear program. Top Trump administration officials—though not the president himself—also drew Bannon and Carlson's ire when the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a memo earlier this week saying "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted" in the investigation of the disgraced businessman and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The announcement threw a wrench into years of far-right conspiracy theories about Epstein's 2019 death, whether he had any additional coconspirators and if he kept a client list. Bannon, Carlson and other right-wing influencers lashed out at the DOJ, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel after the memo was released. "We have to take these apparatuses down," Bannon said, referring to law enforcement agencies. Carlson described the memo as a "cover-up" and told a guest on Tuesday's episode of his podcast: "The president promised to reveal the truth about this. Pam Bondi, as you said, went on television and said, 'We have the truth, we're going to give it to you.' I think this is a big deal." On Tuesday, Bannon wrote on Gettr that the MAGA movement shouldn't "curl up" and "suck our thumbs." "We don't say, this is so terrible. President Trump, not just the President of the United States but the leader of our movement, is under pressure from all sides," he wrote. "From donors, from corporations, from hedge funds, from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, from [Chinese President Xi Jinping], from everywhere." What People Are Saying Carlson told Bannon while arguing against U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war: "The point is, if you think that saying, 'Hey, let's focus on my country, where I was born, where my family's been for hundreds of years, that was the promise of the last election, please do it,' if you think that's hate, you know, you've really lost perspective, I guess, is what I would say ... It's like, all of that is now ignored because a leader of a country who does not have majority support in that country ... wants a course of action that includes the United States and I just disagree." What Happens Next Bannon has generally been steadfast in his support for Trump despite publicly criticizing his policies. The divisions within the Republican Party, meanwhile, will play a pivotal role ahead of the 2026 midterms, as Trump and his backers publicly target GOP lawmakers, like Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, who have opposed the president's agenda.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Google co-founder Sergey Brin calls U.N. ‘transparently antisemitic' after report on tech firms and Gaza
Google co-founder Sergey Brin called the United Nations 'transparently antisemitic' on Saturday in an internal forum for employees, according to screenshots reviewed by The Washington Post and verified with a current member of the forum. His comments came in response to a U.N. report released last month that alleged technology firms including Google and its parent company Alphabet had profited from 'the genocide carried out by Israel' in Gaza by providing cloud and AI technologies to the Israeli government and military.
