Corruption, Corruption, Corruption
Nidaa Al-Watan, Lebanon, Feb. 21
There is a malignant tumor that transcends eras, decades, and even centuries. Its diagnosis is not difficult. It is called corruption. Lebanon has been plagued by it since the days of the Ottoman Empire, through the French mandate, and into the era of independence. It festered during the Civil War, endured through the post-war period, and continued even with the advent of peace. To this day, it continues to erode the fabric of the Lebanese state.
President of the Republic General Joseph Aoun recently stated, “My main concern is to combat corruption that has eaten away at state administrations and has become a culture, and this corruption can only be stopped through accountability. Lebanon is not bankrupt but rather a plundered state ruled by people who have mismanaged its resources. Things will not be put right except by combating corruption and the corrupt.”
There are several key points to address here: corruption has become a culture in Lebanon; it can only be stopped through accountability, and Lebanon is a looted country governed by those who have squandered its resources. These three observations form the foundation of a roadmap for combating corruption – one that is not merely aimed at combating corruption for its own sake but with the ultimate goal of recovering the stolen funds, as the president emphasizes: “Lebanon is looted, not bankrupt.”
This road map requires a clear mechanism, and it is not beyond reach. The first step is identifying where the “looted money” went – specifically, how debts were paid off with checks and who the key beneficiaries are, particularly the larger figures involved. This is the latest innovation in corruption: allowing the major beneficiaries who took out loans to pay them off with checks at the lowest possible rates, with depositors’ funds at stake. It would be enough to file a lawsuit against these individuals, forcing the disclosure of their accounts, and once the recovery process begins, the financial gap would begin to narrow.
The second crucial issue is tax evasion. Today, the situation is more manageable than it once was, but it requires a decisive political will and a commitment to execution. For these matters to reach a resolution, they must be handed to an impartial judiciary – one that is not intimidated by the powerful and does not prey on the weak.
In a country where the corrupt do not fear its judiciary, corruption will continue unchecked. Only when the judiciary operates with integrity, free from intimidation or political influence, will Lebanon begin to see meaningful progress in fighting the pervasive corruption that continues to plague it. – Jean Feghali
Iran: To Talk Or Not To Talk... That Is The Question
Asharq Al-Awsat, London, Feb. 21
With the Trump administration sending mixed signals about its intentions toward Iran, the country’s leadership is once again divided over how to respond.
One faction is painting a grim picture in which the US provides Israel with enough support to deliver a crushing blow to Iran, completing the defeats already inflicted on Tehran’s allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. These defeats, the faction argues, would inspire opponents of the regime, both within and outside the country, to take to the streets and seize power, while the IRGC, suffering from low morale, would resort to what it did in Syria – fleeing under the economic crisis’s shadow to protect itself.
This faction contends that the current economic crisis has drained the will and energy of the regime’s dwindling support base, making regime change a real possibility for the first time.
So, how can such a perilous situation be navigated? Senior figures in this faction, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, are proposing to open talks aimed at preventing war and allowing for a cooling of tensions. But who should they talk to? Talking to the US is supposedly off-limits, according to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who cites a fatwa issued by the regime’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, as well as a law passed by the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s parliament, which enforces the ban.
The answer: the European trio of France, Germany, and Great Britain, which just so happens to have strained relations with Washington at the moment. The theory is that the three countries would welcome a diplomatic breakthrough to restore some of the prestige they lost after President Donald Trump excluded them from his Ukraine peace initiative and his plans for the future of Gaza.
But what could be discussed without having to make concessions that would lead to a massive loss of face? The proposed “talks” would involve Iran offering to freeze its nuclear program for two to three years, after which it would decide its next steps. Tehran is currently investing vast resources in a program that lacks a clear and justifiable civilian or military purpose.
In return, the EU trio would use the mechanism provided by UN Security Council Resolution 3221 to block any military action against Iran. That resolution expires in October, opening the door to unintended consequences. Reaching an agreement with the Europeans would help ease pressure on Iran, inject some life into its moribund economy, and help prevent a widespread popular uprising.
Those promoting this analysis assume that the US and Israel will simply stand by and watch as Iran recovers from the brink. This analysis is countered by the faction loyal to the Supreme Leader, who insists that any appearance of weakness will accelerate the process of regime change. His advice is to stand firm and prepare for war.
The first step, according to this faction, is to build a war fund. This is achieved by reducing the supply of foreign currency in the market, allowing the national currency to depreciate further. The Iranian rial, which was worth 650,000 to the dollar, now needs to fall to 900,000 to the dollar. This was a trick used by the Allies when they invaded and occupied Iran during World War II. Because their expenses in Iran were in local currency, they were forced to devalue the rial by 50%.
Now, the Iranian regime is using this same tactic to increase the state’s purchasing power while reducing that of Iranian families, including military personnel and civil servants. To partially compensate, key individuals needed for the war effort are being given exceptional bonuses. The Supreme Leader, who controls the forces of law and order, has placed them on partial alert to preempt any potential rebellion. This is accompanied by a widespread crackdown on potential opponents, particularly in Tehran, where reports of arbitrary arrests have surfaced.
All of this suggests that the head of the Iranian regime is not willing to accept another deal with America in order to distance himself voluntarily from Trump’s four-year term – a game that has led seven consecutive American presidents to a dead end and allowed the Islamic Republic to approach its golden jubilee.
Today, the question of whether to talk or not to talk is not just a matter for rival factions in Tehran but also for those forces that – rightly or wrongly – have concluded that there can be no regional peace and stability without persuading or forcing what former French president François Mitterrand called “the great troublemaker” to change or be changed. – Amir Taheri
Momentum for a Ceasefire in Gaza
Al-Ittihad, UAE, Feb. 21
On Feb. 4, US President Donald Trump declared that the Gaza Strip had become uninhabitable due to the war, suggesting that the territory’s two million Palestinians should be relocated to Jordan and Egypt. He proposed that the US take control of Gaza and oversee its reconstruction, envisioning it as a resort destination along the lines of the French Riviera on the Mediterranean coast. However, he remained vague on whether the Palestinians would be allowed to return.
In the days that followed, the fallout from this extraordinary proposal, which caught even Trump’s foreign policy team off guard, was swift and overwhelmingly negative. Yet, Trump has not abandoned his plan, and it remains on his agenda.
Did his “shock-and-awe” approach to Gaza push key Arab states and the Palestinians to formulate their own responses? If so, the widespread backlash might have served its intended purpose. However, in reality, the plan was so extreme that its only true supporters were hardline right-wing politicians in Israel. These figures have long sought to rebuild the settlements in Gaza, which Israel dismantled in 2005 as part of a unilateral disengagement agreement aimed at isolating Gaza and avoiding negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
If Trump’s Gaza plan were to be implemented, it would pose an existential threat to both Jordan and Egypt. The influx of additional refugees from Gaza would disrupt Jordan’s delicate demographic balance, which could have disastrous regional repercussions, including for Israel. Egypt, for its part, has already had to absorb over a million Sudanese refugees, with more arriving every day.
Adding nearly a million Palestinians from Gaza would understandably lead Cairo to oppose such a move, with officials warning that it could endanger the peace agreement with Israel that has been in place since 1979, a pact that is vital for the security of both countries. For Egypt, a realistic solution to the Gaza crisis is essential, as it would likely restore the normal operations of the Suez Canal, which has been heavily impacted by the war and the reduced revenue from international shipping.Another unrealistic element of Trump’s proposal is the idea that American troops would participate in evacuating and occupying the territory while it was being rebuilt, with Arab states expected to contribute the vast sums needed to fund the project. Trump later denied that American troops would be involved, but given the vague and constantly shifting nature of his plans, no one can be certain of his intentions.
What is undeniable, however, is that the Palestinians in Gaza would oppose any proposal to relocate them, no matter the conditions, and any notion of forced evacuation would amount to ethnic cleansing – a concept that ultimately drew the US into the wars over the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, with the primary mission of preventing ethnic cleansing.
