Pole uprawne, a w tle plantacja bananów w kibucu Sa’ar. Zdjęcie Oren Pele, Wikimedia Commons.

Oni są granicą

Sheri Oz

W ciągu ostatnich tygodni wojny z Iranem dobrze zdawałam sobie sprawę, że moi współobywatele mieszkający wzdłuż naszej północnej granicy doświadczają innej wojny niż reszta z nas. Nawet bezpośrednio przy granicy z Libanem przebieg wojny wyglądał różnie w zależności od dokładnej lokalizacji.

Społeczności te, znane jako Linia Konfrontacji, rzadko pojawiają się w świadomości narodowej. Nawet teraz, gdy zawieszenie broni z Iranem pozwala wyraźniej skupić się na zagrożeniu ze strony Hezbollahu w Libanie. Ten brak uwagi jest nieproporcjonalny do ich znaczenia.

Istnieje stare syjonistyczne powiedzenie, że granica podąża za pługiem. Innymi słowy, tam gdzie ludzie żyją, budują i pozostają, tam linia nabiera znaczenia. Społeczności wzdłuż Linii Konfrontacji nie znajdują się więc jedynie przy granicy; w pewnym sensie same są granicą.

Celem tego artykułu jest przywrócenie mieszkańców północy naszej świadomości poprzez prześledzenie ich doświadczeń na tle historii współczesnego państwa Izrael od jego powstania w 1948 roku. Podjęłam się tego zadania, aby upewnić się, że sama mam jasny obraz tej osi czasu. Choć osobiście doświadczyłam części tej historii, chciałam mieć przejrzysty zapis, do którego mogłabym wracać.

Najpierw przedstawiony zostanie krótki zarys, a następnie bardziej szczegółowa tabela. Oś czasu opiera się na udokumentowanych wydarzeniach i zapisach instytucjonalnych. Kluczowe daty i czynniki wyzwalające zostały zweryfikowane w wielu źródłach.

Krótki zarys
Główne wydarzenia od 1948 roku do dziś:

1948: inwazja z Libanu i Syrii

1949: porozumienie rozejmowe z Libanem, podpisane 23 marca 1949 r.

1978: masakra na Drodze Nadbrzeżnej (11 marca), która doprowadziła do rozpoczęcia operacji Litani 14 marca

1982: zamach na ambasadora Argova (3 czerwca), przeprowadzony przez Abu Nidala, zapoczątkował pierwszą wojnę libańską. Rozpoczęła się 6 czerwca. Główne działania bojowe zakończyły się pod koniec września, lecz Izrael pozostał w południowym Libanie

1985: częściowe wycofanie do tzw. strefy bezpieczeństwa

2000: pełne wycofanie 24 maja pod wpływem presji wewnętrznej i zmiany polityki

2006: druga wojna libańska, wywołana atakiem Hezbollahu przez granicę 12 lipca, w wyniku którego zginęło ośmiu żołnierzy, a dwóch zostało uprowadzonych. Wojna zakończyła się 14 sierpnia

2006–2023: odstraszanie, nie rozwiązanie

2023: Hezbollah otworzył północny front dzień po masakrze i porwaniach dokonanych przez Hamas 7 października w rejonie Gazy

2026: ciągły ostrzał ze strony Hezbollahu podczas wojny z Iranem. Zawieszenie broni z Iranem z 8 kwietnia nie obejmowało Hezbollahu

Szczegółowa oś czasu 

---

Wciąż czekamy na pokój.

Link do oryginału:

Israel Diaries

They are the border

Over the past weeks of war with Iran, I was well aware that fellow Israelis along our northern border were in a different war than the rest of us. Even along the Lebanese border itself, the war was experienced differently depending on their exact location…

Neutrality in the fight against genocidal terror isn’t moral

Jonathan S. Tobin

Pope Leo XIV leads a Holy Mass for the beginning of his pontificate, in St Peter’s Square in the Vatican on May 18, 2025. Photo by Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images.

It’s always a mistake for politicians to get into arguments with popes. The symbolism of the papacy for Catholics, and even non-Catholics, around the world is potent. Even today, when religion is generally on the decline in the developed world, the pope still matters. Anyone who asks today, as Soviet dictator Josef Stalin did about one of the current heads of the Catholic Church’s predecessors, “how many divisions” the pope has, is demonstrating their cluelessness. The power of faith and the ability of a spiritual figure to command respect and exercise influence are greater than many think.

Whatever you think about the actual policy positions on which Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump disagree, the latter would have done well to ignore the former’s rather pointed criticisms. But expecting this president to hold his fire whenever he is publicly attacked is futile. As a result, what followed was a news cycle in which Trump was widely portrayed as an insensitive bully while the first American-born pope basked in the world’s approbation of his moral preachings.

Debating moral issues

The exchange, like every pointless kerfuffle resulting from a Trump comment or social-media post, will soon be forgotten. But to dismiss both Trump’s hyperbole and the pearl-clutching he inspires among his many critics and detractors is not to say that the underlying issues involved in this dispute aren’t important. They are vitally so to our future and deserve a full discussion, even if the back-and-forth between the two men that followed the serious issue of war created more heat than light.

At the heart of this debate are some key questions. One is the right of nations to defend their sovereignty and to decide who may or may not cross their borders, as opposed to those who essentially advocate for no such restrictions. The other is whether there is such a thing as a just war, and what strategies and tactics may be pursued in the conduct of such conflicts.

Presidents and popes have very different responsibilities. A president is tasked with defending the specific interests of the United States and its people. The pope’s job is to enunciate moral positions. In an ideal world, those two stances ought to largely overlap. But we don’t live in such a place, and leaders are often required to make choices that involve the lesser of two evils, rather than a stark choice between good and evil. It is that fact, and not the perceived gap in moral character between this particular pope and the president, which creates disagreements such as the one that just played out in public view.

Pope Leo’s advocacy for illegal immigrants dates back to his time serving as a bishop and cardinal in his native city of Chicago. That position is based on humanitarian concerns for the plight of migrants and opposition to the idea of human suffering. It is directly opposed to Trump’s belief in secure borders and the conviction that illegals should be deported. His stance is in accord with the view of many, if not most, Americans who voted him back into office in 2024. And while this discrepancy is characterized as heartless by those who agree with the pope, it is a defense of the interests and rights of working-class citizens who were harmed by the open borders policies of the Biden administration.

But the immediate cause for conflict between Washington and the Vatican was the war with Iran.

An anti-war pope

As one would expect from any spiritual leader, the pope is always going to say he’s against all wars as a matter of principle. The Vatican’s position is one that seems to deliberately ignore the causes of fighting between countries or populations, as well as arguments in favor of pursuing it. As he and his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis, did with respect to the post-Oct. 7 war Israel fought against Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Pope Leo takes no sides in the conflict between the Islamist regime in Iran, and the United States and Israel. He wanted an immediate ceasefire with Hamas then and wants the same now with Iran, calling for an “end to the thunderous sound of bombs.”

But in the week before the April 7 ceasefire, he went further, saying that “God does not bless any conflict.” And in a statement that seemed to be directly aimed at Trump, he blasted what he called “the idolatry of self” when critiquing what he called the president’s “boasts” about U.S. military strikes and his hyperbolic threat to destroy “a whole civilization” if Tehran’s theocratic tyrants did not give in.

A day later, the following was posted on the pope’s X account: “War does not solve problems; on the contrary, it amplifies them and inflicts deep wounds on the history of peoples, which take generations to heal. No armed victory can compensate for the pain of mothers, the fear of children, or stolen futures. May diplomacy silence the weapons! May nations chart their futures with works of peace, not with violence and bloodstained conflicts!”

In response to this, Trump responded as he usually does, taking it personally and not holding back criticisms of his antagonist, saying the pope was “terrible,” “too liberal,” “weak,” “catered to the radical left” and took positions that amounted to support for Iran getting a nuclear weapon. He then compounded that by posting a ludicrous image of himself looking like Jesus that, uncharacteristically, he chose to delete in response to an overwhelming chorus of denunciations of something that was in terrible taste, as well as deeply foolish.

By saying that he “wasn’t afraid” of Trump, the pontiff may have been engaged in playing a rhetorical trick of his own, since the president never threatened him. But if someone was scoring the debate between the two, even the president’s biggest fans would have to acknowledge that the pope won.

Wars do solve some things

Still, that’s not the same thing as the pontiff actually being in the right on the underlying issue.

It is all well and good for Pope Leo to say he’s against all suffering, but in point of fact, he’s wrong about wars not solving anything. They may cause incalculable pain and are truly horrible. But wars have solved some problems. To take but one example from history in which the Vatican’s professed neutrality about conflicts didn’t cover it in glory, the defeat of Germany and its allies in the Second World War was the only way to defeat Nazism and end the Holocaust.

Not to put too fine a point on it, if a second Holocaust—the goal of Iran’s Islamist regime, as well as its Hamas and Hezbollah allies in Gaza and Lebanon, with respect to the state of Israel and its population—is to be avoided, it’s going to require more than papal sermons on the evil of wars.

And that is the focal point of the debate about the current Iran conflict, just as it was in the war against Hamas.

A just war

Calling for a permanent ceasefire may put a temporary end to the suffering caused by the conflict. And blasting warlike rhetoric from the combatants always makes those denouncing them seem morally superior. But if it means allowing Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in their strongholds to rebuild and rearm—and to allow Tehran to resume its nuclear project, missile building and spreading terrorism around the globe—it is neither merciful nor just. Appeals to end the fighting while leaving jihadists in power—and capable of continuing their war on the West and non-Islamist civilization—are as inappropriate as they would have been for a ceasefire before the unconditional surrender of the Nazis in 1945.

