DOCSLIB.ORG

Reactions to the Prisoner Exchange Deal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reactions to the Prisoner Exchange Deal Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center July 21, 2008 Reactions to the prisoner exchange deal: Syria, Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority joined Hezbollah’s joyous propaganda campaign, strongly supported by the popular channel Al- Jazeera. On the other hand, the official government-controlled media of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabian played down the issue and in general 1 refrained from praising Hezbollah An Al-Jazeera TV report sympathetic to Samir Kuntar, broadcast July 21. Al-Jazeera’s website featured dozens of talkbacks, all of them supporting of Kuntar and praising his murderous actions (Al-Jazeera website, July 21). Ismail Haniya celebrating Samir Kuntar’s release (Al-Jazeera website, July 16). 1 Update of our July 16, 2008 Bulletin, “Two years after the second Lebanon war the bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were exchanged for five Lebanese prisoners, including the terrorist murderer Samir Kuntar...,” at http://www.terrorism- info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hezbollah_e001.pdf. 2 OOOvvveeerrrvvviiieeewww 1. Syria, Iran, Lebanon and the PA joined the propaganda campaign produced by Hezbollah around the exchange deal, representing it as a great achievement for Hezbollah and the “resistance” (terrorism) in general. In the pan-Arab arena Al-Jazeera TV joined the joyous propaganda campaign of support for Hezbollah. On the other hand, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian government-controlled media played down the issue, although those same newspapers, as well as the independent or opposition press, continue to praise Hezbollah. Video glorifying Hezbollah broadcast by Iranian TV (Khabar TV, July 16). EEEgggyyypppttt 2. Egyptian reporting of the prisoner exchange deal was laconic. Most of the government- controlled papers did not give the issue prominence and reporting was informative. Al-Ahram was the only paper to devote editorial content to the deal. A column called it “a victory over the enemy” and called upon Palestinians to learn from it to achieve the release of the Palestinian prisoners and the establishment of an independent state (Al-Ahram, July 17). The independent and opposition press was also informative in its reports of the deal. 3 JJJooorrrdddaaannn 3. Reports in the Jordanian media were informative and not rate large headlines. The independent pro-Palestinian dailies emphasized the joy in Lebanon, comparing it with the mourning in Israel. Some of the columns noted that Hezbollah had been strengthened by the deal and had become an important factor in Middle East politics. Official Jordanian television did not broadcast the festivities produced by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The state daily newspaper Al-Rai gave the issue minimum coverage. 4. The opposition and pro-Palestinian papers reacted to the deal as follows: i) The pro-Palestinian daily Al-Dustour represented it as the successful realization of every goal Nasrallah had set for himself in July 2006, and which had untied Lebanese everywhere. An editorial stated that the deal sent Israel the message that recognizing the Palestinians’ rights was the only way to end the conflict. Yasser Zaatra, an Islamist journalist, wrote that the deal was another step on the path to Israel’s final defeat and “wiping it off the face of the earth” (Al-Dustour, July 17). ii) Taher al-Adwan, editor in chief of the daily Al-Arab al-Youm, wrote that the deal changed the rules of the game and that now the players tended to avoid frontal confrontations, preferring to negotiate on the basis of their own interests. Pro-Syrian journalist Nihad Hatar wrote that the deal expressed the new balance of power which had come into being in 2006 (Al-Arab al-Youm), July 20). Ahmad Abu Khalil claimed that Hezbollah had shown it dealt with more than its own organizational interests and had succeeded in carrying out the deal despite the entire world (Al-Arab al-Youm), July 17). iii) Jamil al-Nimri, writing for the leftist Al-Ghad, said that Hezbollah’s popularity had risen after the deal because it had succeeding in providing the Lebanese public with a feeling of pride, as opposed to the humiliation felt in Israel. He was of the opinion that the deal was another blow for the moderate Arab camp and a prize for Hezbollah (Al-Ghad, July 17). iv) With regard to the opposition organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood: Laith Shbilat, chairman of an organization the so-called association for the struggle against Zionism and racismpraised Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah, saying that their victory showed how moral they were. The Jordanian Writers Union sent messages to the Lebanese president and Hezbollah general secretary expressing its pride in the “historic victory” (Al-Arab al-Youm, July 18). The Higher Coordinating Committee of the Opposition Parties congratulated the Lebanese “resistance” on the deal. The committee’s spokesman sent a message to Hassan Nasrallah saying that “the era 4 of