عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Netanyahu under Pressure over Israel Troop Losses, Hostages

A person holds an Israeli flag with an image depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as people protest against his government in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 20, 2024. (Reuters)
A person holds an Israeli flag with an image depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as people protest against his government in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 20, 2024. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Netanyahu under Pressure over Israel Troop Losses, Hostages

A person holds an Israeli flag with an image depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as people protest against his government in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 20, 2024. (Reuters)
A person holds an Israeli flag with an image depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as people protest against his government in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 20, 2024. (Reuters)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a mounting crisis after Israel's worst day of troop losses in the Gaza war as well as growing protests over his failure to bring hostages back.

The military's strategy in the Palestinian territory is under intense scrutiny following the death of 24 troops on Monday, Israel's biggest one-day loss since its ground offensive in Gaza started in late October.

Among those killed were 21 reservists, who died in a single incident.

The incident, which saw rocket-propelled grenade fire hit a tank and two buildings the soldiers were trying to blow up, was deemed a "disaster" by Netanyahu.

Emmanuel Navon, a lecturer at Tel Aviv University, told AFP the troop losses "affect everybody, because almost everybody in the country has a son or brother or a relative (fighting in Gaza)".

Israelis would now be increasingly asking "what is the strategy... Do we really keep going until we finish Hamas?" he added.

At the same time, splits have emerged in Netanyahu's war cabinet following protests in Tel Aviv and outside his Jerusalem home, where relatives of hostages staged a rally Monday chanting "everybody and now" to urge the return of captives.

"The current mood in the war cabinet is very bad," said Julia Elad-Strenger, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu's steadfast vow to eliminate the Palestinian militant group Hamas in response to the October 7 attack is increasingly seen within the cabinet as incompatible with returning hostages held in Gaza, experts told AFP.

War cabinet divided

Two members of the five-person war cabinet, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, have rejected Netanyahu's stance that only military pressure on Hamas will allow the return of hostages, the experts said.

"According to Netanyahu there can be no victory with Hamas left standing, according to Gantz and Eisenkot there can be no victory with hostages lost," said Reuven Hazan, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Eisenkot, whose son died fighting in Gaza, gave an interview last week in which he split from Netanyahu's long-held position.

"It is impossible to return the hostages alive in the near future without an agreement (with Hamas)," he told Israeli broadcaster Channel 12.

Netanyahu has vowed "total victory" over Hamas in response to the unprecedented attack by its fighters on October 7 that resulted in the deaths of about 1,140 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official Israeli figures.

The militants seized about 250 hostages and Israel says around 132 remain in besieged Gaza, including the bodies of at least 28 dead hostages, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli data.

In response to the attack, Israel has launched a relentless offensive in Gaza that has killed at least 25,490 people, around 70 percent of them women, young children and adolescents, according to the latest toll issued Tuesday by Gaza's health ministry.

'Worst point'

Netanyahu has rejected suggestions that his government should hold another round of talks with Hamas to reach a similar deal to one struck in November that led to the release of 80 Israeli hostages.

Under that deal, brokered by Qatar, the United States and Egypt, a seven-day humanitarian pause was agreed that allowed aid deliveries into Gaza, while hundreds of Palestinian prisoners were released in exchange for hostages.

The Israeli premier doubled down on his refusal to enter talks with Hamas on Sunday, saying: "The conditions demanded by Hamas demonstrate a simple truth: there is no substitute for victory."

Netanyahu said Hamas had set conditions for the release of more hostages that included an end to the war, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and guarantees that the group will stay in power.

Experts said they expected the Israeli premier to continue the war as a tactic to remain in power, even as pressure to change course mounts.

"I think he has made a decision to keep this war going and not just for his political interests, but endless war is his strategy in general," said Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

"As far as Netanyahu is concerned, if the war lasts beyond 2024 that's better for him politically because it gets October 7 further away from us and it gives him a chance to rebuild," said Hazan of Hebrew University.

"Right now he is at the worst point in his entire career," said Hazan.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Sudan in 25 Years: One War Begets Another

Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
TT
TT

Sudan in 25 Years: One War Begets Another

Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)
Fleeing the fighting, people are transported by truck from the border town of Renk in South Sudan to a dock to continue their journey to the next destination (DPA)

The sound of gunfire, barrel bombs, and stray bullets is nothing new in Sudan. What’s new is that the violence has moved from the outskirts to the capital, Khartoum. This shift forced the government and military to relocate to a temporary capital in Port Sudan, nearly 1,000 kilometers away on the Red Sea coast.
Past conflicts were seen as rebellions against the state, but they stemmed from a deeper struggle: the “center” holds all the power and resources, while the “margins” are left with nothing.
These wars have always been about demands for rights and equality.
Under Islamist President Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s wars shifted from demands for rights to a “religious war” between the Muslim north and the Christian or secular south. This led to South Sudan’s secession and the creation of a new state that joined the United Nations. But what drives the conflicts that continue to devastate Sudan?
Analysts say the root cause is the lack of a national vision and the failure to recognize Sudan’s ethnic and cultural diversity. Without a unified political and economic framework, this diversity has been ignored.
The current war, though fought between two formal armies, stems from the same issues of marginalization and exclusion. These problems sparked Sudan’s first rebellion in 1955, led by the Anya-Nya 1 forces, named after the cobra snake.
The Naivasha Agreement
Sudan’s first civil war ended with the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement but reignited in 1983 after former President Jaafar Nimeiri imposed Islamic Sharia law. This sparked a rebellion led by John Garang’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).
The conflict escalated into a “jihadist” war as Islamist forces framed it as a battle against “enemies of the faith.” The fighting lasted for years, killing more than two million people.
Unable to secure a military victory, the government signed the Naivasha Agreement in Kenya. The deal granted South Sudan the right to self-determination, with a five-year transitional period to decide between unity or independence.
John Garang briefly became Sudan’s First Vice President during this period but died in a mysterious helicopter crash. His deputy, Salva Kiir, succeeded him and led South Sudan to a 2011 referendum, where the region voted for independence. South Sudan became a new nation, taking a third of Sudan’s land, a quarter of its people, and most of its resources.
Meanwhile, conflict spread to Darfur in 2003, with rebels accusing the government of marginalization. The war turned ethnic when the government armed Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, to fight African-origin rebel groups. One Janjaweed leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, or Hemedti, later became the head of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
The Darfur war claimed 300,000 lives. Al-Bashir’s government was accused of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, leading to International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Bashir and three senior officials that remain in effect.
Chasing Peace Across Capitals
In May 2006, Sudan’s government signed a peace deal in Abuja with a faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) led by Minni Arko Minnawi. However, the movement split, and another faction, led by Abdel Wahid al-Nur, rejected the deal and continued fighting from Jebel Marra in central Darfur.
Minnawi briefly joined the government as an assistant to President Omar al-Bashir but later rebelled again, claiming he was treated as a "kitchen helper" rather than a serious political partner.
Efforts to negotiate peace moved between capitals. In 2011, some groups signed the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur in Qatar, which promised power and wealth-sharing, but fighting continued.
In 2020, Sudan’s transitional government signed a new peace agreement in Juba with key armed groups, including Minnawi’s faction and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) led by Gibril Ibrahim.
The deal gave Minnawi the role of Darfur governor and Ibrahim the post of finance minister. Despite these accords, true peace remains out of reach.
A New Southern Conflict
War broke out in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, two regions given a right to “popular consultation” under the Naivasha Agreement to decide their future. The SPLM-North, an offshoot of the southern SPLM, took up arms again.
The SPLM-N split into two factions: one led by Malik Agar, now a deputy in Sudan’s Sovereign Council, who signed the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement; the other, led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, controls Kauda in South Kordofan and continues sporadic fighting.
Eastern Sudan also saw conflict in the 1990s, with groups like the Beja Congress and Free Lions opposing Bashir’s regime. These groups later signed the Asmara Peace Agreement, gaining shares of power and wealth.
In April 2019, months of protests forced the military to oust President Omar al-Bashir. But sit-ins continued, and a violent crackdown killed hundreds, drawing condemnation as a horrific crime against civilians.
Under public pressure, the military signed a constitutional declaration in August 2019, agreeing to share power with civilians. This led to a transitional government with Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and a Sovereign Council headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his deputy, Hemedti.
War of the Generals
On October 25, 2021, Sudan's army leader overthrew Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s civilian government in a coup. Under pressure from peaceful protests, the general later agreed to a framework agreement with civilian leaders, promising a return to civilian rule and preventing the return of the Islamist regime.
However, supporters of the former regime undermined the deal, causing tensions between the army and the RSF, leading to war.
On April 15, 2023, gunfire broke out in southern Khartoum, marking the start of the ongoing conflict. The RSF accused the army of attacking its camps, while some claim Islamist cells within the army targeted the RSF, forcing it to choose between surrender or war.
Miscalculations
The war was expected to end quickly due to the army’s stronger military. However, the RSF surprised the army by using urban warfare tactics to take control of key military bases and government buildings, including the presidential palace.
The government moved to Port Sudan, while Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan was trapped for over three months before escaping.
The RSF expanded its control over Darfur, western Sudan, and the central Gezira region, holding about 70% of the country. After nearly two years of fighting, the army regained some areas, but the RSF still controls large parts of Sudan and continues fierce fighting, with the war still ongoing.
The Worst Humanitarian Crisis
The war in Sudan has killed tens of thousands and triggered what the UN calls "the worst humanitarian crisis in history." More than 11 million people are displaced within Sudan, while around 3 million have fled to neighboring countries. Over half of Sudan’s population, about 25 million people, face severe food insecurity.
Negotiations have failed, with both sides refusing to return to talks after the Jeddah Humanitarian Declaration collapsed, largely due to the army’s and its supporters' refusal to engage.
Root Causes
Former Sovereign Council member and deputy head of the Democratic Civil Forces Coordination “Tagadum,” Al-Hadi Idris blames the war on Sudan’s failure to agree on a “national development plan” since independence.
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, he says the main reasons for the conflict are the failure to implement fair development, achieve justice, and the lack of resolution on key issues like the role of religion in politics, national identity, and military involvement in government.
Idris argues that addressing these issues is crucial to ending the war for good.
Mohamed Abdel-Hakim, a leader in the Unionist Gathering, believes the wars stem from unequal development and citizenship.
He says resolving issues like marginalization, protecting people’s rights, and replacing oppressive regimes with democratic governance is key to stopping Sudan’s long-running conflicts.
Abdel-Hakim also calls for reforming the military to create a professional, national army focused on protecting the constitution and civilian leadership, with strict oversight to prevent the army from becoming politicized.