The responsibility of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to prevent the mullahs in Tehran from persisting in their genocidal plotting and weapons building, which led directly to the horrors of Oct. 7. To merely denounce what happened on Oct. 7, as the pope did, is fine. But to oppose efforts to ensure that the murderers would be stopped from making good on their pledges to repeat those crimes over and over again, as he insinuated, isn’t an example of a higher morality. Treating murderers and those whose task it is to stop them as morally equivalent—and that’s what the pope and many other world leaders, especially in Western Europe, have done with respect to Hamas and Iran—is wrong, even if the motivation for such statements is rooted in an entirely laudable abhorrence of suffering.

Wars are awful and should be avoided if possible. But the battle against the Islamist terrorists running Iran, and their Hamas and Hezbollah minions whose Oct. 7 atrocities were just a trailer for what they wish to do to all Israelis, is a just one.

It is also impossible to separate the preaching against such just wars from the global surge of antisemitism that has spread since Oct. 7.

A legacy of Catholic-Jewish unity

To his credit, the pope has consistently opposed Jew-hatred and bigotry. In that respect, he is standing on the foundation built by his righteous predecessors, Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II. They worked tirelessly to end the long tradition in which the church tolerated or encouraged antisemitism. During the papacy of Pope Paul VI, the publication of Nostra Aetate, the 1965 Catholic declaration on the relationship of the Church with non-Christian religions, rejected the deicide myth and established a new norm. The assumption that Catholics hated Jews became a relic of the past. That was followed up by the open philo-semitism of John Paul II and the historic decision of the Vatican to recognize Israel in 1993. That put the unhappy history of relations between the papacy and the Jews firmly behind them.

Sadly, in recent years, the church has often acted as if it is afraid to risk the lives of Christian minorities in the Muslim world if it means doing the right thing with respect to Israel. It has opposed the efforts of the Jewish state and its American ally to defeat those who wish to destroy Israel. And it has essentially validated blood libels about Israel committing “genocide” in Gaza with harsh and unfair criticism of its morally justifiable military efforts. In doing so, the Vatican is letting down its Jewish friends and allies. While no one should criticize a pope for opposing wars in principle, it is also not unreasonable to ask the Church leader to take a more active role in opposing the antisemitism that is spreading, especially among some on the far right who claim to be Catholics.

And as much as it’s easy to bash Trump for his bombastic statements, he deserves credit rather than criticism for being willing to take responsibility for stopping Iran in a way that none of his presidential predecessors or European counterparts had the courage to do.

Moreover, while Pope Leo deserves and ought to get a lot more deference than he does from the president, his recent willingness to be more vocal in denouncing the leader of the free world is equally mistaken. Catholics and non-Catholics alike want popes to avoid politics but to also to speak up against immoral actions, as, alas, some of his predecessors failed to do when Jewish lives were at stake. But taking sides against an effort whose purpose is to save both Jewish and Western lives from Iranian terrorists isn’t in keeping with the highest standards to which all people of faith aspire. However tempting it might be, the last thing the pope should be doing is indulging in virtue-signaling against the president, which gives the world the impression that he is acting as the chaplain of the anti-Trump “resistance.”

The Vatican should acknowledge that it has as much invested in the fight to preserve Western civilization against its Islamist and Marxist foes as Washington and Jerusalem. Preaching about the evils of war is one thing. It is quite another to place themselves in opposition to a war against immoral actors, such as those in Tehran and Gaza. Contempt for Trump and an unwillingness to accept that anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from antisemitism should not be allowed to undo the work of those who sought to bring Jews and Catholics together in the last century. There is too much at stake in the existential conflict against Islamism and in defense of a common Judeo-Christian heritage for people of faith to be divided about this struggle.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Mossad Chief Says Iran Campaign ‘Will Only Be Complete When This Extremist Regime Is Replaced’

Ailin Vilches Arguello

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, with Mossad chief David Barnea in July 2025. Photo: Israeli Government Press Office (GPO)

The head of Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad declared on Tuesday that the Israeli military campaign against Iran will end only with the collapse of the Islamist regime in Tehran.

David Barnea’s comments during a speech at a Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony came as a fragile ceasefire teetered on the brink of collapse and prospects for renewed negotiations remained uncertain.

Israel secured “significant achievements” after 40 days of intense fighting against “those who have made the destruction of the Jewish state their guiding principle,” said Barnea, who noted that the campaign had reshaped the regional security landscape.

“The Iranian threat grew stronger before our eyes, before the eyes of the world, almost without interruption,” he continued. “We repeatedly warned of the nuclear danger as an existential threat, and time and again we warned about the quantities of ballistic missiles that threaten Israeli citizens across the country, as well as the danger posed to us by the Iranian regime.”

Barnea said that Israel and its close ally the US took matters into their own hands for the good of the entire world and warned that, at least for Jerusalem, the mission isn’t done until the Iranian regime collapses.

“Finally, we took our fate into our own hands and entered two wars out of necessity. Alongside us, in firm alliance and historic cooperation with the world’s most powerful nation, we fought together for the values of justice and freedom,” the Israeli official continued. “Our commitment will only be complete when this extremist regime is replaced.”

