标签： Asia

As outgoing United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to leave Downing Street, his predecessor as Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has publicly condemned Starmer for repeating a long-debunked false claim that Labour was “institutionally antisemitic” during Corbyn’s tenure at the party’s helm.

The controversy erupted during Starmer’s final appearance at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday, where he reflected on his political journey from opposition leader to the country’s top office. Recounting the aftermath of Labour’s 2019 general election defeat to Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party, Starmer claimed the loss “nearly broke my party” before adding: “We were found to be institutionally antisemitic. I picked up our party. I turned it round. I made a promise to rip antisemitism out of my party and I did.”

In an immediate response to Starmer’s comments given exclusively to Middle East Eye (MEE), Corbyn pushed back forcefully against the inaccurate assertion. “The prime minister today falsely claimed that Labour was found to be ‘institutionally antisemitic’ under my leadership. There was no such finding, and Keir Starmer should have the decency to correct the record,” Corbyn said.

The former Labour leader emphasized that this false allegation is not an isolated misstatement, but part of a repeated pattern of political distortion. “This is the second time in recent weeks he has made a false allegation about the Labour Party under my leadership (last time about an invented financial bankruptcy) to bolster his own dismal record,” he added.

Corbyn, who now serves as parliamentary leader of the Your Party, argued that misleading claims and broken campaign promises have defined Starmer’s tenure as Labour leader, ultimately eroding public trust and leading directly to the premature end of his premiership. With Starmer already on track to leave office, Corbyn made clear his own political agenda will not slow down: “But I will continue to campaign for social justice, human rights and peace. That includes uncovering the true scale of this government’s institutional complicity in genocide.”

Corbyn, a long-standing advocate for Palestinian rights, stepped down as Labour leader in 2019 following the party’s decisive general election loss. His four-and-a-half-year tenure was repeatedly marred by public allegations of widespread antisemitism within the party, a narrative that was amplified by internal factional infighting as rival groups battled for control of the party and establishment-aligned factions worked to undermine his left-wing leadership.

Fact-checking Starmer’s recent claim confirms that the 2020 investigation into Labour antisemitism conducted by the UK’s equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), never used the phrase “institutionally antisemitic” to describe Corbyn’s leadership. The EHRC report did document specific cases of harassment, unlawful discrimination, and inappropriate political interference in antisemitism complaint processes, and it concluded that Labour could have addressed the issue far more effectively if Corbyn’s leadership had prioritized reform. The “institutionally antisemitic” characterization actually originated from Alan Johnson, a figure affiliated with the pro-Israel lobbying group Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (Bicom), not from the official regulator’s findings.

Long before the report’s 2020 publication, Corbyn had already questioned the EHRC’s institutional independence, telling MEE the body had been absorbed into the “government machine” and its autonomy stripped away by the then-governing Conservative Party for political purposes. Following the report’s release, Corbyn acknowledged that when he took party leadership in 2015, Labour’s internal processes for handling antisemitism complaints were outdated and unfit for purpose, adding that reform efforts had been intentionally blocked by obstructive senior party bureaucracy.

That claim of internal obstruction was later vindicated by the 2022 Forde Report, which found that Labour staff members openly hostile to Corbyn’s leadership carried out deliberate efforts to undermine his agenda, including running a “secret operation” to divert 2019 general election campaign funds away from candidates loyal to Corbyn.

In his 2020 statement following the EHRC report, Corbyn struck a balanced tone on the issue of antisemitism in Labour: “Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left. One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.”

A sweeping new directive mandating content reviews of all educational materials across Indian-administered Kashmir has ignited intense public and political controversy, raising urgent questions about state control over historical narrative and academic freedom in the long-disputed Himalayan region.

Issued last week by local education authorities, the order applies to every tier of educational institution — from primary schools and secondary colleges to state universities and private coaching centers. It requires administrators to audit all published materials on their premises, including academic research papers and graduate theses, for content deemed to violate religious sensibilities, national laws, educational standards or social norms. Any materials flagged as inappropriate must be reported immediately to government oversight bodies.

Regional officials defend the directive as a targeted measure to remove factually incorrect and unlawful content, rather than a broad restriction on access to reading material. In official statements, authorities frame the order as a response to materials that promote, glorify or legitimize terrorism, violent extremism, secessionism and radicalization — all activities defined as prejudicial to India’s national security.

The order comes in the immediate aftermath of a public controversy stirred by India’s ruling national party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which staged protests against two government school library books that it claimed glorified separatist leaders and spread anti-national sentiment. The two biographical volumes, which profled prominent figures from Jammu and Kashmir and had been held in school libraries since 2023, were pulled from circulation within days of the protests. Three people connected to the books’ publication were subsequently arrested by local police, and eight senior education department officials were suspended from their posts pending investigation.

Despite triggering the new order, the policy itself leaves the definition of “objectionable content” deliberately vague. The directive only notes that inappropriate material includes content that violates religious sentiments or Indian law, harms national interest, or runs counter to educational values, and requires all texts to align with India’s “age-appropriate” national education guidelines. Speaking to the BBC, School Education Director Naseer Ahmad Wani confirmed that a government-appointed committee would conduct the full review of texts across all schools and libraries, but declined to elaborate on specific criteria that would qualify content as objectionable.

The current controversy is not an isolated incident: just last year, regional authorities banned 25 published works, including titles by Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy and prominent scholar A.G. Noorani, on grounds that the texts promoted “false narratives and secessionism.” That ban is currently being challenged in Indian courts. In February 2025, police carried out raids on independent bookstores in Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, and seized hundreds of books, alleging the titles promoted ideology linked to a banned Islamist organization. Critics of that raid noted that most of the seized works simply documented decades of conflict and political repression in the region.

Critics of the latest order, including opposition politicians, academics and student leaders, frame the directive as a deliberate attack on academic autonomy and an attempt to erase the region’s decades-long history of political turbulence. Kashmir has been a flashpoint for conflict between India and Pakistan for three-quarters of a century: both countries claim the entire region, and each controls only a portion of it, with periodic armed clashes along the disputed Line of Control that divides the two administrations. Since the late 1980s, the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir has seen an armed separatist insurgency against Indian rule, which India has repeatedly claimed is backed by Pakistan — an allegation the Pakistani government in Islamabad has consistently denied.

In 2019, India’s central government revoked the semi-autonomous special status that Jammu and Kashmir had held for decades, bringing the region under direct federal control. While an elected local government was restored in 2024, critics argue that the move has led to steadily eroding civil liberties and expanded state control over all aspects of public life in the region.

Many local academics and political analysts warn that the new screening order violates fundamental rights protected under India’s constitution. “Restrictions like this directly go against the right to freedom of speech and expression that the Indian constitution guarantees all citizens,” said Noor Mohammad Baba, a Srinagar-based political scientist. One Kashmir studies instructor, who requested anonymity out of fear of professional retaliation, noted that the region’s history, cultural identity and educational landscape have long been deeply contested, so the widespread screening of educational materials raises “legitimate questions about academic freedom and the state’s role in defining which narratives are acceptable to teach.”

Regional political leaders have gone further, alleging the order is part of a broader pattern of expanding state surveillance and a coordinated crackdown on political dissent in the region. Altaf Bukhari, leader of the regional Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party, argues that the government cannot systematically remove historical texts under the pretense of banning “anti-national” content. “This looks like a wider conspiracy to deprive us of our own academic content and our collective memory,” he said.

Government and ruling party officials have rejected all accusations of censorship or an attack on academic freedom. Imran Nabi Dar, spokesperson for the region’s governing National Conference party, clarified that the goal of the order is not to restrict access to reading, but to prevent unnecessary controversy stemming from content taught in classrooms. “Our point is that there shouldn’t be any unnecessary controversies arising from what is being taught in educational institutions,” Dar explained. BJP spokesperson Sunil Sethi echoed that position in comments to the BBC, arguing that “people cannot be allowed to glorify separatists in the name of academic freedom.” He added that “peace has been restored in the region with great difficulty, and we can’t let things get out of control again.”

As the United Kingdom prepares for a change in its prime minister next week, more than 80 members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords have signed an open letter urging the government to implement sweeping, comprehensive sanctions against Israel, while a coalition of leading British humanitarian organizations has issued sharp criticism of outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s record on Palestinian rights.

Organized by Labour Members of Parliament Imran Hussain and Richard Burgon, the letter addressed to UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper calls on the government to align its actions with the 2023 advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This July 19 marks exactly two years since the ICJ ruled that Israel’s 56-year-long occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful under international law, concluding that Israel’s near-total segregation of Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank constitutes a breach of international prohibitions against racial segregation and apartheid.

The cross-party group of signatories — which includes former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, Green Party Members of Parliament Sian Berry and Hannah Spencer, former New Labour cabinet minister Lord Peter Hain, and Jewish Kindertransport refugee Lord Alf Dubs — argues that two years on from the landmark ruling, Israel has only expanded its unlawful occupation. They point to a series of escalatory actions that have erased almost all remaining hope for a two-state solution: Israel currently controls more than 60 percent of the Gaza Strip, a territory it has left largely in ruins after three years of military campaign; it has launched expanded incursions into southern Lebanon and Syrian territory under the pretense of targeting Hezbollah; and it has ramped up annexationist policies in the West Bank. In September 2024, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also serves as de facto governor of the occupied West Bank, unveiled a plan to annex 82 percent of the territory to Israel, a move built on the principle of seizing “maximum land with minimum [Palestinian] population” that would eliminate any possibility of a sovereign Palestinian state.

“Israel’s actions over the past two years underline how, without much bolder action, the Israeli government will continue to simply ignore the words of condemnation from political leaders and governments and deepen its illegal occupation,” the letter reads. It notes that the ICJ has clearly established that all UN member states hold a legal obligation to recognize the illegality of Israel’s occupation and refrain from economic or trade activity that sustains it. Despite publicly acknowledging the court’s ruling, the letter argues, the British government has failed to take formal action to meet its binding legal and moral obligations. Drawing a contrast to the UK’s robust response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the politicians point out that London imposed widespread sanctions on Moscow for its violation of international law, but has refused to apply the same standard to Israel.

The signatories outline a clear set of concrete demands: ban all trade with unlawful Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, sanction companies that profit from the occupation, implement targeted individual sanctions against Israeli officials responsible for expanding the occupation, suspend the existing UK-Israel bilateral trade agreement, and end all arms transfers to Israel — including the supply of components for F-35 fighter jets.

Parallel to the politicians’ appeal, 17 major UK charities have also called on incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham to take immediate action to end what they describe as Israel’s atrocities against Palestinian people. The coalition includes prominent organizations such as Save the Children UK, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Islamic Relief, and Amnesty International UK, who warned that Palestinians cannot afford any further delay or political inaction on the matter.

In their statement, the charities delivered a scathing assessment of Starmer’s legacy on Palestine. “Despite a partial arms suspension in 2024, Keir Starmer’s government has continued to enable Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, their families and children through the supply of F-35 fighter jet parts,” Save the Children UK said, adding that “History will remember your complicity.”

John McDonnell, a Labour MP and former shadow chancellor who signed the politicians’ letter, emphasized that the incoming prime minister faces a clear moral and legal duty to act. “The Netanyahu government clearly believes it can act with impunity as it destroys any hope of a two-state solution with its total annexation of the West Bank,” McDonnell told Middle East Eye. “The hope is that the incoming prime minister recognises that the UK government has a duty to act.”

Burnham, who is set to succeed Starmer in office next week, has already sought to distance himself from his predecessor’s approach, issuing a public apology for the Labour Party’s initial response to the conflict in Gaza. “I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza, my party didn’t get it right, and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said. Burnham acknowledged the “unbearable suffering” in Gaza, describing it as a “scar on our collective conscience,” and has called for increased pressure on the Israeli government to end its expansion of occupation. He has praised the outgoing Starmer administration for its limited steps — including formal recognition of Palestinian statehood, sanctions on a small number of far-right Israeli ministers, and a ban on the supply of British-produced bombs and bullets to Israel — but admitted that the UK was far too slow to call for a permanent ceasefire, and that a more robust approach is now needed.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has also softened her rhetoric in recent weeks, acknowledging that Labour’s early response to the Gaza crisis was misaligned with humanitarian concerns. But aid groups warn that a shift in tone does not guarantee meaningful policy change.

Halla Keir, advocacy and research manager at Medical Aid for Palestinians, stressed that the urgency of the crisis leaves no room for further delay. “Every new prime minister inherits difficult decisions. But this should not be one of them,” Keir said. “Almost three years into Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the need for action could not be clearer. The UK’s obligations under international law are clear. What is needed now is the political courage to act.”

Save the Children UK echoed this call, noting that “Nothing can change the horrors Palestinians have faced. But the next prime minister has an opportunity to put an end to the UK government’s role as an ally to atrocities.”

In a controversial move that has reignited global scrutiny of Israeli territorial policy, the Israeli government announced Tuesday it has formally approved a 1.3 billion shekel ($434 million) budget to construct 34 new settlements in the occupied West Bank. According to leading Israeli outlet Ynet, the budget approval was finalized by the country’s security cabinet back in June, but was intentionally kept secret for months over fears of pushback from the United States government. The foundational approval for the 34 settlements themselves was granted in a separate, unpublicized cabinet vote in March, with neither decision disclosed to the public until this week.

With this latest authorization, the total number of settlements approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current far-right government, which took office in late 2022, has climbed to 104. Alongside the new construction projects, the government also signed off on the re-establishment of the Sa-Nur settlement in the northern West Bank. This site was originally evacuated in 2005 as part of Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip, but Israeli settlers have already returned to the location in recent months.

Top government officials from the ruling far-right bloc have celebrated the decision as a landmark step in their planned expansion of Israeli control over the West Bank. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also leads civilian oversight of the occupied West Bank through the Defense Ministry, spearheaded the budget measure and framed it as a core achievement of what his faction calls a “settlement revolution.” Smotrich described the approval as a critical security and strategic decision, tying the expansion to his long-stated goal of blocking the creation of an independent Palestinian state, which he referred to as a “terror state” that would threaten Israeli sovereignty. “We are passing, one after the other, budgetary decisions that fund roads, infrastructure, and now also buildings and caravans,” Smotrich said, confirming that construction on the new settlements would launch as early as this coming summer.

Settlement Minister Orit Strook, a fellow member of Smotrich’s Religious Zionist party who resides in an existing West Bank settlement, went even further in praising the move, calling it “the greatest Zionist-settlement move since the establishment of the state.” Strook claimed that no comparable pro-settlement decision had been made in the entire history of the Zionist movement, adding that the government’s agenda aims to ensure “no point remains without a settlement” across the occupied territory.

Just days earlier, Smotrich and Netanyahu signed a separate landmark umbrella agreement with the Samaria Regional Council, committing 8.5 billion shekels ($2.5 billion) to upgrade and expand infrastructure across the northern West Bank. Israeli daily Israel Hayom reported that this is the first time an Israeli government has formalized such a direct agreement with a regional settlement council. The deal allocates funding for 18 previously approved new settlements, the construction of roughly 12,000 additional homes in existing settlement blocs, and broad upgrades to local roads and public services.

However, the settlement expansion push has drawn sharp criticism both from within Israel and from the international community. All Israeli settlements built in the West Bank are universally recognized as illegal under international law, a position formally upheld by the International Court of Justice and endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the global community. Domestic Israeli anti-settlement advocacy group Peace Now has lambasted the new measures, describing the recent 8.5 billion shekel infrastructure deal as “a fire sale of the State of Israel.” In a formal statement, the organization argued: “Not only is the government thumbing its nose at millions of Israelis and plundering their money for the benefit of a narrow settler sector – it is digging, with its own hands, the diplomatic and security pit in which the State of Israel may end up buried.”

Earlier this month, Peace Now published a comprehensive report documenting the current government’s rapid acceleration of de facto annexation of the occupied West Bank. The report found that over the past three years, the government has approved more than 100 new settlements and formalized 185 unapproved settlement outposts. These outposts now exert control over more than 1.1 million dunams of land, equal to roughly 18 percent of the total area of the occupied West Bank. The report also added that Israeli settlers, backed by the Israeli military, have forcibly displaced 118 distinct Palestinian communities from their land in the territory to make way for expansion.

BEIRUT – Lebanon’s Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri has stated in an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye that the current U.S.-brokered framework between Israel and Lebanon to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah is unworkable in its existing form, and cannot gain the status of a legally binding agreement without formal approval from Lebanon’s full Council of Ministers.

Mitri clarified the distinct constitutional roles of Lebanon’s presidency and cabinet in international negotiation processes, noting that while the president holds the constitutional authority to negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf, all final agreements must receive cabinet approval before they take legal effect. To date, that step has not been completed, meaning the text agreed to by both parties in Washington on June 26 remains a non-binding starting point rather than a finalized deal.

“The word agreement is nowhere to be seen in this text,” Mitri confirmed during the interview at his Beirut office.

The U.S.-mediated framework, designed to map a path toward ending months of open conflict between Israel and the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, has sparked widespread public and political opposition across Lebanon since it was signed. Critics have raised urgent questions about Lebanese national sovereignty, accountability for war crimes, and the framework’s structure that places Lebanon’s obligations ahead of Israel’s formal commitments.

Hezbollah has publicly condemned the deal for failing to guarantee a full Israeli withdrawal from the roughly 6 percent of Lebanese territory that Israel continues to occupy, and for not securing the return of hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese residents to their homes in southern Lebanon.

Mitri acknowledged that the current proposal does not meet all of Lebanon’s core demands, but framed it as an opening for future negotiation rather than a final settlement. “This is not the last word… It doesn’t meet all the desires and aspirations of the Lebanese. But this is a beginning,” he said, repeating that the text remains “not a solid, well-structured, final binding agreement.”

He also conceded deep internal political divisions over the framework, noting that significant domestic outreach and negotiation will be required before any final deal can secure broad cross-political support within Lebanon. “You need to make sure that at the domestic level, although there might be disagreement, [a deal] should not exacerbate divisions and should not deepen already existing divisions,” he said.

Mitri pointed to immediate public statements from Israeli leaders following the framework’s release as clear evidence of its weaknesses, demonstrating that Israel also does not view itself as bound by the text. “Twenty-four hours after the trilateral framework was made public… Netanyahu, the foreign minister, the defence minister said, ‘We’re staying in southern Lebanon. We’re not withdrawing,’” he recalled. Israel’s refusal to publicly commit to a full withdrawal from southern Lebanon directly contradicts Lebanon’s non-negotiable core demands, which also include the return of displaced residents and the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel, he added.

The current conflict, which opened when Hezbollah launched rocket strikes on Israel on March 2 following the U.S.-Israeli killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has evolved into “a war that Lebanon did not want, did not seek,” Mitri said, emphasizing that what began as a confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah has become a full-scale war on the Lebanese state and people.

Lebanese authorities confirm that Israeli airstrikes and ground operations have killed more than 4,300 people since the war began in March. A recent assessment from the United Nations Development Program found that more than 11,000 buildings across southern Lebanon have been completely destroyed by Israeli attacks, with a further 2,200 structures partially damaged. “When the war started in Lebanon, it looked like a battleground between Israel and Hezbollah. But Israel has made a war on Lebanon,” Mitri said. “And there are many parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah had no military activity that were severely affected.”

Addressing widespread criticism of Article 13 of the framework – a provision that suspends mutual legal and political action between the two sides during ongoing negotiations, which Lebanese human rights and legal experts warn could shield Israel from accountability for alleged war crimes – Mitri pushed back against concerns that the article would permanently end Lebanon’s efforts to document and pursue legal action for Israeli attacks.

As chair of Lebanon’s National Commission on International Humanitarian Law, Mitri confirmed that the state’s ongoing work to document war crimes has not stopped, and “cannot be stopped” by the provisions of Article 13. He noted that Lebanon has never brought formal proceedings against Israel before an international court for a range of historical reasons, pointing out that neither country is a signatory to the Rome Statute that governs the International Criminal Court. Even so, evidence collected by the commission remains available for Lebanese citizens seeking to bring cases against Israel before foreign courts that exercise universal jurisdiction, he said.

Mitri added that Lebanese officials have received formal assurances that Article 13 does not permanently end legal action against Israel. “We were told that although the word ‘cessation’ is used… it only means suspension,” he said, noting that pausing legal proceedings during active negotiations is a common practice in international peace processes, including the post-apartheid settlement in South Africa and the Algerian peace process.

One of the most sensitive political issues facing the Lebanese government in the wake of any ceasefire will be the question of disarming Hezbollah and extending full state control over all weapons and territory across the country. Shortly after Hezbollah opened hostilities in March, the Lebanese government banned the group from conducting any independent military activities. Last year, the cabinet instructed the Lebanese army to draft plans for Hezbollah’s disarmament, a move that sparked fears of domestic armed conflict even as top officials including the president and prime minister emphasized they do not seek a military confrontation with the group. Earlier this year, Middle East Eye reported deep tensions between Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and army chief Rodolphe Haykal over disagreements on how to implement the disarmament ban, with unconfirmed sources indicating Salam considered sacking Haykal for refusing to confront Hezbollah during the ongoing war.

Mitri argued that disarming Hezbollah is fundamentally a political issue, not a military one, rejecting calls for the Lebanese army to confront the group by force to establish state authority. “Disarming Hezbollah is not a technical question,” he said. “It’s not about the military balance of power between the army and Hezbollah’s military structure – it’s first and foremost political.” He noted that there has been little substantive discussion of the issue over the past several months, as open war makes domestic dialogue extremely difficult, but added that negotiations on the question are inevitable, and it must remain an internal Lebanese affair. When asked whether Israel is intentionally seeking to provoke a confrontation between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah, Mitri said: “Possibly the Israelis would be happy if that happens. But I think neither the army nor Hezbollah are willing to fall into the trap of fighting each other.” He noted that the pilot deployment zones outlined in the current framework can serve as a “litmus test” for the army to expand state authority gradually, while allowing Hezbollah to step back without triggering internal armed conflict.

The current conflict marks the third major confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah since the 33-day 2006 war, which ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire that kept the border largely calm for nearly 18 years. Comparing the current diplomatic context to the 2006 negotiations, Mitri noted that Lebanon is now operating in a drastically shifted global landscape, where the UN Security Council and multilateral diplomacy have been sidelined. “The only party that can mediate, or at least allow for mediation under its auspices, is the United States of America,” he said.

This reality has left Beirut with little choice but to engage with Washington, despite decades of deep mutual distrust, Mitri explained. Lebanon has long been “a footnote” in U.S. regional policy, he said, but Lebanese officials see a current “window of attention” that they are determined to leverage. He added that some political observers see recent comments from U.S. Vice President JD Vance – who suggested that Washington’s unconditional support for Israel should not be taken for granted – as a potential sign of a gradual shift in U.S. policy toward the region. “The main reason why the Lebanese look towards the United States is… that the US is the only country that has leverage over Israel and can help in resolving the present difficult issues we face,” he said.

Mitri also emphasized that Israel’s strategic objectives have grown far more ambitious since the 2006 war, pointing to repeated public statements from Israeli leaders outlining a new military doctrine focused on “reclaiming deterrence” by establishing permanent security buffer zones in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. “Now we are in a totally different, more difficult situation,” he said. “We’re left with very few options.”

Looking beyond the immediate conflict, Mitri noted growing regional interest in building a new architecture of coordination and strategic alignment among regional states including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, extending beyond narrow security arrangements. He pointed to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s long-held view that regional security is deeply interconnected, with Turkey’s security tied to Syria’s, and Syria’s security tied to Lebanon’s.

Mitri stressed that Syria is far more than just a neighbor and ally to Lebanon; the two countries’ futures are “inextricably intertwined.” Addressing recent reports that U.S. President Donald Trump asked Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to intervene militarily against Hezbollah, Mitri said Syria’s new leadership has shown no interest in reviving the decades of interference in Lebanese affairs that marked the former Assad regime. Al-Sharaa has publicly denied any plans to take military action against Hezbollah, and Mitri confirmed: “We know that with the present Syrian government, there is no hegemonic design over Lebanon.” Damascus is willing to support Lebanon through diplomatic and political means instead, he added.

Mitri also rejected claims that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun holds reservations about Syria’s new leadership, despite the fact that neither president has yet conducted an official visit to the other’s capital. “I have not sensed any major reason why the visits… did not take place,” he said, explaining that trust is still being rebuilt after decades of mutual suspicion and Syrian political dominance over Lebanon. “This is all changing and it takes time for the population of both countries to realise that we’re in a totally different dispensation.”

Despite years of catastrophic economic collapse, persistent political turmoil, and repeated cycles of war, Mitri said he does not believe Lebanon’s national unity and sovereignty face an imminent existential threat. He did acknowledge that deep-rooted sectarian loyalties and communal tensions remain present across the country, creating a widespread sense of social estrangement. While he warned that Lebanon’s future as a unified state depends on successfully resolving the current crisis, he stopped short of ruling out all risk of fragmentation. “Lebanon’s unity is always in the making,” he said, adding that fragmentation will only occur “unless we were unable to manage the present crisis and dissipate the present fears.”