JAMES M. DORSEY

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is tying himself up in knots as he grudgingly, and only to a limited degree, bows to US President Joe Biden’s demands.

In doing so, Mr. Netanyahu is puncturing Swiss-cheese size holes into Israel’s Gaza narrative, making it easier for Mr. Biden to take him publicly to task.

Mr. Biden has demanded that Israel allow the unfettered flow of desperately needed humanitarian aid into Gaza, an immediate ceasefire linked to an exchange of Hamas-held hostages for Palestinians incarcerated in Israel, and the dropping of Israeli plans for a ground offensive in the southern Gazan city of Rafah, home to more than a million Palestinians displaced by the six-month-long war.

Israel allows aid trucks to enter Gaza. Credit: AP
In recent days, Mr. Netanyahu has granted entry into Gaza to more than 1,200 aid trucks, significantly reduced Israel’s on-the-ground military presence in the Strip, and raised to 150,000 the number of displaced Palestinians that would be allowed to return without Israeli security checks to their often destroyed homes in the north of the territory.

In addition, Mr. Netanyahu has played games with Rafah by claiming that he has set an undisclosed date for a ground offensive, even though Israeli officials are still discussing his plans with their US counterparts, and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, insists that there is no date for the operation.

Even so, Mr. Gallant said the withdrawal of Israeli forces was to prepare for an offensive in Rafah. Israel asserts that Hamas’ remaining four armed brigades are in Rafah. It also suspects that Hamas’ top leadership, including Yahya Sinwar, Israel’s most wanted man, is hiding in tunnels under Rafah, shielded by many of the Hamas-held hostages still alive.

The contradictions in Israeli statements on Rafah reflect the knots tying up Mr. Netanyahu and the holes punctured by Israel in the prime minister and the government’s narrative.

Displaced Palestinian children at a refugee camp in Rafah. Credit: Saleh Salem/Reuters
By asserting that he set a date, Mr. Netanyahu hopes to pacify his ultra-nationalist coalition partners who threaten to topple the government if the prime minister fails to launch an offensive.

At the same time, Mr. Netanyahu is attempting to engineer a situation in which he can blame Mr. Biden if he decides not to commence ground operations in Gaza and/or for Israel’s overall failure to achieve its war objectives, including the destruction of Hamas and ensuring that the Strip no longer will be a launching pad for Palestinian resistance.

Many suspect Mr. Netanyahu of wanting to continue the war to extend his fragile political life. He is likely betting that his far-right partners may not make good on their threat, given opinion polls that suggest a new election would not return them or the prime minister to office.

The far-right may not be the only threat to the longevity of Mr. Netanyahu’s government.

Depending on how Mr. Biden and Hamas play their cards in ceasefire and prisoner exchange negotiations, Mr. Netanyahu could see a split in his war cabinet from which the far-right is excluded.

A tough-talking politician and retired general, Mr. Gallant suggested that Israel could be flexible in the negotiations.

“We have the absolute commitment to bringing our hostages home, and the operational circumstances created by the IDF’s constant pressure on Hamas and our position of power achieved in battle allow us flexibility, freedom of movement, and the ability to make difficult decisions,” Mr. Gallant said, referring to the Israel Defense Forces by their acronym.

“There will be difficult decisions, and we are prepared to pay a price to release the hostages,” Mr. Gallant added.

Israeli officials said neither Mr. Netanyahu nor Mr. Gallant had advance knowledge of this week’s killing of three sons and four grandchildren of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau and a ceasefire negotiator.

CIA Director Bill Burns (left) meets Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on 7 April 2024 during Gaza ceasefire talks. Credit: The Arab Republic of Egypt Presidency
The attack came as Mr. Biden called on Hamas to accept a ceasefire proposal put forward by CIA Director Bill Burns. Hamas says it is studying the proposal even though Israel’s response fails to address its demands.

Essentially, Mr. Burns’ proposal is a revival of a suggestion first crafted in January by US and Egyptian intelligence chiefs and Qatar’s Prime Minister in consultation with the head of Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service. The proposal called for a three-stage 90-day ceasefire, a phased prisoner exchange, and permanent ceasefire talks in the second stage.

The Burns proposal envisions the exchange of 40 Hamas-held civilian captives abducted during its October 7 attack on Israel for 900 Palestinians in Israeli prison. Hamas has committed itself to the release of the initial batch but has left open whether the 40 would include bodies of captives killed in the fighting.

