Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
US President Joe Biden delivers remarks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington after Israel and Lebanon accepted a ceasefire deal on Nov. 26, 2024.
Israel agrees to Lebanon ceasefire, Biden confirms
The Israeli Security Cabinet has approved a ceasefire for Lebanon, President Joe Bidenannounced on Tuesday, welcoming the opportunity to start reestablishing peace in the Middle East. “Under the deal reached today, effective at 4 a.m. tomorrow local time, the fighting across the Lebanese-Israeli border will end,” Biden said.
While earlier reports suggested the US-brokered agreement would involve a 60-day transition period to pave the way toward a more lasting peace, Biden emphasized that the truce is meant to be permanent. “What is left of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations will not be allowed — I emphasize, will not be allowed — to threaten the security of Israel again,” he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had urged approval of the deal, and it was passed “with a majority of 10 ministers in favor and one opposed,” his office said just before Biden announced the news.
The Israeli leader said it was the right time for a ceasefire because it would isolate Hamas, give Israel’s military space to regroup and resupply, and allow the Jewish state to focus more on the threat from Iran.
In the hours leading up to Netanyahu’s announcement on Tuesday, Israel continued to pound Lebanon with airstrikes. But 13 months of fighting ended early Wednesday as the ceasefire took hold, and thousands of displaced Lebanese civilians have begun returning to their homes in the South.
The US pushed hard for the agreement and while the Biden administration is taking credit, the deal could provide a boost for Donald Trump as he enters the White House in January. Trump — who has a close relationship with Bibi — has promised to bring peace to the region, and his administration will soon be on deck with efforts for a more permanent peace between Israel and Hezbollah, and perhaps a resolution for Gaza and the remaining hostages.
In the meantime, we’ll be watching to see if the truce holds as the region remains on edge with the war in Gaza raging on amid rising tensions between Israel and Iran.
Why Ukraine invaded Russia
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. I wanted to talk a little bit about Russia/Ukraine before news in the United States and the Middle East take it off the headlines again.
The surprise, of course, is that the Ukrainians have invaded Russia. This was a substantial, you'd say more than an incursion, a significant amount of territory presently being held. The Russians have had to, as a consequence, announce a "counter-terrorism operation regime" in Kursk, in Bryansk, and Belgorod, not martial law, but still, that has reduced some of the forces that they can deploy in fighting the front lines in Southeast Ukraine. And it's also certainly embarrassed Putin, embarrassed his senior military leadership. This is supposed to be all about defeating the Ukrainians, and now the Russians have lots of citizens that are facing a war on Russian territory. Now, to be clear, the Ukrainians have no territorial claim on any part of Russia, but there is a feeling of turnabout is fair play.
What's going on here? I think there are a few things. First of all, the fact that the Ukrainians can put the Russians under some pressure domestically in a run-up to what everyone expects will eventually be negotiations helps to improve Ukraine's position. And no matter who you talk to, the Europeans, the Democrats in the US, the Republicans in the US, the feeling increasingly is that it is going to be harder for the Ukrainians to continue to fight and defend their territory the way they have for the last two and a half years. And so that means you need to have negotiations in the coming year. Part of that is because the Ukrainians aren't going to have the troops. Part of it is because it's getting harder to raise the money. And that's not just the United States, though there was a fight about that, and certainly it'll get harder next year, especially if Trump/Vance win, but also if Harris/Walz do, but also the Germans just cut back 50% of their expected support for the Ukrainian military in 2025, because they're under fiscal constraints, this is the largest European economy. So either way, there is a clear understanding from all sides that you want to move towards freezing the conflict at a minimum and negotiations and maybe a ceasefire and a longer-term settlement, more ambitiously. Much better from the Ukrainian perspective to do that if they have leverage over Russia too, and they have shown leverage. They can blow up the Black Sea fleet, which was important to Russia's national security, and they can put some areas of Russia, both in terms of missiles and alts and drones, but also in terms of Ukrainian troops at risk.
Now, can the Ukrainians hold Kursk from the Russians? Hard to imagine that. I expect that within the coming weeks they'll be forced out of that territory by the Russians. But clearly, they had the element of surprise. The Russians weren't ready to immediately defend or immediately counterattack against that incursion. So I suspect this is more about the broader negotiations between Russian Ukraine than the idea that there's going to be a territory swap. I don't think you'll get there. I also think there is a little bit of desperation. If you're the Ukrainians, remember, you're running out of troops. So sending more troops into Kursk makes you more vulnerable and weaker on the home front, especially when it's been harder and harder to mobilize those troops. And there's been political opposition to doing that. And I think that's because the Ukrainians understand that they need to make Russia feel insecure sooner rather than later, because it's going to be hard to keep this fighting up for another one, two years or more, irrespective of how the American election goes, but certainly, if it goes against the Ukrainians, that's going to be a problem for them. So this isn't all about that.