defeat has ended and the era of victory has arrived” (Website of the Islamic Action Front, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, July 19). SSSaaauuudddiii AAArrraaabbbiiiaaa 5. The Saudi Arabian media did not grant the prisoner exchange deal much coverage. The daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (one of the most popular papers in the Middle East, published in London, with a Saudi Arabian orientation) criticized the festivities in Lebanon, exceptional in the Arab world. The column reporting the deal stated, among other things, that despite the joy at the return of the prisoners to Lebanon, it should be remembered that Lebanon suffered great financial losses in the war, estimated at $5.2 billion, and that the price in human suffering was 1,200 dead and 4,400 wounded (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, July 17). SSSyyyrrriiiaaa 6. The Syrian media continue praising the exchange deal. On the day of the deal itself it was the top item on all the Syrian TV news programs, and all the Syrian media relate to it as a victory for Hezbollah. 7. Issam Dari, the editor in chief of the Syrian daily Tishrin, exploited the opportunity to publish a hate-article with strong overtones of incitement against Israel, praise for terrorism and anti-Semitism. It stated that the anger and humiliation felt by Israel did not prevent it from “continuing its terrorism” and it would try in the future to kill Samir Kuntar. He noted that the losses suffered by Israel in the deal made it imperative for the “resistance” (terrorism) to continue, because the age of defeat had ended and the age of victory had begun. It also claimed that most Israelis were “murderers and terrorists, some of whom became members of the Israeli parliament and prime ministers.” He said that the Israeli “street” was full of racist ideas and religious precepts (mitzvot) from the Talmud, which were often repeated by Jewish religious sages (rabbis), especially Ovadiah Yosef, who regarded Arabs and Muslims as “insects and cockroaches which should be destroyed” (Tishrin, July 20). 8. Syrian political commentator Rajaa al-Nasser said that the prisoner exchange deal might lead to a proposal to disarm Hezbollah on the claim that the “resistance” had realized its goal. Such a proposal, he said, was “part of an attempt to impose a blockade on Iran or to attack it by cutting off its branches in the region, or as part of a deal that will include Iran, in accordance with the current American administration’s capabilities in the last months of its rule” (Ilaf, July 17). 5 LLLeeebbbaaannnooonnn 9. Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, despite his central position in the anti-Syrian camp (the March 14 Forces), praised the release of Druze Samir Kuntar and the “resistance” (i.e., Hezbollah and the terrorist organizations in general). He said that “we should not forget that Palestinian is one big prison and we must complete the struggle for its liberation” Jumblatt noted that the day the prisoners returned was also the day of the first meeting of the new Lebanese government, which “expresses genuine national unity” (Al-Hayat, July 17). .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israel: Background and U.S
    Israel: Background and U.S. Relations Casey L. Addis Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs February 14, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33476 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Israel: Background and U.S. Relations Summary On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel declared its independence and was immediately engaged in a war with all of its neighbors. Armed conflict has marked every decade of Israel’s existence. Despite its unstable regional environment, Israel has developed a vibrant parliamentary democracy, albeit with relatively fragile governments. The most recent national elections were held on February 10, 2009, ahead of schedule. Although the Kadima Party placed first, parties holding 65 seats in the 120-seat Knesset supported opposition Likud party leader Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, who was designated to form a government. Netanyahu’s coalition includes his own Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home), Shas, Habayet Hayehudi (Jewish Home), the United Torah Judaism (UTJ), and the new Ha’atzmout (Independence) party. The coalition controls 66 of 120 Knesset seats. Israel has an advanced industrial, market economy with a large government role. Israel’s foreign policy is focused largely on its region, Europe, and the United States. Israel’s foreign policy agenda begins with Iran, which it views as an existential threat due to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism. Achieving peace with its neighbors is next. Israel concluded peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, but not with Syria and Lebanon. Recent unrest in Egypt is rekindling latent anxiety in Israel about the durability of the peace treaty Egypt and Israel have relied upon for 30 years.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR and ITS CONSEQUENCES for HEZBOLLAH by Benedetta Berti
    DECEMBER 2015 THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR HEZBOLLAH By Benedetta Berti Benedetta Berti is a TED Senior Fellow, a Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and an independent human security consultant. Her work focuses on human security and internal conflicts, as well as on post-conflict stabilization and peacebuilding. Dr. Berti is the author of three books, including Armed Political Organizations. From Conflict to Integration (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013) and her work has appeared, among others, in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and Al- Jazeera. In 2015 the Italian government awarded her the Order of the Star of Italy (order of Knighthood). Beginning as a largely non-violent, non-sectarian political mobilization, the Syrian revolution gradually morphed into a protracted and bloody civil war as well as into a regional proxy conflict that has directly involved both regional states and non-state actors alike. Today, the Syrian conflict remains deeply internationalized, militarized and fractionalized. The domestic battlefield is characterized by a crucible of different political and armed movements. But while the fragmentation and proliferation of armed groups within the anti-Assad camp is well known, the Syrian regime has also been relying on a number of non-state allies. These include Syrian local ‘community-defense’ groups and other pro-regime paramilitary organizations; Shiite militia groups (mostly from Iraq) and, most notably, the Lebanese Hezbollah. Indeed since the very beginning of the Syrian revolution, Hezbollah clearly sided with the Bashar-al Assad regime, shifting from offering political support and solidarity to becoming one of the warring parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Hizbullah Under Fire in Syria | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / Articles & Op-Eds Hizbullah Under Fire in Syria by Matthew Levitt, Nadav Pollak Jun 9, 2016 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Matthew Levitt Matthew Levitt is the Fromer-Wexler Fellow and director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at The Washington Institute. Nadav Pollak Nadav Pollak is a former Diane and Guilford Glazer Foundation fellow at The Washington Institute. Articles & Testimony Last month's assassination of a senior Hizbullah commander, apparently by Syrian rebel groups, demonstrates the growing threat the organization faces from fellow Arabs and Muslims. he death of senior Hizbullah commander Mustafa Badreddine in Syria in May left the group reeling, but not for T the reason most people think. True, it lost an especially qualified commander with a unique pedigree as the brother-in-law of Imad Mughniyeh, with whom Badreddine plotted devastating terror attacks going back to the Beirut bombings in the 1980s. And, at the time of his death, Badreddine was dual-hatted as the commander of both the group's international terrorist network (the Islamic Jihad Organisation or External Security Organisation) and its significant military deployment in Syria. The loss of such a senior and seasoned commander is no small setback for Hizbullah. But the real reason Badreddine's death has Hizbullah on edge is not the loss of the man, per se, but the fact that the group's arch enemy, Israel, was seemingly not responsible. Hizbullah, it appears, now has more immediate enemies than Israel -- and that has the self-described "resistance" organisation tied up in knots.
    [Show full text]
  • Countering Iran in the Gray Zone What the United States Should Learn from Israel’S Operations in Syria
    APRIL 2020 Countering Iran in the Gray Zone What the United States Should Learn from Israel’s Operations in Syria Ilan Goldenberg, Nicholas A. Heras, Kaleigh Thomas, and Jennie Matuschak About the Authors Acknowledgments Ilan Goldenberg is a Senior Fellow and The authors would like to thank Sarit Zehavi and Tal Beeri Director of the Middle East Security at the Alma Institute for their input into this report and their Program at the Center for a New feedback, as well as for spending a day with the authors American Security (CNAS). He previously visiting Israel’s northern border. They would also like to served at the State Department as a chief thank Israeli government and defense officials who engaged of staff for the small team supporting with them on this project and they are grateful to Norman then–Secretary of State John Kerry’s Roule, Lt Col Stewart Parker, and Loren DeJonge Schulman initiative to conduct permanent-status for reviewing drafts and offering helpful comments; and to negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Formerly Melody Cook and Maura McCarthy, who assisted with the a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign production of this report. Relations Committee, he focused on the Middle East. Prior to that, he served as a special advisor on the Middle East About the Middle East Security and then as the Iran team chief in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Program The Middle East Security Program conducts cutting-edge Nicholas A. Heras is the Middle East research on the most pressing issues in this turbulent Portfolio Manager at the Institute for region.
    [Show full text]
  • Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah Boasts of the Organization's Ability
    May 28, 2006 Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S) Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasts of the organization’s ability to maintain a balance of deterrence with Israel. By doing that he justifies, in the internal Lebanese arena, its refusal to disarm and repels the demands of his opponents, the supporters of the “New Order” in Lebanon. Nasrallah speaking at a meeting of The Resistance Culture [i.e., terrorism] Committee: “The resistance [i.e., Hezbollah] has more than 12,000 rockets… All of northern occupied Palestine [i.e., Israel] is within range of the rockets of the resistance…” (Al- Manar TV, May 23). Overview aaa In a fiery speech on the sixth anniversary of the IDF’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nassrallah boasted of the organization’s ability maintain a balance of deterrence with Israel. It has, he said, more than 12,000 rockets in its possession, posing a serious threat to Israel’s northern regions. He also spoke of his commitment to free Lebanese prisoners (terrorists) held in Israel and to liberate the Shebaa Farms in the near future. He thus presented himself as Lebanon’s protector and rejected demands from home and abroad that Hezbollah disarm. In an equally fiery speech he encouraged the Palestinians to continue their terrorist campaign against Israel, boasting that Hezbollah was the first to use suicide bombing attacks in the conflict with Israel. TTThhheee bbbaaaccckkkgggrrrooouuunnnddd ooofff ttthhheee tttwwwooo ssspppeeeeeeccchhheeess aaannnddd ttthhheeeiiirrr gggoooaaalllsss aaa Every year on May 25 Hezbollah celebrates Resistance [i.e., terrorism] and Liberation Day to mark the anniversary of the IDF’s withdrawal from the security zone in southern Lebanon.
    [Show full text]
  • Hezbollah's Concept of Deterrence Vis-À-Vis Israel According to Nasrallah
    Hezbollah’s Concept of Deterrence vis-à-vis Israel according to Nasrallah: From the Second Lebanon War to the Present Carmit Valensi and Yoram Schweitzer “Lebanon must have a deterrent military strength…then we will tell the Israelis to be careful. If you want to attack Lebanon to achieve goals, you will not be able to, because we are no longer a weak country. If we present the Israelis with such logic, they will think a million times.” Hassan Nasrallah, August 17, 2009 This essay deals with Hezbollah’s concept of deterrence against Israel as it developed over the ten years since the Second Lebanon War. The essay looks at the most important speeches by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah during this period to examine the evolution and development of the concept of deterrence at four points in time that reflect Hezbollah’s internal and regional milieu (2000, 2006, 2008, and 2011). Over the years, Nasrallah has frequently utilized the media to deliver his messages and promote the organization’s agenda to key target audiences – Israel and the internal Lebanese audience. His speeches therefore constitute an opportunity for understanding the organization’s stances in general and its concept of deterrence in particular. The Quiet Decade: In the Aftermath of the Second Lebanon War, 2006-2016 I 115 Edited by Udi Dekel, Gabi Siboni, and Omer Einav 116 I Carmit Valensi and Yoram Schweitzer Principal Messages An analysis of Nasrallah’s speeches, especially since 2011, shows that he has devoted them primarily to the war in Syria and internal Lebanese politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel: If Only They Knew Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt
    Israel: If Only They Knew Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt Rosh Hashana September 24, 2006 /5767 Fueled by a media that more often than not portrays Israel in a negative light, efforts to delegitimize the state of Israel occur regularly in the halls of the United Nations, as evidenced by this past week’s proceedings. Humorist Jake Novak speculated what news headlines would be like if reporters covered other news stories and events the same way that Israel is presented in most newspapers. The article about the World Cup Match would read – HARMLESS SOOCER BALL BOOTED MERCILESSLY JEWISH BAGEL MERCHANTS CHARGE FULL PRICE FOR BREAD WITH HOLES DEFENSELESS GAS STATION SIGN ADJUSTERS EXHAUSTED BY FREQUENT PRICE HIKES “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN” BRUTALLY OCCUPIES TOP SPOT AT THE BOX OFFICE. FAMILY OF CONVICTED SERIAL KILLER MISSES HIM; DEMANDS HIS RELEASE SANTA CLAUS RUDELY TURNED AWAY FROM JEWISH HOMES ON CHRISTMAS AIRPLANE HIJACKERS PROVOKED BY LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT OF INSUFFICIENT LEGROOM ROBERT DOWNEY JR ARREST SPELLS DISASTER FOR HARD-WORKING COCAINE FARMERS The constant demonization of Israel, portraying it as an aggressor or occupier, and as the source of all the ills in the Middle East and world, inevitably distorts and affects people’s perceptions despite the truth and justness of its cause. Academics and academic institutions are not immune to the influence of Israel hate mongers. In fact, they are the locale and source of much of the activity most damaging to Israel. Two professors, John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University, caused a stir in March of this year when they came out with an article entitled, “The Israel Lobby.” Their thesis is that a small cabal determines American foreign policy on the basis of what is good for Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Iran's Role in the Syrian Conflict
    Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Occasional Paper Understanding Iran’s Role in the Syrian Conflict Edited by Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi and Raffaello Pantucci Understanding Iran’s Role in the Syrian Conflict Edited by Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi and Raffaello Pantucci Occasional Paper, August 2016 Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies ii Understanding Iran’s Role in the Syrian Conflict Over 180 years of independent defence and security thinking The Royal United Services Institute is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international defence and security. Its mission is to be an analytical, research-led global forum for informing, influencing and enhancing public debate on a safer and more stable world. Since its foundation in 1831, RUSI has relied on its members to support its activities, sustaining its political independence for over 180 years. London | Brussels | Nairobi | Doha | Tokyo | Washington, DC The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s), and do not reflect the views of RUSI or any other institution. Published in 2016 by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No-Derivatives 4.0 International Licence. For more information, see <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/>. RUSI Occasional Paper, August 2016. ISSN 2397-0286 (Online); ISSN 2397-0278 (Print). Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies Whitehall London SW1A 2ET United Kingdom +44 (0)20 7747 2600 www.rusi.org RUSI is a registered charity (No. 210639) Contents Acknowledgements v Introduction 1 Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi I.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinian Center for Human Rights' Ties to the PFLP Terror Group
    January 2020 Palestinian Center for Human Rights' Ties to the PFLP Terror Group Palestinian Centre for Human Rights’ Ties to the PFLP Terror Group January 2020 NGO Monitor's mission is to provide information and analysis, promote accountability, and support discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas. 10 Yad Harutzim St. Jerusalem, Israel 9342148 Tel: +972-2-566-1020 Fax: +972-77-511-7030 [email protected] www.ngo-monitor.org (ע"ר Institute for NGO Research (#580465508 Organization in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council since 2013 © 2019 NGO Monitor. All rights reserved. PCHR’s Ties to the PFLP Terror Group INTRODUCTION Founded in 1995, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) is a Palestinian non- governmental organization (NGO) claiming a human rights agenda, mostly relating to Gaza. Its focus is attempting to galvanize international pressure and punitive measures against Israel in the legal realm. It has targeted numerous Israeli officials, including former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini, with universal jurisdiction arrest warrants in European countries and New Zealand. PCHR lobbies UN bodies intensively, accusing Israel of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, and was instrumental in pushing the International Criminal Court to launch an investigation into Israel. In addition, as documented in this report, PCHR has multiple links to the PFLP terror organization, designated as such by the EU, the US, Canada, and Israel. Nevertheless, the UN and foreign governments provide PCHR with extensive funding and rely on it as a source of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Political Influence in Modern-Era Conflict: a Qualitative Historical Analysis of Hassan Nasrallah's Speeches
    Understanding Political Influence in Modern-Era Conflict: A Qualitative Historical Analysis of Hassan Nasrallah’s Speeches by Reem A. Abu-Lughod and Samuel Warkentin Abstract This research examines and closely analyzes speeches delivered by Hezbollah’s secretary general and spokesman, Hassan Nasrallah. We reveal that several significant political phenomena that have occurred in Lebanon were impacted by the intensity of speeches delivered by Nasrallah; these three events being the 2006 War, the Doha Agreement, and the 2008 prisoner exchange. Nasrallah’s speeches with significant key words and themes, that are reflective of the three selected events, have been collected from various transcribed news media sources and analyzed using a qualitative historical approach. Finally, the research study uses latent analysis to assess Nasrallah’s underlying implications of his speeches by identifying key words and themes that he uses to influence his audience Introduction he present globalization of extremist discourse and its impact on international relations as a whole have historical precedents.[1] Whether it’s print media, television, the “T internet, or any other form of communication, charismatic leaders of influential organizations have led their audience to believe in certain ideologies that are deemed hopeful and powerful, all through their emotional and authoritative speeches. One such leader is Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary general. Nasrallah has been an influential leader of Hezbollah, inspiring his supporters and engaging them at an emotional level to garner more support of his actions. Through his rhetoric, he has been able to relate to his audience, in particular the majority of the Shi’a community in Lebanon and those who are in opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestine; all with a strategic strength to gain their commitment of his broad and open pleas.