The Hamas position has raised doubts whether the group still holds 40 live civilians. Many of the estimated 130 Hamas captives are Israeli military personnel who Hamas says it will only free as part of a permanent ceasefire deal. Of the 130, at least 40 have died in captivity.

Hamas abducted 250 people in October, more than 100 of which were swapped in November for 240 Palestinians incarcerated in Israel.

Under the new US proposal, Hamas would have to compromise on the number and identity of the prisoners they want released, while Israel would have to make concessions on the return of displaced Palestinian civilians to northern Gaza.

The CIA director’s proposal goes some way to meet Hamas’ demands for a permanent ceasefire, a complete Israeli troop withdrawal, the unfettered flow of aid into Gaza, and the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes in the north.

Mr. Netanyahu and Israel’s problem is that appearing to comply with Mr. Biden’s demands, including facilitating a ceasefire agreement, is self-incriminating.

A renewed prisoner exchange amounts to an admission that six months of military action has failed to free the hostages and, in effect, hands Hamas a victory.

For Mr. Netanyahu, that is a double-edged sword. While a prisoner exchange would take some of the stings out of growing domestic public demands that he prioritise the release of hostages, it would likely encourage mass demonstrations demanding the prime minister’s resignation.

Displaced Palestinians wait for food at Al-Shaboura camp, in Rafah. Credit: World Health Organisation
Moreover, the entry into Gaza this week of more than 1,200 aid trucks in three days is evidence that Israeli restrictions constitute the main obstacle and cause of the humanitarian food and medical crisis rather than international organisations’ lack of capacity, a breakdown of law and order in Gaza, or allegations that Hamas hijacks aid convoys, even if all of that plays a role.

Moreover, while Israel’s failed attempt to incite a popular revolt against Hamas by depriving Gazans of the basics of life is the main reason for the crisis threatening the lives of innocent Palestinians, it is not the only culprit.

Hamas, like Israel and the West Bank-based Palestine Authority (PA), Hamas’ archrival, sees aid distribution as a battleground that will shape the contours of the post-war administration of the Strip.

Palestine Red Crescent Society distributes aid central Gaza. Credit: Palestine Red Crescent Society.
While humanitarian organisations will not surrender control of distribution, Hamas believes it should play a role in securing the movement of aid trucks in Gaza and maintaining a semblance of law and order.

Hamas believes Israel is attempting to circumvent the group by approaching Gazan clan leaders and businessmen who have no ties to the Islamists as well as, albeit reluctantly, senior Palestine Authority intelligence officials to assist in securing and distributing aid.

Recently, Hamas detained six Authority representatives, two of whom were reportedly killed when Hamas fighters opened fire.

The officials were escorting aid convoys organised by the Authority in cooperation with the Egyptian Red Cresent that Hamas sought to prevent from traveling in the Strip. Hamas charged the officials were undercover security operatives seeking to sow chaos and division in Gaza.

“Two interesting conclusions emerge from this affair: Hamas will use all means available to thwart alternatives to its civil control of the Strip, and the Palestinian Authority is trying to stir the pot behind the scenes, even at the cost of Hamas harming the (Authority’s) own people,” said Israeli journalist Amos Harel.

Gaza devastation. Credit: AP
Mr. Netanyahu and Israel are also tying themselves up in knots when one compares the wanton death and destruction in Gaza that Israel claims was unavoidable in its effort to take out Hamas with the precision of targetted Israeli strikes against Iranian and Palestinian officials in residential neighborhoods in Lebanon and Syria.

Praising “the remarkable precision of Israeli attacks on Iranians and (Lebanese) Hezbollah operatives in Syria.” Middle East scholar Andrew J. Tabler calculated that Israel launched 50 air strikes on targets in Syria in the last six months, killing 50 Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah, and Hamas operatives, and 75 Syrians.

It is unclear how many innocent civilians were among the Syrian casualties, but even if all were civilians, that would be a kill ratio of 1.5 Syrians for every operative targeted by Israel.

Israel attacks Iranian consulate in Damascus. Credit: AP/ Omar Sanadiki
Earlier this month, Israel launched a precise strike against a building in Damascus’ upscale Mezzeh neighbourhood, believed to house the Iranian consulate. The strike killed seven Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives, including Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and another senior Iranian commander.

The New York Times suggested that the operatives were part of a network smuggling arms into the West Bank. Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic intelligence service, said days before the attack that it had discovered an arms cache smuggled into the West Bank.