Trump’s propensity for proposing unrealistic geopolitical solutions is not new. During his first term, he hoped to resolve the Korean conflict through a series of letters and a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. While it’s unlikely that the Gaza plan will ever come to fruition, it could still provide momentum for progress if the current ceasefire holds. On the other hand, Trump now faces what may be his toughest diplomatic challenge yet: the war in Ukraine, which he promised to end in a day. That, perhaps, will be the subject of my next column. – Geoffrey Kemp
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.
Palestine Is a National and Humanitarian Issue!
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, Feb. 20
I’ve noticed that in discussions surrounding the Palestinian cause and the unprecedented, inhumane violations and crimes inflicted upon Palestinians, the focus tends to be placed on the political and national dimensions of the conflict, often overlooking the religious and social aspects that affect all sectors of Palestinian society, including Palestinian Christians.
Ignoring the rights of Palestinian Christians in this context not only represents a deliberate avoidance of a clear truth but also constitutes a serious oversimplification of the nature of the Palestinian cause, which has never been an issue specific to one religious group but rather a struggle of an entire people against occupation, colonialism, and racial discrimination.
Palestinian Christians are an integral part of the Palestinian social and political fabric. Since the Nakba of 1948, history shows that Christians have been actively involved in national resistance, whether through political activism, armed struggle, or support for popular movements. They have also played a pivotal role in shaping Palestinian cultural identity through literature, art, media, and education.Although the percentage of Christians has declined in Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, and more recently in Palestine, primarily due to the migration induced by the conditions of occupation and discrimination, their presence remains evident in various aspects of Palestinian life, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Gaza. Therefore, marginalizing discussions about them in the context of the Palestinian issue is a form of marginalizing their history, their struggle, and their ongoing tragedy.Christians in Palestine are subjected to multiple violations, no different from those endured by Palestinian Muslims, and sometimes, they face particular attention due to the religious and cultural significance of Christian sites. Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, are regularly attacked by Jewish settlers, with clear complicity and disregard from the Israeli authorities.
The Israeli occupation also imposes harsh restrictions on Christians’ access to their churches and holy sites, particularly during religious holidays, severely hindering their ability to practice their rituals in addition to the ongoing attempts to Judaize Jerusalem and seize Christian properties, such as in Jerusalem’s Bab Al-Khalil case, where Israeli authorities facilitated the seizure of property belonging to the Egyptian Orthodox Church, most notably the Monastery of the Sultan (Deir es-Sultan).Ignoring the rights of Palestinian Christians in the context of the Palestinian issue carries dangerous consequences on multiple levels: First, by distorting the Palestinian national identity by framing it as a religious conflict between Muslims and Jews, which misrepresents the true nature of the situation. The Palestinian cause is not a religious issue; it is primarily a national and humanitarian one. I caution against disregarding Palestinian Christians in political and media discourse, as this harms Palestinian national unity and offers the occupation an opportunity to sow artificial divisions.
Second, by undermining international solidarity with Palestine, as emphasizing the suffering of Palestinian Christians, could potentially garner greater international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, particularly in the West. By neglecting this aspect, we squander a crucial opportunity to mobilize international support against the occupation’s practices.
Third, by encouraging the occupation to target them even more. By failing to highlight the suffering of Palestinian Christians, the Israeli occupation is allowed to continue its aggressive policies without deterrence. This silence also allows Israel to exploit international and regional indifference to further its policies of Judaization and racial discrimination against all Palestinians, irrespective of their religious affiliation.
A comprehensive discussion of the Palestinian cause must reflect all facets of Palestinian society. The Palestinian struggle cannot be reduced to a single category, group, or resistance movement; it must encompass the suffering of the entire population, including Palestinian Christians, who endure the same oppression and tyranny. Excluding discussions about the rights of Christians in Palestine is not merely a media or political oversight but a grave error that results in marginalizing an authentic component of the Palestinian national fabric. The Palestinian issue is not a religious issue; it is a national and humanitarian one. – Hany Labib
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.