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S
    Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy Carol Migdalovitz Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs January 29, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33530 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy Summary After the first Gulf war, in 1991, a new peace process consisting of bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon achieved mixed results. Milestones included the Israeli-Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Declaration of Principles (DOP) of September 13, 1993, providing for Palestinian empowerment and some territorial control, the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 26, 1994, and the Interim Self-Rule in the West Bank or Oslo II accord of September 28, 1995, which led to the formation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, Israeli-Syrian negotiations were intermittent and difficult, and postponed indefinitely in 2000. Israeli-Lebanese negotiations also were unsuccessful, leading Israel to withdraw unilaterally from south Lebanon on May 24, 2000. President Clinton held a summit with Israeli and Palestinian leaders at Camp David on final status issues that July, but they did not produce an accord. A Palestinian uprising or intifadah began in September. On February 6, 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister of Israel, and rejected steps taken at Camp David and afterwards. On April 30, 2003, the United States, the U.N., European Union, and Russia (known as the “Quartet”) presented a “Road Map” to Palestinian statehood. It has not been implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Hezbollah's Role in the Present Israeli-Iranian Confrontation Visit WEB Receive Newsletter
    Opinion Document 89/2018 August 06, 2018 Eitan Azani and Ely Karmon* Hezbollah's Role in the Present Israeli-Iranian Confrontation Visit WEB Receive Newsletter Hezbollah's Role in the Present Israeli-Iranian Confrontation Abstract: Hezbollah is a key element in the current confrontation between Israel and the Iranian regime. It has been Tehran’s main tool in its fight against the existence of Israel since 1982. There is a symbiotic relationship between Iran and Hezbollah, which is considered a proxy of the Iranian regime completely aligned with it, or more exactly, part and parcel of the theocratic regime. The organization was formed by the Iranian regime, militarily armed, trained and advised by the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) Al Quds Force, ideologically and politically subservient to Ayatollah Khamenei and not to the Lebanese President, Parliament or government. Keywords: Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, Middle East, Syria, Lebanon. * NOTE: The ideas contained in the Opinion Documents are the responsibility of their authors, without necessarily reflecting the thinking of the IEEE or the Ministry of Defense. Opinion Document 89/2018 1 Hezbollah's Role in the Present Israeli-Iranian Confrontation Eitan Azani and Ely Karmon The Iranian factor Hezbollah has been Tehran’s main tool in its fight against the existence of Israel since 1982: first as a terrorist group, since the 1990s as a hybrid terror organization. There is a symbiotic relationship between Iran and Hezbollah, which is considered a proxy of the Iranian regime completely aligned with it, or more exactly, part and parcel of the theocratic regime. The organization was formed by the Iranian regime, militarily armed, trained and advised by the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) Al Quds Force and, according to its acceptance of the vilayat-e faqih concept, is ideologically and politically subservient to Ayatollah Khamenei and not to the Lebanese President, Parliament or government.
    [Show full text]