An Israeli drone strike the Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh kills Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri. Credit: Mohamed Azakir/Reuters
Israel was equally precise in its killing in January in a residential Beirut neighborhood of senior Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri. All seven people killed by a drone targeting their third-floor office in what appeared to be a four-story building were Hamas operatives.

In Gaza, assuming that 13,000 Palestinian fighters, the number of fighters Israel says it has killed, are included in the Gaza health ministry death count of more than 33,000, the kill ratio would be 1.5 too.

However, the casualty ratio is far higher if one takes into account the more than 70,000 wounded and maimed Palestinians, which, according to Israel’s estimate, would include less than 17,000 fighters based on its estimate that Hamas had 30,000 fighters under arms at the outset of the Gaza war.

Those casualty figures are stark even if one allows for urban fighting and the added complication of Hamas’ underground tunnel system.

The contrast has much to do with geopolitical and military restraints Israel accepts in Beirut and Damascus in terms of ensuring that conflicts do not spin out of control and an Israeli military culture in which the number of people killed in Gaza becomes a goal in and of itself rather than a last resort in the conquest of territory or self-defence.

“The rules that I know are that if one of your enemies has his hands up, you don’t shoot at him, only in a life-threatening situation. So, our interest was all along the fighting in Gaza…that if terrorists surrender, we shot them?… When we talk about ‘eliminating’ and ‘killing,’ those are the people of Messianic Judaism and the Jewish superiority; they want a territory clean of Arabs,” said former defense minister and chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, a leader of the protests demanding Mr. Netanyahu’s resignation.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.

By: Qamar Bashir

While it comes to China US rivalry, two opposite themes emerge. China says that this world is big enough for all of us to share its bounties and immense resources without undercutting each other. While the US leadership says that it may be true, the US will determine the rules of sharing, distribution and use of world resources, and anyone found deviating from this path will be punished. Resultantly, the US and its junior partner Europe and countries of Asia Pacific and Indo Pacific regions are following multifaceted policies to push back China.

At the forefront of these policies is the de-risking strategy aimed at reducing excessive reliance on China, particularly in supply chains and markets. This involves diversifying supply chains by sourcing from multiple countries, localizing or reshoring manufacturing operations to reduce dependency on Chinese factories, developing alternative markets, investing in technology and innovation to reduce reliance on Chinese technology, and fostering collaboration and partnerships with other countries or industry players.

On the military front, the US is bullying its partners and allies in the Asia Pacific and Indo pacific region to push back against Beijing by forging bilateral and multilateral initiatives and partnerships reflecting the United States’ efforts to address challenges posed by China’s assertiveness as part of US policy to encircle China in the Asia Pacific region and beyond as an overarching China containment policy.

In addition to the existing groups like QUAD and AUSKUS, USA has developed a new alliance with Japan and the Philippines in an attempt to isolate China from its immediate neighbors. The trilateral summit being held in Washington in the second week of April, 2024 has announced joint maritime patrols with the Philippines in the South China Sea, where sovereignty is disputed, and to restructure the US military command in Japan — the biggest upgrade to defense cooperation since the 1960s — to make them more responsive against threats from China.

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue(QUAD) which assumed belligerent posture against China in 2016 was formed by the US with Japan, Australia and India focused on maritime security, infrastructure development, supply chain resilience and to share concerns over China’s increasing assertiveness and influence in the Indo-Pacific region driven by the need to counterbalance China’s rise.

Formed in 2021, AUKUS is the second most important alliance of the US with Australia and the United Kingdom aimed to deepen trilateral cooperation on defense and security, with a focus on enhancing Australia’s maritime capabilities, including acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. Currently AUKUS is being expanded by offering membership to Japan. Geopolitically, AUKUS signifies a strategic move to counterbalance China’s influence in the face of evolving security challenges in the region. This forum aimed at empowering Australia to manufacture nuclear submarines which will be deployed in the strait that separates China and Taiwan specifically aimed to deter any Chinese move against Taiwan.

The next important alliance is “Five Eyes’ ‘ which boasts the membership of the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand aimed at intelligence-sharing and cooperation on border security issues, including countering cyber threats and foreign interference. In October last year the Five Eyes countries’ intelligence chiefs came together to accuse China of intellectual property theft and using artificial intelligence for hacking and spying against the nations.

In addition, the US has forged many bilateral alliances which include U.S.-Japan. Under this alliance, the US is planning to help Japan create a new Japanese Self Defense Forces (SDF) by March 2025, overseeing all of the country’s military operations. The US will match Japan’s upgrade with an upgrade of US operational command” to lay the groundwork for a future unified Japanese-US command mainly to push back China.

Like Japan, the U.S has also forged Strategic Partnership with India aimed to deepen defense and security cooperation, promote economic ties, and address regional and global challenges, including those related to China.

During her visit to China (4-8 April, 2024) , the U.S. The Treasury Secretary made some interesting demands. Instead of improving US industrial efficiency and productivity, She asked China to slow down its industrial growth to match the sluggish growth of USA industries. Interestingly, her demands of ensuring balanced economic growth did not make any economic or financial sense. The balance of growth according to the US meant a reduction in production capacity for electric vehicles (EVs), lithium batteries, solar panels and other clean energy technology that threaten competing firms in the U.S. and other countries, and stop flooding US markets with exports that make it difficult for American and other firms to compete.

She also warned China to stop providing military aid or civilian technology which can have dual purposes. The threats hurled by Yellen were in line with President Biden’s earlier warnings to China to stop providing help in rebuilding Russia’s military industry and Blinken’s belligerent posture when he warned in Europe last week that China was providing aid to Russia on a “worrying scale,” including products such as rocket propellant.

Recently, the US started using credit rating agencies such as Fitch and Moody’s to discredit China’s credit ratings to negative citing risks to public finances. The ratings based upon self-serving data were rebutted by China arguing that there was no change in financial and economic outlook of China compared to last year, therefore reducing credit ratings had no justification whatsoever.

This multifaceted encircling of China is meant to suffocate China militarily by building aggressive alliances in Asia Pacific and Indo Pacific region, using existing agreements to empower US to intervene against military threats especially in South China Sea, Strait of Taiwan, Asia Pacific and Indo pacific region. On foreign policy front, the USA wants to control China’s bilateral relations with other countries of the world, especially with those countries which do not enjoy friendly disposition with the USA. While on the economic front it wants to control China’s industrial strategy by forcing it to reduce the speed of industrial growth to match the sluggish US industrial production. On the financial front it is using sovereign credit rating agencies to discredit China’s Financial outlook.

These confrontations are akin to the Cold War era involving intense geopolitical competition between major powers for influence and dominance in strategic regions, and like the cold war era US is building and strengthening alliances and partnerships with like-minded countries to counterbalance the influence and actions of China.

But this time around, the US is not confronted with Ideological warfare, less territorial but more of industrial warfare, knowing very well that unlike the USSR, it’s fighting a war which it is losing very fast. Soon the US will realize the best option for the US in not to impose tariffs on Chinese products, but to improve the efficiency and productivity of its sluggish industrial sectors, otherwise, it will lose its innovative and creative edge on the world market paving the way for Chinese dominance in these fields which were earlier only US specific.

By: Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC

By: Qamar Bashir

Typically, Eid is anticipated to lower the political temperature, fostering exchanges of gifts, pleasantries, and visits among family, friends, and acquaintances. These interactions provide a valuable opportunity for frank discussions, idea exchanges, and strategic planning, often bringing even sworn enemies closer together. Within close family circles, Eid serves to bridge differences, reconcile belligerent parties, and resolve disputes.

For the country, the entire month of Ramadan presented a mix of positive developments and challenges. On the economic front, the IMF approved the final tranche of the Stand-By Agreement valued at $3.1 billion and has agreed in principle to release the remaining tranche of $1.1 billion. However, a significant challenge arose with the maturity of a $1 billion Eurobond, which coincides with the receipt of the IMF tranche. This will result in the Eurobond payment being offset against the IMF funds, leaving the country with a net balance of zero.

Despite this financial balancing act, there was positive news for the economy. The IMF’s approval of the Stand by Agreement (SBA) and its relatively favorable review of the economic outlook provided a much-needed boost to our stock exchange. This led to an unprecedented upward trend in Pakistan’s stock market history. However, this surge was not accompanied by substantial investment pledges, increased exports, or rising tax collections. Consequently, investors may anticipate significant market volatility and potential capital losses after Eid, as the market corrects itself.

The country remained without the Prime Minister and the largest and most important province of the country without its chief minister who spent the last days of Ramdan on the holy land enjoying the hospitality of the generous host and with VVIP protocol visiting the holy places, offering Umrah and special prayers for the prosperity, growth and safety and security of the monthland.