Also, we're learning more about Russian response. Let's keep in mind that we've heard from Russian leaders, including former President Medvedev and occasionally even Putin himself, that nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are on the table, and don't you dare, sort of, allow the Ukrainians to use weapons that could strike into Russia. Don't you dare hit Crimea. Don't you dare hit Russian territory. And every time those ostensible red lines have been broken, the Russian response has been dramatically more restrained than one might have expected from listening to Putin and the Kremlin at face value. That's useful because they've also said similar things about Ukraine in NATO and the West defending Ukraine. And if you're going to get to a negotiated settlement that is acceptable for the Ukrainians, which means that they're going to lose territory, they will be partitioned. They need to have the ability to defend their territory for the long-term in a credible way. And the best way to ensure that is get them into NATO. The best way to ensure that is to get them troops on the ground in territory that the Russians don't occupy.
Now, you can have an alliance, have security guarantees that don't include the entire territory. Japan, for example, has an alliance with the United States. It doesn't include the Northern territories, contested and presently occupied, some of them by Russia. So there's plenty of precedent here. But the point is that few in NATO believe today that Ukraine in NATO, especially the piece of Ukraine that isn't occupied by Russia in NATO, is an existential risk for World War III the way that many of them would've believed that when Russian retaliation and escalation was less known, was less experienced a year ago, certainly two years ago. So, that's interesting.
Final point I want to raise here is that whether Harris or Trump win the election in November, I think we are moving towards a similar outcome. In other words, both of these leaders would like to see an end to the fighting. Both of them would like to see a ceasefire. Both of them would like to see the west move on because they recognize the reality of the fighting on the ground, and in the case of Trump in particular, because he wants to say, "New wars started under Biden/Harris, I end them." The big difference between the two is that Trump is much more likely to make those decisions unilaterally. In other words, tell the Ukrainians and the Russians, "This is the deal, accept it or else," and not necessarily coordinate with NATO allies in advance. Where a Harris administration would be working closely in multilateral fashion with the Europeans and with the Ukrainians to try to get to a similar outcome. In other words, more risk acceptant towards that outcome on the Trump side, more risk averse and more coordinated with allies, harder to get done in some ways, under a Harris administration, but lower likelihood that it really blows up in your face. So how lucky do you feel is the open question, but not as dramatically different as the media would have led you to expect over the course of the past months talking about a potential Trump administration.
So that's a little bit from me on where we are, a very different position in some ways, in the Russia/Ukraine war today, and maybe even, I don't want to call it optimistic, but maybe seeing more of a pathway towards how this fighting can be frozen, if not ended. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour says give peace a chance
On the season premiere of the GZERO World Podcast, Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour joins Ian Bremmer to talk about how the war in Gaza might end and what would come next for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Nine months into the Israel-Hamas war, is peace a possibility? Around 40,000 Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis have died, according to the Israeli army and the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry (as always, exact numbers are impossible to verify given limited access to the Gaza strip). According to the UN, sixty percent of Gazan homes—and over eighty percent of commercial buildings and schools—have been destroyed or damaged. The UN also warns that over a million Gazans could face the highest levels of starvation by mid-July if the fighting doesn’t end.
Joining the podcast with the Palestinian perspective is Mansour, the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations. He’s a Palestinian-American himself (the son of an Ohio steelworker) and says that this moment in the Middle East is the most significant period of transformation in his decades of representing the Palestinian people on the global stage. "There is something in the air. People want justice for the Palestinians. People want this war and this conflict to end. People want the occupation to end because it's good for Israel and it's good for the Palestinians."
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Israel hostage rescue and the worsening human toll
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week.
Lots of things going on right now, but perhaps, the issue that's gotten most of the news around the Middle East conflict and the issue of the hostages being rescued. Four hostages, some eight months now, being held. Over 100 still that we know of by Hamas in Gaza.
But four of them were rescued by an Israeli Defense Forces operation over the weekend. Not released, as some including, in a chyron, an interview I was in over the weekend, were saying released. No, rescued. Hamas has not released anyone, and there is no agreement going forward, and unlikely in the near term, despite lots of efforts from everyone around the world to get an agreement.