Since Feb. 28, when the US and Israel launched joint strikes, Israeli officials have repeatedly said that, in addition to degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, they aim to “create the conditions” for the regime in Iran to collapse, weakening the government to the point that the Iranian people can revolt.

US officials have not publicly adopted regime change as a declared war goal. However, President Donald Trump has at times suggested that Iranians should rise up once the airstrike campaign ends.

During Tuesday’s ceremony, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also delivered a speech, saying that the US and Israel had “defined the removal of enriched material from Iran as a threshold condition for ending the campaign.”

“Iran’s regional proxies — from the collapsed Syrian regime to Hezbollah and Hamas — have been dealt heavy blows and have lost their capacity to pose a strategic threat to Israel,” Katz said. “There remains the task of confronting the rest of their power, and we are doing so — and will continue to do so — with full commitment and full force.”

On Monday, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir approved plans to escalate the military campaign against Iran and advance expanded operational planning across multiple arenas in the region if the ceasefire ends, signaling continued pressure on Tehran’s military and strategic infrastructure.

“We are facing a multi-theater campaign unprecedented in the history of our people and of nations — against both immediate enemies on our borders and distant adversaries seeking our destruction,” Zamir said. “We are striking Iran and its proxies, inflicting heavy blows and significantly degrading their military capabilities.”

With the ceasefire deadline approaching in a week and regional tensions escalating, Trump said the White House has received a request from “the appropriate parties” to resume talks, adding that the Iranian regime is seeking to renew negotiations and reach an agreement.

“Iran will not have nuclear weapons. We agreed on a lot of things, but they did not agree to that. And I think they will agree to that. I am sure of it. If they do not agree – there will be no agreement,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

According to The New York Times, US officials have proposed a 20-year halt to Iranian uranium enrichment, which Iranian negotiators countered with a five-year suspension that Washington rejected, while also reportedly insisting that Iran dismantle major enrichment sites and surrender more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has offered to host another round of US–Iran negotiations in Islamabad in the coming days before the ceasefire expires, as diplomatic efforts intensify to prevent a renewed escalation.

The Trump administration has also stepped up pressure on Tehran to accept its demands by imposing a naval blockade on vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping chokepoint for energy supplies.

Since the start of the war, Iran has used control over the Strait of Hormuz as a major source of leverage, militarizing the waterway and sharply restricting maritime traffic through one of the world’s most critical shipping corridors.

Iranian officials warned they would retaliate against any US naval blockade targeting their ports, calling the move illegal and warning that Gulf shipping routes would no longer remain secure if Iranian access were restricted.

Responding to Iranian threats in a post on Truth Social, Trump said, “If one of these boats approaches the blockade, it will be eliminated immediately, using the same elimination method that we use against drug smugglers at sea. It will be fast and brutal.”

Iran has also signaled it intends to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz even after the war ends, potentially imposing transit fees framed as compensation for wartime damage.

Following the latest escalation at sea, Israel had instructed its forces to maintain a high level of alert and prepare for the possibility of an immediate collapse of the ceasefire agreement, remaining on heightened readiness in case the truce breaks down and talks do not resume.

Israeli officials have said they do not rule out that Iran may be using the ceasefire to rebuild damaged air defense systems and restore military capabilities, while also attempting to bring weapons and sensitive technologies back into the country through overland smuggling routes.

Meanwhile, Iran appears to still be targeting Gulf states despite the ceasefire, with Bahrain intercepting seven Iranian drones in the past 24 hours in what officials described as a clear breach of the agreement.

Statki czekające w pobliżu cieśniny Ormuz, 11 marca 2026 roku (Fot. REUTERS/Stringer)

Rozmowy USA – Iran bez przełomu. Co się stanie, jeśli USA zablokują cieśninę Ormuz?

Marta Urzędowska

Amerykanie i Irańczycy nie porozumieli się w weekend w sprawie zakończenia wojny na Bliskim Wschodzie i żeglugi przez cieśninę Ormuz. Donald Trump grozi, że od poniedziałku USA zaczną blokadę wszelkiego morskiego ruchu z i do irańskich portów.

Dodatkowo Irańczycy od początku wojny blokują cieśninę Ormuz, którą transportuje się znaczną część światowych zasobów ropy naftowej. To sprawia, że ceny tego surowca od półtora miesiąca przekraczają sto dolarów za baryłkę.

Irańczycy blokują cieśninę, atakując statki, śląc na miejsce motorówki Gwardii Rewolucyjnej wyposażone w granatniki i grożąc zaminowaniem cieśniny. Jej odblokowanie było dla Donalda Trumpa głównym celem rozmów w Islamabadzie.

