The U.S., and France, Must Respond to Hizballah’s Murder of One of Its Foremost Critics

Earlier this month the Lebanese publisher, activist, and journalist Lokman Slim was shot dead. Slim played a leading role in the 2019 protests against Hizballah, and had most recently been involved in investigating the terrorist group’s culpability in the Beirut port explosion last year. Hanin Ghaddar comments:

Slim was threatened directly and repeatedly by Hizballah, and he himself wrote a statement last year holding the party responsible for any action that would harm him or his family. He was assassinated in the south of Lebanon—a Hizballah stronghold—a mile away from a UN compound. Most importantly, he was killed in a way that would send a clear message to other activists and to the international community. If Hizballah’s leaders only wanted to get rid of Slim, they could have easily made [his death] look like a car accident or a robbery, and thereby avoid the blame, but they wanted to send a message to others while testing the limits of the international community.

To protect those who are still fighting the fight in Lebanon, and make sure Slim’s achievements and breakthroughs within the Shiite community do not go to waste, the international community must draw very clear red lines. Compromises should not be made when Hizballah’s weapons are pointed at the Lebanese people, and Washington should coordinate with Paris closely to make sure Emmanuel Macron’s upcoming visit to Lebanon offers stronger protection to activists and no compromises with the political class and its corrupt enablers.

Anti-corruption and terrorism sanctions should not stop, but rather pick up pace and target a wider range of corrupt political figures from all sects and parties. Hizballah’s leaders only understand clear and firm actions. Slim was clear and firm, and it frightened them. Now is not the time to backpedal.

Read more at Foreign Policy

More about: Emmanuel Macron, Hizballah, Iran, U.S. Foreign policy

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF