Scroll.in’s Post

Questioning the United Nations’ Commitment to Afghan Interests It’s clear that the recent actions of the United Nations deviate from its foundational principles, especially regarding this group. The Doha meetings, led by Khalilzad and including the third Doha meeting, highlight proxy negotiations with proxy groups. These gatherings underscore how regional and extra-regional powers are bargaining for their own secret interests, not for the benefit of the Afghan people. We must be honest and courageous enough to stand by our principles and not betray a nation. António Guterres ?

one step in the right direction

It is an effective solution to stop Israel from killing more people.

Do it already

The Israeli-Lebanese conflict has escalated, raising concerns of an all-out war. Both nations seem trapped in a cycle of hostility, driven by historical grievances and political failures. The ongoing skirmishes not only threaten regional stability but also risk drawing in neighboring countries, creating a broader conflict. The stubbornness displayed by both sides reflects a tragic unwillingness to seek peaceful resolutions. This situation underscores the urgent need for diplomatic intervention to prevent a catastrophic escalation that could have global repercussions.

Can Israel Win Its War with Hamas? A Conversation With Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak Carnegie Endowment 20 Mar 2024 As the Israeli-Hamas war enters its sixth month, the conflict shows no signs of abating. The humanitarian plight of Gazans continues to deteriorate while the prospects of a major Israeli ground campaign in Rafah looms. At the same time, the negotiations surrounding a potential hostage deal appear stalled, and the possibility of a U.S.-negotiated ceasefire seems increasingly unlikely.   What are Israel's current objectives in the conflict? How do tensions along the Israeli-Lebanon border factor in, and what of rising tensions with Washington? Aaron David Miller welcomes former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak back to the program to discuss the latest developments in the Israel-Hamas war.

Opinion President Macron told the UN, "there must not, there cannot be war in Lebanon." Isn't it rather a war against Hezbollah? (Correct me if I'm wrong.). By presenting the conflict as a focused campaign against Hezbollah, Israel may be hoping to persuade the international community that it is not intending to destabilize Lebanon. Instead, the objective is to neutralize what Israel views as an immediate and existential threat from Hezbollah. This narrative is also intended to reduce the likelihood of international retaliation, particularly from countries that have historically supported Lebanon's struggle. It indicates a substantial difference in how conflicts are framed in the international arena. This viewpoint highlights that, while the hostilities are taking place on Lebanese soil, the intended target is Hezbollah, a powerful non-state player with deep roots in the country. Hezbollah, which is sponsored by Iran and operates out of southern Lebanon, launched missiles toward Israel, provoking a military reaction that has escalated into what is now being characterized as an Israeli-Hezbollah war. Hezbollah is a non-state actor, and from Israel's perspective, it is more than just a Lebanese political movement; it is a terrorist organization that endangers national security. By presenting the conflict as a focused campaign against Hezbollah, Israel may be hoping to persuade the international community that it is not intending to destabilize Lebanon. This narrative is also intended to reduce the probability of international retaliation, particularly from countries that have previously been sympathetic to Lebanon's challenges.

President Macron's remarks can be interpreted as a subtle but substantial critique of Israel's current policy, particularly its military actions. By reminding Israel of its beginnings in a UN resolution, Macron is implying that Israel should continue to act within the framework of international law and UN decisions. This could be interpreted as France challenging Israel's handling of the current conflict, particularly if Israel's response is perceived as disproportionate or incompatible to international norms for conflict resolution. In a difficult environment, such a reminder may be considered by Israeli leadership as external pressure or intervention in its security decisions, particularly when the country perceives existential threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Iran. This might lead to increased diplomatic tensions, with Israel potentially perceiving Macron's statement as a challenge to its sovereignty or moral standing.Israel may react badly to such comments, especially given its long-held opinion that Europe, particularly France, can be too critical of Israeli policy related to Palestine. Macron's statement, especially if followed by additional criticism, may be interpreted as France siding with Israel's international opponents, worsening diplomatic tensions. Should Israel perceive Macron’s statement as unfair or undermining its right to self-defense?(I'll let you be the judge)

Iran's recent attack on Israel presents a critical test for Netanyahu's embattled leadership amidst mounting opposition. With elections looming, the pressure to appear resolute intersects with the imperative for strategic restraint. Non-retaliation risks political backlash, yet unchecked escalation threatens regional stability. Israel's response must tread a delicate balance, prioritizing self-defense while upholding global peace. Netanyahu's domestic challenges add complexity, as his decisions will not only shape Israel's security but also its political landscape. In this high-stakes scenario, Israel's leaders must navigate deftly, ensuring that every action serves the nation's interests while safeguarding the fragile equilibrium of international relations.

The recent meeting of the United Nations General Assembly was stormy and dominated by the conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon and Ukraine. As President Zelenskyy noted, however, the United Nations is institutionally flawed. In The Hill, I argue that the organisation is failing everywhere, notably in Sudan and Haiti as well as the Middle East, rests on a fundamentally false promise that all nations are equal and equally good, and is only effective when it can deploy the heft of a major power. Something has to change, but identifying and executing that change is hugely difficult. https://lnkd.in/euB4bq2a