Trump: Teraz my zablokujemy Ormuz

Trump przed rozpoczęciem negocjacji chwalił się, że wygrał wojnę, a Irańczycy pójdą na ustępstwa, ale brak porozumienia nie zaskakuje, bo obie strony miały sprzeczne żądania. Amerykanie chcieli, by Iran zrezygnował z programu nuklearnego i balistycznego, domagali się też bezwarunkowego przepuszczania wszystkich statków przez cieśninę Ormuz.

Irańczycy odpowiadali, że odblokują cieśninę, jeśli wojna całkowicie się skończy, a Amerykanie wycofają swoje siły z bliskowschodnich baz, przyznają, że to Iran w pełni kontroluje Ormuz, zniosą nałożone na Iran sankcje i wypłacą reparacje wojenne. 

Trump nie kryje wściekłości, bo wojna z Iranem jest mu coraz bardziej nie na rękę. Jeszcze w trakcie rozmów, prowadzonych za pośrednictwem Pakistańczyków, zżymał się, że Iran nie odblokowuje natychmiast cieśniny, co określał jako „haniebne”. A po informacji, że negocjacje zakończyły się impasem, obwieścił, że teraz to Amerykanie zablokują cieśninę.

.„Amerykańska flota, najlepsza na świecie, zacznie blokowanie wszystkich statków próbujących wpłynąć albo wypłynąć z cieśniny Ormuz. W którymś momencie dojdziemy do punktu, kiedy wszystkim będzie wolno wpływać i wypływać” – zapewnił Trump.

Dowództwo amerykańskich sił na Bliskim Wschodzie potwierdziło w niedzielę, że blokada zostanie nałożona „bezstronnie” i uderzy we „wszystkie jednostki wszystkich krajów wpływające albo wypływające z irańskich portów i wybrzeży, w tym portów w Zatoce Perskiej i Zatoce Omańskiej”. Jednocześnie amerykańscy wojskowi podkreślają, że amerykańskie siły nie będą naruszać wolności żeglugi jednostek, które nie wypływają, ani nie wpływają do irańskich portów.

Trump chce zmusić Iran do ustępstw, ryzykując dalszym wzrostem cen ropy

Irańska ropa płynie głównie do Azji. Irańczycy przepuszczali też obce jednostki – przede wszystkim te zmierzające do Chin i Indii.

Amerykański przywódca liczy, że unieruchamiając tankowce z irańską ropą, zmusi Teheran do ustępstw. Jak zauważają eksperci cytowani przez „New York Times”, zgodnie z prawem międzynarodowym strony walczące mogą przeszukiwać statki znajdujące się na wodach, które nie są neutralne.

Oznacza to, że siły USA teoretycznie mogą przeszukać każdy statek, tym samym będą w stanie zdecydować, czy go przepuścić. Jednocześnie statki nieirańskie – chińskie, indyjskie czy pakistańskie, mogą uznać wtargnięcie amerykańskich żołnierzy na pokład za akt wojny, co może oznaczać ogromne reperkusje dyplomatyczne. BBC zwraca uwagę, że Chińczycy mogą się zdecydować zapewnić swoim statkom wojskową eskortę chroniącą przed amerykańską blokadą.

Amerykańskie okręty, które będą blokować cieśninę, mogą też zostać zaatakowane przez irańskie drony, motorówki albo przy użyciu pocisków rakietowych.

Trump ryzykuje, bo jeśli z regionu przestanie płynąć też irańska ropa, ceny surowca poszybują jeszcze bardziej. Do tej pory, choć atakował Iran, celowo pozwalał irańskiej ropie płynąć w świat, właśnie po to, by ograniczyć podwyżki.

Na razie nic nie wskazuje, by Irańczycy zamierzali skapitulować. W odpowiedzi na amerykańską deklarację o blokadzie Irańska Gwardia Rewolucyjna ogłosiła, że jakakolwiek jednostka zmierzająca do cieśniny będzie „potraktowana surowo”, jako okręt naruszający obecny rozejm.

Kraje Azji i Europejczycy: Wzywamy do wolności żeglugi

W poniedziałek (13.04) szeroko się komentuje decyzję Trumpa o blokadzie. Szefowa Komisji Europejskiej, Ursula von der Leyen zwróciła uwagę na finansowy aspekt wojny. Podkreśliła, że od jej początku w ciągu unijny rachunek za import paliw kopalnianych jest większy o 22 mld euro, bez otrzymania „choćby odrobiny więcej” surowca. Zauważyła, że wolność żeglugi w cieśninie Ormuz ma „ogromne znaczenie”, a w obecnej sytuacji konieczna jest „sprawna współpraca”

Kraje Azji i Europejczycy: Wzywamy do wolności żeglugi

W poniedziałek (13.04) szeroko się komentuje decyzję Trumpa o blokadzie. Szefowa Komisji Europejskiej, Ursula von der Leyen zwróciła uwagę na finansowy aspekt wojny. Podkreśliła, że od jej początku w ciągu unijny rachunek za import paliw kopalnianych jest większy o 22 mld euro, bez otrzymania „choćby odrobiny więcej” surowca. Zauważyła, że wolność żeglugi w cieśninie Ormuz ma „ogromne znaczenie”, a w obecnej sytuacji konieczna jest „sprawna współpraca”

Jak podaje w poniedziałek „Wall Street Journal”, Trump rozważa także wznowienie bombardowania celów w Iranie. Jednocześnie źródła BBC wskazują, że Irańczycy, choć nie ufają Amerykanom, którzy już dwa razy – w czerwcu 2025 roku i w lutym tego roku – przerywali negocjacje atakami na Iran, nadal są gotowi rozmawiać. Trump również nie bez powodu zapewniał po zerwaniu rozmów, że „poszły dobrze” i były „przyjacielskie”, a w niektórych kwestiach nawet udało się dogadać.

Stacja przypomina, że nie ma co liczyć na szybkie porozumienie. Zanim ostatnim razem w 2015 r. udało się Zachodowi zawrzeć z Iranem umowę, na mocy której Teheran ograniczył program nuklearny w zamian za zniesienie sankcji, rozmowy wielokrotnie się załamywały, a cały proces zajął półtora roku. 

Nadal nie jest jasne, jak rozwinie się sytuacja w Libanie, gdzie Izrael – niezależnie od wstrzymania ataków na Iran – kontynuuje wojnę z Hezbollahem. Na razie Izraelczycy deklarują, że, choć chcą rozejmu z libańskim państwem, nie przestaną walczyć z Partią Boga. Oznacza to impas, bo libański rząd nie jest w stanie zmusić Hezbollahu do złożenia broni ani go rozbroić.

W poniedziałek Hezbollah potwierdził, że zaatakował dronami izraelskich żołnierzy w Szlomi w Izraelu. Jednocześnie izraelska armia poinformowała dziś, że poszerza operację lądową na południu Libanu, a w atakach na Bint Dżbeil w ostatnich dniach zginęło ponad stu bojowników Hezbollahu.

Redagowała Ludmiła Anannikova

Why Qatar’s Al-Jazeera Should be Banned

Bassam Tawil

• Equally disturbing is the role of Al-Jazeera itself. Owned, funded, and controlled by the government of Qatar, Al-Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language channel, has long provided a platform for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Its coverage frequently echoes Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood narratives, and amplifies anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitic rhetoric.
• Reports by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) have documented Al-Jazeera providing a platform for guests who assert that Jews are “enemies of Muslims and all humanity” or that they control global affairs.
• “Among the Islamist terrorist organizations that Qatar and Al-Jazeera have supported over the years are the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hizbullah, the Al-Nusrah Front/ Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, ISIS, Hamas, and even the Shiite Iranian proxies in Yemen, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), which are currently engaged in direct conflict with the U.S. and other Western countries.” — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024.
• “According to its website, Al-Jazeera has ‘over 70 bureaus around the globe’ and is ‘one of the largest and most influential international news networks in the world’…. Between 2004 and 2020, AJ+ Facebook videos had been viewed over 10 billion times, and it had amassed over 11 million followers on Facebook.” — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024.
• “Al Jazeera just surpassed CNN and BBC as the world’s most-watched international news network. Its Arabic channel hit 400 million weekly viewers.” — Pakistani commentator Amna Kausar, March 2026.
• “Since the October 7 attack… The network has been operating as a propaganda outlet in the service of Hamas 24/7, with hardly any coverage of other topics. The channel expresses unreserved support for Hamas, justifying the deadly attack, showing footage of it obtained from the body-cams of the terrorists, and celebrating it as a victory that has brought pride and honor to the Islamic nation.” — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024.
• Given the mounting allegations of links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist organizations, policymakers should consider decisive steps, formally designating Al-Jazeera as an entity that supports terrorism.

Given the mounting allegations of links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist organizations, policymakers should consider decisive steps, formally designating Al-Jazeera as an entity that supports terrorism. Pictured: The headquarters of Al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. (Photo by Karim Jaafar/AFP via Getty Images)

The death of another Palestinian “journalist” working for Qatar’s Al-Jazeera TV empire has once again triggered outrage and drawn condemnations from some in the international community. Yet those who rushed to denounce Israel for targeting the Gaza-based “journalist” are ignoring voluminous evidence that he and some of his Palestinian colleagues were, in fact, active members of terrorist organizations.

According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Mohammed Wishah, an Al-Jazeera “reporter” killed in an April 8 Israeli airstrike, was not merely a media figure. He was a “key terrorist” in Hamas’s military wing, Izz a-Din al-Qassam, and was involved in weapons production, including rockets and drones, and actively planning attacks against Israeli soldiers and the State of Israel.

According to Israeli intelligence, Wishah exploited his job as a journalist as a cover, an operational shield that allowed him to move, gather intelligence, and advance terrorist activities under the protection of press credentials. In a statement on April 9, the IDF wrote:

“The terrorist contributed to Hamas’ force build-up efforts, was actively involved in planning attacks against IDF troops, and posed a concrete threat to forces in the area. Prior to the strike, steps were taken to mitigate harm to civilians, including the use of precise munitions, aerial surveillance, and additional intelligence.”

About two years ago, the IDF revealed that during a search at a Hamas base in northern Gaza, a laptop belonging to Wishah was seized. The laptop contained images and intelligence materials linking him to Hamas. An IDF spokesperson said at the time:

“Findings from the computer indicate that in addition to his role as a ‘journalist,’ Muhammad, born in 1986 from Al-Bureij, is a senior military operative in Hamas’ anti-tank missile array, and by the end of 2022 had moved to research and development of aerial weapons for the terrorist organization…. analysis of the computer found several weeks ago includes images linking him to his activity in Hamas”

Wishah is not the first terrorist to operate in the Gaza Strip under the guise of a “journalist.”

More than half of the Palestinian “journalists” killed in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war, triggered by the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led invasion of Israel, were affiliated with terrorist organizations, according to a study by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Center.

“An analysis of the identity of the 131 journalists revealed that least 78 (more than 59%) were active in or affiliated with a terrorist organization. Among them were 13 prominent members of a terrorist organization, Fatah or the Palestinian Authority. Of them 13 were overtly terrorist operatives belonging to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades and the Popular Resistance Committees, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority….

“Of the 78 journalists identified as having organizational affiliation, 44 were identified with Hamas…. Nineteen were affiliated with PIJ… One was an al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades operative and another a Popular Resistance Committees operative. Two were affiliated with the Fronts, one with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the other the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.”

Wishah was not the only Al-Jazeera terrorist masquerading as a journalist.

In August 2025, the IDF conducted a precise strike in Gaza City targeting Anas al-Sharif, a Hamas terrorist who posed as a journalist for Al-Jazeera. Al-Sharif, head of a Hamas terror cell, was responsible for facilitating and advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces. Intelligence and documents recovered in the Gaza Strip, including personal rosters, training lists, phone directories and salary records, confirmed his operational position within Hamas and his integration into the Al-Jazeera network.

Wishah and al-Sharif were not alone. Several Palestinian “journalists,” including some affiliated with Al-Jazeera, have in recent years been exposed as members of Hamas or PIJ. Among them:

• • Ismail Abu Omar, an Al-Jazeera “journalist” and Hamas operative who served as commander of the terror group’s Eastern Battalion;
  • Hossam Shabat, a Hamas sniper who exploited his role as an Al-Jazeera “journalist” and carried out terrorist attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians;
  • Ismail al-Ghoul, an Al-Jazeera “journalist” who served as an engineer in the Hamas Gaza City Brigade and took part in the October 7 massacre against Israelis and foreign nationals.

These cases demonstrate a disturbing pattern: the systematic exploitation of journalism by Palestinian terrorist groups. This cynical tactic endangers genuine journalists who risk their lives covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When terrorists masquerade as journalists, they blur the line between civilian and combatant, making it more difficult to distinguish between the two.

Those who condemn Israel over the death of such “journalists” would do well to direct their outrage where it truly belongs: at Hamas and other terrorist organizations that deliberately exploit the protections afforded to journalists under international law. Those who genuinely care about press freedom should be the first to condemn its exploitation by terrorists.

Equally disturbing is the role of Al-Jazeera itself. Owned, funded, and controlled by the government of Qatar, Al-Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language channel, has long provided a platform for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Its coverage frequently echoes Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood narratives, and amplifies anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitic rhetoric.

Reports by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) have documented Al-Jazeera providing a platform for guests who assert that Jews are “enemies of Muslims and all humanity” or that they control global affairs.

In May 2024, MEMRI reported:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to shut down the Qatar-funded Al-Jazeera channel’s operations in Israel, calling it a ‘terror channel,’ and Israel Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said it would be shut down because it acts as ‘a propaganda arm of Hamas’ by ‘encouraging armed struggle against Israel.’ The outlet was shut down and taken off the air in Israel on May 5….

“Among the Islamist terrorist organizations that Qatar and Al-Jazeera have supported over the years are the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hizbullah, the Al-Nusrah Front/ Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, ISIS, Hamas, and even the Shiite Iranian proxies in Yemen, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), which are currently engaged in direct conflict with the U.S. and other Western countries….

“Al-Jazeera was the prime power for toppling the secular authoritarian regime in Egypt, when Qatar, by means of Al-Jazeera, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in ousting then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Al-Jazeera, the single most significant platform for mainstreaming jihadi and Muslim Brotherhood ideology, was the power that accorded Mohamed Morsi his victory….

“According to its website, Al-Jazeera has ‘over 70 bureaus around the globe’ and is ‘one of the largest and most influential international news networks in the world….'”

“Between 2004 and 2020, AJ+ Facebook videos had been viewed over 10 billion times, and it had amassed over 11 million followers on Facebook.”

Pakistani commentator Amna Kausar wrote last month:

“Al Jazeera just surpassed CNN and BBC as the world’s most-watched international news network. Its Arabic channel hit 400 million weekly viewers.”

Al-Jazeera Arabic has repeatedly broadcast speeches by senior Hamas figures, such as Khaled Mashaal, Ismail Haniyeh, Saleh al-Arouri, Mohammed Deif and Khalil al-Hayya. They praised “resistance” (terrorism) and demanded continued armed struggle against Israel. On the very morning of the October 7, during the Hamas-led invasion of Israel, while terrorists were torturing and murdering more than 1,200 Israelis and others, and took more than 250 as hostages — Al-Jazeera provided Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif with an exclusive television appearance — to broadcast that this was just the “first strike” and incited Arabs inside Israel to “join the war , using all means in their possession – guns, knives, Molotov cocktails, and vehicles.”

Haniyeh issued a statement on Al-Jazeera in which he described the October 7 massacre as a “great triumph” and called to expand the operation to the West Bank and to within the pre-1967 borders of Israel. On the same day, Al-Jazeera broadcast a speech by al-Arouri, deputy chairman of the political bureau of Hamas, in which he threatened that “the storming of the Zionist settlements and bases in the Gaza Envelope will pale compared to what may happen to them [Israelis].”

During the Hamas-Israel war, Al-Jazeera not only reported and relayed Hamas’s announcements; according to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, it became an integral part of the Hamas influence, propaganda, and psychological warfare machine:

“Across all its platforms, Al Jazeera spread the psychological warfare materials produced by the Combat Media Unit of Hamas’ Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which allegedly documented ambushes and attacks on IDF forces.”

In many cases, Hamas’s military wing even used Al-Jazeera Arabic to announce attacks on IDF troops, such as:

“Urgent – Al-Qassam Brigades: shortly… footage from the ‘Lion of al-Mantar’ ambushes of the enemy’s soldiers and vehicles in the al-Shuja’iyya neighborhood in eastern Gaza will be broadcast on Al Jazeera on 25-04-2025.”

Glorifying the October 7 massacre, the program “Ma Khafiya A’tham” (“What is Hidden is Greater”), hosted by journalist Tamer al-Mishal, dedicated to the October 7 massacre a series of episodes emphasizing Hamas propaganda, sometimes using videos provided exclusively to Al-Jazeera. One episode included a video of a disguised Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the massacre, conducting a field tour above ground. The episode also included pictures of Mohammed Deif, commander of the Hamas military wing, during the preparations for the October 7 attack. The program promoted the Hamas narrative that the massacre was a jihad justified by Islam, and that the “determination, heroism, and sacrifice” of the Palestinian people enabled the success of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood (the Hamas name for the October 7 attack).

MEMRI wrote in May 2024:

“Since the October 7 attack… The network has been operating as a propaganda outlet in the service of Hamas 24/7, with hardly any coverage of other topics. The channel expresses unreserved support for Hamas, justifying the deadly attack, showing footage of it obtained from the body-cams of the terrorists, and celebrating it as a victory that has brought pride and honor to the Islamic nation.”

For many years, Al-Jazeera hosted Islamist figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi his show “Sharia and Life,” where he issued fatwas (religious decrees) justifying Palestinian suicide bombings against Israel as a form of “jihad” and “defense.” In one interview, Qaradawi explained that in “legitimate martyrdom operations, people use their bodies to defend their country from occupiers.” He described suicide attacks as a form of divine justice, stating:

“Allah Almighty is Just; through His infinite Wisdom He has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do.”

Qaradawi also noted on his Al-Jazeera program in February 2013 that “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

According to MEMRI:

“Al-Jazeera’s role in providing a platform for promoting extremist Islamist ideologies goes back decades. The case of promoting Al-Qaeda is of particular interest. Two months before 9/11, Al-Jazeera gave an Al-Qaeda spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, free rein to speak uninterrupted for ten minutes, and to call for 12,000 mujahideen to join Al-Qaeda.

“Al-Jazeera employed a correspondent, Tayseer Allouni, who was sentenced in Spain to seven years in prison for transferring funds to Al-Qaeda – and Al-Qaeda even issued a public statement in his support. Al-Jazeera broadcast live the killing of a U.S. soldier by an Iraqi sniper – which could only have happened if the media network had coordinated with the perpetrators of the killing.

“As for ISIS – Al-Jazeera allowed a pledge of allegiance to its leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi live on air. In the middle of a TV debate on Al-Jazeera’s flagship Arabic-language program, an Islamic scholar pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS, the Emir of the Believers, while moderator Faysal Al-Qassem did nothing to stop him.”

In 2004, on Al-Jazeera, Anis al-Naqqash, a Lebanese militant and analyst, explicitly called for attacks against US oil companies and installations and labeled the US an enemy of humanity.

It is time for the US and other Western countries to undertake an urgent and thorough review of Al-Jazeera’s activities. Given the mounting allegations of links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist organizations, policymakers should consider decisive steps, formally designating Al-Jazeera as an entity that supports terrorism. 

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.