The dismissal of Ronen Bar – perceived by Netanyahu's supporters as a necessary step and by his opponents as another move to undermine democracy – severs almost the last cord connecting the two parts of the nation. If before the war, the government was warned that Israel was weakening and losing its strength, now this warning flashes with unprecedented intensity.

A year and a half into the war, and more than two years since his current government was formed, Netanyahu is accelerating the process of purging centers of power at the top of the state. After successfully getting rid of IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, yesterday it was the turn of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, with proceedings already underway to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.

Such collective purging is usually reserved for totalitarian regimes. Using President Donald Trump as a source of inspiration is merely an excuse: The government and its leader are trying to remove from their path everything and everyone who stands between them and eternal rule. Add to this the refusal to comply with Supreme Court rulings (and the constant war on it), the biased appointments, the funds transferred only to our loyalists, and the discrimination between blood and blood in military service – and you get a direct path.

Netanyahu claimed that the grounds for dismissal was a lack of trust between Bar and himself. Such lack of trust existed between Netanyahu and all the IDF chiefs of staff, Mossad directors, and Shin Bet chiefs who served under him during his long years as prime minister, yet he never even considered dismissing any of them. The reason is that there was never a question about where their loyalty lay: to the State of Israel, in whose name and for which they acted. The difference now is that Netanyahu demands personal loyalty from the heads of the security establishment as a condition for their continued tenure. When they are required to choose between the good of the state and his own good, he expects them to choose him.

The Qatargate affair, currently under investigation, is proof of this. As written here on Sunday, in a properly functioning state, Netanyahu should lead the investigation, demanding it be exhausted to its conclusion while ensuring anyone involved in the affair is removed from his circle. The fact that Netanyahu is doing the opposite shows not only that he fears what might be discovered: It shows that he truly believes that he and his circle are above any suspicion and investigation. It can be assumed that following Bar's dismissal, he will seek to appoint a Shin Bet chief who will bury the affair, in cooperation with a police commissioner and police force that already fully serve the government (as evidenced by their snap decision to summon former Shin Bet chief Nadav Argaman for questioning).

The dismissal of Ronen Bar – the first time in the country's history that a Shin Bet chief or head of another security organization has been dismissed – will certainly be approved by the government. However, it is expected to face significant legal hurdles, and Bar has already hinted that this is an improper move. It is also unclear what will happen on the Israeli street: the protest against the government has indeed eroded during the long months of war, but it is now receiving an injection of energy that it has not received since the first dismissal of Yoav Gallant from the Ministry of Defense in March 2023. This too is a recipe for accelerating the process of separation between the two parts of Israel: It turns out that all that was achieved through the blood of the October 7 victims and the soldiers who fought in the difficult battles in various sectors will now be in vain.

Bar needs to go home because of the failure that happened on his watch and under his responsibility, and he made it clear that he would do so. But it's impossible to ignore the fact that the government that is firing him is the same government under whose watch and parallel responsibility the disaster occurred, which it refuses to accept or even investigate: Just yesterday Netanyahu rejected the compromise proposal to establish a state commission of inquiry, effectively clarifying that as far as he is concerned, the disaster has nothing to do with him. The fact that the majority of the people want differently from him – regarding the inquiry commission, regarding the hostages, regarding the draft evasion law – shows how far the government has distanced itself from the public that elected it, and its sole concern is with preserving and fortifying its power and rule.

The post Netanyahu's decision brings Israel to the civil war abyss appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Heavy fighting flared in Ethiopia's northern Tigray region on Wednesday, diplomatic sources said, after the prime minister launched military operations in response to what he said was an attack on federal troops.

Tensions have been escalating since September, when Tigray held regional elections in defiance of the federal government, which called the vote "illegal." In recent days, both sides accused each other of plotting a military conflict.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

On Wednesday, Ethiopia's Nobel Peace Prize-winning prime minister ordered the military to confront the country's well-armed Tigray regional government, accusing it of a deadly attack on a military base and declaring "the last red line has been crossed" after months of alleged provocations.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's move against the Tigray People's Liberation Front, in one of Africa's most populous and powerful countries, sent a shock wave through the long-turbulent Horn of Africa region. Ethiopia's neighbors include Somalia and Sudan, and the prospect of spreading instability sent a chill down observers' spines.

Signaling the gravity of the threat, the United States in the midst of its election drama issued a statement urging "an immediate de-escalation." The United Nations expressed "alarm" and made a similar plea.

Video: Reuters

"We have to guard against 'just another tribal African war,'" former US diplomat Payton Knopf told The Associated Press. "This is much more akin to what an inter-state war would look like," with large and highly trained ground forces, mechanized units and heavy artillery. "This is not Syria, right? This is not Yemen. This is a different order of magnitude." He compared Ethiopia to the former Yugoslavia.

Internet and phone lines were cut in Tigray, challenging efforts to verify the Ethiopian government's account of events. A statement on Tigray TV accused the federal government of deploying troops to "cow the people of Tigray into submission by force" and said airspace over the region was closed.

The prime minister announced "several martyrs" in the overnight attack in Mekele, the northern Tigray region's capital, and Dansha town. The region is Ethiopia's most sensitive, neighboring Eritrea, which fought a long border war before the two countries made peace in 2018.

Abiy in a national address late Wednesday said the attack was aimed at making Ethiopia vulnerable to outside enemies, without naming names. The army late Wednesday said it had launched a counter-attack and asserted "massive" damage, and Abiy said the military would conduct further operations in the coming days.

Ethiopia declared a six-month state of emergency in Tigray on Wednesday, saying "illegal and violent activities" were threatening the country's sovereignty. A Tigray TV report that the Ethiopian military's northern command had defected to the Tigray government was "not true," the prime minister's office told the AP.

The TPLF dominated Ethiopia's military and governing coalition before Abiy took office in 2018 and announced sweeping political reforms that won him the Nobel last year. Those reforms, however, opened space for ethnic and other grievances. The TPLF, feeling marginalized by shifts in power, left the coalition last year.

Tigray officials have objected to the postponement of Ethiopia's national election because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which extends Abiy's stay in office. In September the region held an election that defied the federal government and increased tensions over a region of some 5 million people that, despite its small share of Ethiopia's population of 110 million, has had outsize influence.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Last month, the federal government further angered the TPLF by moving to divert funding for Tigray to local administrations instead of the regional government.

On Monday, Tigray leader Debretsion Gebremichael warned a bloody conflict could erupt, accusing Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders of making "all necessary preparations to start war" against the region. There was no immediate Eritrea comment.

Ethiopia was already stressed by a dispute with Egypt over a massive Ethiopian dam project that has drawn rare attention by US President Donald Trump to Africa, and by a multi-layer crisis with the COVID-19 pandemic and deadly ethnic violence.

Now the greatest test of Abiy's rule has come, as the fighting in Tigray could inspire other restive regions in Ethiopia.

"This war is the worst possible outcome of the tensions that have been brewing," said William Davison, International Crisis Group's senior analyst for Ethiopia. "Given Tigray's relatively strong security position, the conflict may well be protracted and disastrous."

Abiy's statement alleging the overnight attack accused the TPLF of arming and organizing irregular militias in recent weeks. "TPLF has chosen to wage war," his office said. "The last red line has been crossed with this morning's attacks and the federal government is therefore forced into a military confrontation" to save the country.

The head of Ethiopia's new state of emergency committee, Redwan Hussein, told reporters the federal government's conflict is with a "small clique of TPLF circles that are keen to destabilize Ethiopia," and the government must do everything possible to "liberate the Tigrayan people."

The TPLF has said it's not interested in negotiating with the federal government. "What we need now is a national dialogue," a senior TPLF official, Getachew Reda, told the AP on Sunday.

Observers have worried for months about the growing tensions and their implications for the Horn of Africa, where Abiy has cast himself as a peacemaker.

A report last month by the United States Institute of Peace said the fragmentation of Ethiopia "would be the largest state collapse in modern history, likely leading to mass interethnic and interreligious conflict ... and a humanitarian and security crisis at the crossroads of Africa and the Middle East on a scale that would overshadow the existing conflicts in South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen."

The international community needs to rally around the idea of national dialogue in Ethiopia, the International Crisis Group wrote last week. "The alternative, given the country's multiple and bitter divides, is a potential march to war that would be catastrophic," it said.

Fighting could undo Ethiopia's military cohesion, the group warned: "Tigray officers hold positions throughout the armed forces in different parts of the country; some might prove more loyal to their region than to federal authorities."

It was not immediately clear how Ethiopia's regions would respond.

The head of the Amhara region, Temesgen Tiruneh, in a Facebook post said members of Tigray's security forces were welcome to defect, writing that "we know you are fighting because you've no choice." The Amhara and Tigray regions before Abiy's rule were locked in a bitter confrontation over disputed border areas.

The post Fighting reported in Ethiopia's Tigray region appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Protesters attacked the offices and houses of deputies affiliated with these two political factions, burned posters of Berri and Nasrallah and expressed their anger over what they perceive as Hezbollah and Amal corruption. Specifically, they claim that the organizations are plundering the coffers of the Lebanese state and skimming the budgets allocated to their ministries, at the expense of the Lebanese people.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Protesters have singled out Hezbollah deputy secretary-general Sheikh Naim Qassem, Nasrallah and Berri as being deeply involved in corruption and stealing public funds.

Hezbollah's reaction to the events in Lebanon is understandable; any change in the governmental structure could put Hezbollah's control over the Lebanese government at risk. The election of President Michel Aoun, for example, was only attained after months of strenuous effort and lobbying by Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is not interested in changing the political situation in Lebanon. Nasrallah vehemently opposes the dissolution of the government despite an insoluble political and economic crisis, because it would create "chaos and a political vacuum." The reforms announced by Prime Minister Saad Hariri – who resigned the next day – on Oct. 21, are too little, too late, and frankly impossible to implement in the immediate future.

The Lebanese public, unlike its politicians, has lost confidence in the system and is appealing for a radical change (such as a technocratic government and bringing all officials accused of corruption to justice), a situation which the country's political factions refuse still to digest. Across the country, massive rallies chant, "The people want to bring down the regime."

Illustrative of the stalemate reached in the Lebanese crisis, consider the reaction of the Arab states to the events in Sudan and Lebanon. Sudan, which was experiencing a severe constitutional, economic and political crisis in the aftermath of the coup against President Omar el-Bashir, received a quick bailout of three billion dollars from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

In Lebanon's case, none of the wealthy Arab donors have expressed readiness to assist financially. The reason is obvious: supporting Lebanon would mean bailing out Hezbollah, which Saudi Arabia, the UAE and most other members of the Arab League have designated as a terrorist group. From this perspective, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states may withhold aid to weaken Hezbollah or at least curtail its arrogance, belligerence and regional aspirations in the service of its Tehran patrons.

Nasrallah declared on two occasions, on Oct. 10 and Oct. 26 (with only the Lebanese flag behind him, and not Hezbollah's as is usual), that he opposed the resignation of the government and very bluntly announced that he would do all in his power to prevent such a development. "We will not allow the country to be dumped or destroyed," he said.

In the Oct. 10 address Nasrallah painted a very bleak picture of what would happen if the government were to resign. According to him, an intolerable vacuum would result; the country would drift into chaos, no one would receive a salary, and the country would be left with no future and no solution.

Nasrallah even went a step further by questioning who was behind the financing of the protests, insinuating that the American CIA and Israel were behind the current unrest. The United States and Israel were inciting the demonstrations to defeat Hezbollah politically, he claimed, after their failure to do militarily with Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000.

As a proof, Nasrallah pointed to the fact that members of the defunct South Lebanon Army living in Israel had demonstrated in solidarity with the protestors in Lebanon at the Lebanese-Israeli border, at "Fatima Gate" near the northern Israeli town of Metula.

The protesters were not convinced by his diatribe and continued with their demonstration while chanting anti-Hezbollah slogans and denying any foreign funding. The message was clear to Iran-backed Hezbollah.

Hezbollah's response was to dispatch on Oct. 21 a convoy of 200 motorcycles driven by thugs armed with bats and branding the flags of Amal and Hezbollah to confront protesters in the Beirut's Riad Al Solh and Martyrs' squares. The tactic mirrored that of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to curb the protests in Tehran in the summer of 2009.

The Lebanese Armed Forces deployed immediately and succeeded in blocking the convoy and sending it back to where it came from in Beirut's southern suburbs.

Hezbollah and its ally Amal then turned against the protesting crowds in the Shiite hinterland south of Beirut, in Tyre, Sidon and Nabatieh, where operatives and agents of both organizations attacked and tried to disperse the protesting crowds, but were again stopped by the army.

A new foray followed in Beirut, with Hezbollah supporters dressed in black shirts and waving portraits of Iranian ayatollahs Ruholla Khomeini and Ali Khamenei, as well as of Nasrallah and Berri, and chanting slogans praising the Iranian leaders and the Islamic Revolution and swearing allegiance to Iran, again attempting to confront demonstrators. The demonstrators took refuge behind army lines, and the military once more dispersed the rally, as well as the tents that had been put in place in preparation for a sit-in.

Undeterred, Hezbollah planned a huge rally of thousands of its supporters to fill the protest squares to boost the government and show the Lebanese political factions that Hezbollah is ready to fight for the survival of the present Lebanese nation-state. However, in a surprise move, Nasrallah on Oct. 26 ordered his supporters to retreat from those rally points. Hezbollah supporters left the main squares in Beirut, but still paraded in the Shiite areas of Beirut and major Shiitecities.

The specter of civil war

Until Nasrallah's Oct. 26 speech, no Lebanese political figure had dared raise the specter of another civil war. However, after Nasrallah's pronouncement and the protraction of the political stalemate, such a war is increasingly being seen by many in Lebanon as almost impossible to circumvent.

Any change significant enough to mollify the protestors, such as the formation of a new government after the resignation of the present one, would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Hezbollah and its allies, with potentially dire consequences for the stability of Lebanon. It would overturn the Taif Agreement of 1989, which served as "the basis for the ending of the civil war [which broke out in 1975] and the return to political normalcy in Lebanon."

Indeed, a radical change in the political landscape triggered by the resignation of the government would probably provoke Hezbollah to resort to manu militari, or force of arms, to preserve its grip on Lebanon. Lebanon could then find itself in a renewed military conflict with no foreseeable outcomes. The two million Syrian refugees in Lebanon could be among the first to suffer – they are already a target for all Lebanese political factions, who demand their repatriation to Syria.

Algeria's political experience may present a stop-gap solution. Exactly as in the Algerian case, the army can be engaged as a buffer between the parties by declaring a state of emergency and handing government rule to the army until political order is restored. Such an outcome, however, would not fit Hezbollah's goals and plans.

In the meantime, the Lebanese are contemplating once more the possibility of "exporting themselves." In times of dire crisis, Lebanon has witnessed waves of emigration: between 1850 and World War I, a third of the Lebanese population emigrated from Lebanon. In the 1970s, a million more left the country during the first years of the civil war.

This option is not to be underestimated, extreme as it is. It would mean an erosion of the human richness of Lebanon, but on the other hand, were it not for the remittance payments of Lebanese expatriates to their families in Lebanon – which amount to almost $8 billion annually – Lebanon would not have survived as long as it has.

This article first appeared on the website of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and is reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post Is Lebanon sliding into another civil war? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition war monitor, said on Monday that the troops had reached the village of Qassaibyeh.

The pro-government Syrian Central Military Media also confirmed that Syrian troops have captured the village.

Human rights and war monitor groups say the government campaign to retake Idlib over the past month, supported by airstrikes, has killed dozens of civilians. The area is overcrowded with refugees and displaced persons from the war.

The province is the last area standing in Syrian President Bashar Assad's way as he seeks a final victory against the armed opposition after eight years of civil war.

The post Syrian troops take village deep within last rebel stronghold appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Fighting erupted on April 5, pitting the self-styled Libyan National Army, led by commander Khalifa Hifter and aligned with a rival government in the east, against militias affiliated with Tripoli's U.N.-supported government.

The clashes threaten to ignite a new civil war in Libya on the scale of the 2011 uprising that toppled and killed longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

The death toll from this month's fighting climbed to 254, including combatants and civilians, the World Health Organization said Sunday. At least 34 more people died in the past two days, WHO said; 1,228 were wounded.

Since launching his push, which many see as a power grab for Tripoli, Hifter's forces have captured the districts of Gharyan and Qasr Bani Ghashir along with several smaller towns. They also seized the capital's shuttered old airport.

Fighting is now underway for control of Ain Zara and Azizyia, two larger towns near Tripoli, and in the Abu Salim district, about 7 kilometers (4 miles) from Tripoli center.

Abdelhadi Lahouij, the top diplomat for the east-based government, told The Associated Press in Tunis on Sunday that Hifter's push was slowed down because of concerns for civilians in the greater Tripoli area, estimated to number about 3 million.

If the civilians had not been taken into account, the battle would not have lasted even a week, he said.

"The army is today 20 kilometers (12.5 miles) from Tripoli. It controls the (old) airport and the bridge that connects the airport to the city center," Lahouij said.

He also lauded U.S. President Donald Trump's call to Hifter last week expressing U.S. support for the Libyan commander's perceived stance against terrorism and Hifter's role in "securing Libya's oil resources."

A White House statement on Friday also said "the two discussed a shared vision for Libya's transition to a stable, democratic political system."

Trump's phone call was a step "in the right direction," Lahouij said.

Since Gahdafi's ouster, Libya has slid into chaos, governed by rival authorities in the east and in Tripoli, each backed by various militias and armed groups fighting over resources and territory.

Hifter has vowed to unify the country. He has led previous campaigns against Islamic militants and other rivals in eastern Libya, and has received support from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Russia and France.

The post Libyan force slows Tripoli push over concerns for civilians appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Years of war

Sri Lanka, an island nation of some 23 million people, was dominated for decades by the sharp divide between the majority Sinhalese, who are overwhelmingly Buddhist, and the minority Tamil, who are Hindu, Muslim and Christian. The mistreatment of Tamils helped nurture the growth of armed separatists and led to nearly 30 years of civil war, with Tamil Tiger fighters eventually creating a de facto independent homeland in the country's north. The Tigers were crushed in a 2009 government offensive, with some observers believing that tens of thousands of Tamils died in the last few months of fighting alone.

A religious divide

After the civil war ended, a religious divide quickly took hold, with hard-line Buddhist monks rallying Sri Lankans against what they argue is a pernicious threat: Muslims, who make up roughly 10% of the country's population. Buddhist nationalist leaders accuse Muslims of recruiting children, trying to grow their ranks by marrying Buddhist women and attacking Buddhist shrines. Muslims denied the accusations. Small-town economics also plays a significant role, since Muslims own many of the country's small shops.

Social media war

In 2018, anti-Muslim violence flared across the hills of central Sri Lanka, fed by rumors spread over social media about attacks on Buddhists. Mobs of Buddhists swept through small towns, attacking mosques and Muslim-owned shops. The government briefly declared a state of emergency and ordered popular social media networks, including Facebook, Viber and WhatsApp, blocked for a time to stop the violence from spreading.

The post A look at Sri Lanka's troubled recent history appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.