The Foreign Office ensured the issuance of a joint statement by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to give this private visit an official outlook and justified the million of dollars spent on it. The highly anticipated meeting between the Prime Minister and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, predominantly a male gathering, was marked with the presence of Maryam Nawaz, the only lady in the meeting, who stood out—well-dressed, manicured, and elegant. Interestingly, the Prime Minister, typically expected to exude sobriety and seriousness, was seen cracking jokes and lightening the mood, rather than reflecting the gravity of the ongoing and unabated horrors and miseries inflicted upon Palestinians by Israeli horror throughout Ramadan.

Despite this, the joint statement brought a glimmer of hope, as discussions were held to materialize the initial wave of Saudi investment amounting to $5 billion, part of the larger commitment of $100 billion pledged by Saudi Arabia. This development provided a much-needed fodder for prime-time talk shows and instilled hope among the populace for better days ahead.

During the month of Ramadan, Israel intensified hostilities by relentlessly bombarding Gaza, resulting in a staggering death toll reported by Gaza’s Ministry of Health, with 34,000 casualties, predominantly children and women. Israel’s merciless actions included destroying three World Kitchen vehicles and killing seven volunteers, mostly foreigners, sparking global outrage that even prompted the United States to heed public opinion and urge Israel to halt its aggression, abandon plans for a ground attack on Rafah, and refrain from further violence.

Amidst this grim situation, there was a glimmer of hope on the Palestinian front as the USA, pressured by public opinion, refrained from vetoing a Security Council resolution passed on March 25, 2024. The resolution demanded an immediate ceasefire for Ramadan, the unconditional release of hostages, and urgent expansion of aid into Gaza by opening land, air, and sea routes to allow international aid agencies to deliver essential supplies like food, blankets, water, and medicines to save lives.

During Ramadan, Israel launched a belligerent attack on the Iranian Embassy in Syria, resulting in the deaths of seven high-ranking Iranian leaders and the complete destruction of the building. Iran responded with outrage, vowing to avenge the martyred leaders not only from Israel but also from the USA, which supports Israel. This prompted the US to elevate its alert status for assets in Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, issuing statements to clarify its non-involvement in the Israeli attack on the Iranian Embassy.

As Eid approaches or shortly thereafter, the world may witness proportional and lethal retaliatory strikes by Iran targeting Israeli interests, either directly within Israel or elsewhere, depending on Iran’s strategic objectives and willingness to escalate tensions in the volatile Middle East region. The situation remains highly charged and unpredictable, with potential ramifications that could escalate the conflict further.

During Ramadan, there was a significant development involving Donald Lu, who appeared before a subcommittee of the US Congress amid allegations that he had threatened Pakistan with dire consequences if Prime Minister Imran Khan was not removed from power through an upcoming vote of no confidence. Although Lu denied making such threats, his testimony indirectly acknowledged Pakistan’s controversial election history, where purportedly, PTI candidates who had initially won by outright majority based on Form 45 were later declared losers based on Form 47. Furthermore, Lu expressed full support from the US government toward the newly elected government of Shahbaz Sharif, implying that the government’s survival hinges on maintaining favorable relations with the establishment.

“PTI, seemingly hijacked by inexperienced but ambitious lawyers lacking political acumen, has torn the party apart. Their inept handling led to the loss of the party’s symbol, followed by its name and political capital and deprived the party from reserve seats for women and minorities. The infighting provided ample fodder for media throughout Ramadan, allowing other political parties to raise doubts about PTI’s future. The inexperienced leadership sent conflicting messages, with some aligning with the establishment while others adopted a belligerent posture. This division prompted Chairman Imran Khan to issue anti-establishment rhetoric late in Ramadan, setting the tone for the political climate post-Eid.”

The people of Pakistan, exhausted by relentless political slogans and grappling with hyperinflation, soaring utility and commodity prices, and exorbitant petroleum costs, are bracing for heightened agitational politics. With the exception of PPP and PML(N), all other parties are in aggressive mode. PTI has announced a series of public meetings and rallies, while Maulana Fazal Rehman, having lost much of his political capital post-election, did not find establishment support akin to that received by PPP and PML(N). Founder Chairman Imran Khan has sounded the war drums loudly and clearly.

As the country faces another round of electricity, gas, and petroleum price hikes amidst escalating political confrontation, the burden falls once again on the people, while the elites remain shielded from any repercussions. This situation threatens to deepen Pakistan’s economic and financial crisis, further harming its citizens.

By: Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC