Jenin Camp: A War on People, Not Just Gunmen

Israeli army drops leaflets over Jenin refugee camp (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Israeli army drops leaflets over Jenin refugee camp (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT
20

Jenin Camp: A War on People, Not Just Gunmen

Israeli army drops leaflets over Jenin refugee camp (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Israeli army drops leaflets over Jenin refugee camp (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Mahmoud Al-Rakh hesitated before setting foot in the Jenin refugee camp where he was born and raised—now reduced to rubble and a death trap by Israeli forces.

After much deliberation, he finally mustered the courage to enter, slipping in under the cover of a group of journalists who, after lengthy discussions, had also decided to venture inside. They all knew the risks: gunfire, injury, arrest, or even death.

The road leading from Jenin’s famous Cinema Roundabout to the camp’s entrance offered a grim preview of what lay ahead. Near the government hospital at the street’s end, heavily armed Israeli soldiers had turned the camp’s main entrance into a military outpost.

But local residents, camp youths, and journalists advised that there was another way in—through the back of the hospital. What they found inside was nothing short of shocking.

There was no one in Jenin. No authorities, no residents, no fighters. As the saying goes, you could hear a pin drop.

Only Israeli soldiers remained, standing amid the vast rubble—silent witnesses to a history of resilience, battles, lives, and untold stories. They lurked in wait, and it seemed their ultimate vision was to erase Palestinian presence and claim the place as their own.

In the distance, visitors can spot signs planted by Israeli soldiers, bearing Hebrew names like “Yair Axis”—a desperate attempt to impose new identities on the land.

Israel’s campaign was not merely a fight against armed militants. It was a war on the land, the people, history, the present, and even the Palestinian narrative.

Israel’s military assault on the Jenin refugee camp, launched on January 21, marked the beginning of an expanded campaign across the West Bank after officially designating it a war zone.

Dubbed operation “Iron Wall,” the assault signaled a shift in Israel’s approach, drawing clear parallels to its 2002 operation during the Second Intifada, when it swept through the entire West Bank.

The latest offensive began with drone strikes targeting infrastructure in Jenin, followed by a large-scale ground invasion involving special forces, Shin Bet operatives, and military police. Aerial bombardments continued throughout the operation.

Twenty-five days later, Israel had killed 26 Palestinians, wounded dozens, and forcibly displaced all 20,000 residents—every single one.

Asharq Al-Awsat asked journalist Ahmed Al-Shawish about what the Israelis are doing inside the camp now.

He replied that Israeli forces were setting up permanent military outposts in areas inaccessible to us—a confirmation of the defense minister’s earlier statement that they had no plans to withdraw.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally announced the operation, saying it had been approved by the security cabinet as “another step toward achieving our goal: strengthening security in the West Bank.”

He added: “We are systematically and decisively acting against Iran’s axis—whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or the West Bank.”

The decision to attack Jenin had already been made; the timing was the only question.

Israeli leaders waited for the Gaza ceasefire to take hold, then shifted focus to the West Bank three days later.

Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar had advised the security cabinet that broader measures were needed to reshape the situation and eliminate militant groups in the West Bank.

He warned against complacency, arguing that the recent drop in attacks was “misleading and deceptive” and did not reflect the true scale of what he called “the growing terrorist threat on the ground.”



Israel’s Messages Behind Strikes on Beirut’s Southern Suburb

Men stand at the scene of an Israeli strike on a building in Beirut's southern suburbs on April 1, 2025. (AFP)
Men stand at the scene of an Israeli strike on a building in Beirut's southern suburbs on April 1, 2025. (AFP)
TT
20

Israel’s Messages Behind Strikes on Beirut’s Southern Suburb

Men stand at the scene of an Israeli strike on a building in Beirut's southern suburbs on April 1, 2025. (AFP)
Men stand at the scene of an Israeli strike on a building in Beirut's southern suburbs on April 1, 2025. (AFP)

Israel’s latest airstrikes on Beirut’s southern suburb, known as Dahiyeh, have moved beyond mere retaliation for rocket fire, signaling a shift in the rules of engagement. By targeting the area twice in less than a week, Tel Aviv has effectively abandoned the informal understanding that had kept the suburb off-limits since the ceasefire took effect in November.

The escalation raises questions about how Lebanon’s government and Hezbollah will respond and whether this marks the beginning of a more intense phase of conflict.

Pressure to normalize ties

Observers close to Hezbollah believe Israel’s strikes are aimed to increase pressure on Lebanon to engage in normalization talks.

Brig. Gen. Mounir Shehadeh, former Lebanese government coordinator with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), suggested that the rockets fired into Israel last Friday—which prompted the initial Israeli response—ultimately served Israeli interests.

“It was evident that these were crude, suspicious rockets, giving Israel the pretext it needed to strike deep into Lebanese territory, specifically Dahiyeh,” Shehadeh told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He pointed to Tuesday’s assassination of a Hezbollah member in the Dahiyeh strike, describing it as a significant escalation. “Unlike last week, there was no pretext for this attack,” he said. “This confirms that Israel’s objective is to pressure Lebanon into normalization.”

Shehadeh argued that the US and Israel are working to push Lebanon into political negotiations involving diplomats and politicians rather than military representatives.

“There are also growing efforts to force Hezbollah into making internal concessions, particularly to disarm in areas north of the Litani River,” he added.

He stressed that Israel is sending a clear message: no location in Lebanon is off-limits, and it will continue to act whenever and wherever it sees fit.

A different perspective

Retired Brig. Gen. George Nader offered a different interpretation of the escalation. He believes Israel does not need excuses to carry out its attacks, but argues that Lebanon should avoid giving it any justification.

“We have failed to implement international resolutions, particularly Resolution 1701, and we continue to insist that Hezbollah’s disarmament requires national dialogue,” Nader told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He questioned the relevance of such discussions, given that Lebanon’s previous government had already signed an agreement calling for the disarmament of armed groups and the dismantling of their military infrastructure, starting south of the Litani River.

“As long as the situation remains unchanged, we should expect Israeli violations and attacks to intensify,” he warned. He also cited explicit US warnings that Lebanon could face cuts in military aid and even sanctions if it fails to implement the agreement.

“We are at a crossroads,” Nader said. “Either Hezbollah acknowledges the shifting regional and international dynamics, helps the state assert full sovereignty over Lebanese territory, and surrenders its weapons—or Israel will continue the aggressive approach we are seeing today.”