Neither the Israelis or Hamas are coming to one. Now, news beyond that, is that in order to get those hostages out, there were between about 100 and 300 Palestinians killed. Depending on who you talk to, the numbers are completely unclear. How many of those people were civilians? How many of them were Hamas operatives? How many were women and children? That's still unclear. But obviously, the numbers were really, really high. And lots of things to say about this and you should say all of them. First is that Hamas is keeping these people in civilian homes and among a densely populated civilian area specifically to make it harder for Israelis to rescue them without having large numbers of Palestinian civilians killed.
That is indeed the strategy, and both the fact that Hamas continues to hold these hostages, civilian hostages illegally, and the fact that they are using Palestinian civilians as a part of their strategy is that these are war crimes; these are acts of terrorism. And they need to be held accountable for that.
At the same time, Israel has been way too indifferent to civilian casualties. And we've seen that broadly in terms of the war in Gaza, and we've seen it specifically in terms of the events of this weekend. And the fact that the Israeli prime minister celebrated, and understandably so, the rescue of the hostages but didn't mention, didn't even mention the minimum scores of Palestinians that were killed and quite plausibly far more than that, implies that that's not worth mentioning. On the Israeli side, those people don't matter. They don't count. Beyond saying that Hamas is responsible for all of their deaths, which is an extreme statement. The Israelis also bear accountability. But if you don't mention it, it's not even worth a mention is the point. And I think we've gotten to a point in the war of dehumanization where if you are supporting either the Palestinian side or the Israeli side, that the humanity of the people on the other side is no longer a thing for you.
And that is likely to persist for a generation, given the atrocities that we are seeing and have seen on October 7th and in the war since. Let's also focus on the asymmetry. These two actors, Hamas and Israel, do not play by the same rules, right? They also can’t play by the same rules.
I mean, in the sense that if Hamas played by Israel rules, they would have been destroyed by now. I mean, if they weren't trying to intentionally target Israeli civilians and if they weren't intentionally putting Palestinian civilians constantly at risk, there would be no more Hamas because the Israelis are overwhelmingly more powerful militarily, their offensive capabilities, their defensive capabilities, and of course, their intelligence capabilities, which forces a level of greater inhumanity and asymmetry in fighting strategy on Hamas than if they had greater military capabilities. Now, of course, on the other side, if Israel didn't have the incredible military capabilities that they had, they wouldn't have a state, they wouldn't be able to defend it against those that believe that they don't have a right to exist, as a state.
So, I mean, none of these things answer the question of what do we do? And none of these justify, in any way, the behaviors that we've been seeing on the ground from the Israeli Defense Forces in fighting this war from Hamas, in taking these hostages and holding them and putting their own civilians at risk. But it is, I think, incumbent on us as we see this continue to play out that what we're missing and what we need is humanity.
Right now, there are no angels that are fighting. There is only suffering, and there's only dehumanization. We also can't talk about all of this without having an effective deal on the table, and there isn't a deal on the table. And everyone is sort of responsible for that, right? The Israelis have refused a deal with all of the hostages in return for an eventual permanent cease-fire because the Israeli position is, “until we destroy Hamas, their leadership, their military capacity, there can be no end to the fighting.”
And indeed, Benny Gantz, leaving the Unity war cabinet and now leading the War Cabinet to look basically just like the Israeli government, which means Bibi, the PM, and the far right, which puts you farther from any plausible breakthrough agreement than you were even over the past weeks. Hamas has also refused a cease-fire agreement that is on the table.
They've had an agreement on the table for a six-week cease-fire in return for a significant number of hostages being released and also more Palestinians being detained by Israel being released. And then there would be further discussion and negotiations. Hamas has refused that deal. When you're reading about this in the media, you will see people talking about Israel refusing the deal.
You'll see people talk about Hamas refusing the deal. Very rarely will you see people talking about both Israel and Hamas refusing the deal, because they have both set red lines that are mutually incompatible. And that is by design because they don't want a breakthrough that leads the other to be intact and in any way fulfilled. Look in any negotiation, if both sides are dissatisfied, it's probably not effective negotiation. We are not at the point where both sides are prepared to accept that. We're not close.
In fact, I think what we've seen over the weekend, with the hostages rescued, with lots of Palestinians killed, and with Gantz leaving the war cabinet is, we are farther today from a diplomatic agreement, even with Secretary of State Tony Blinken yet again in the region, we're farther from an agreement than we were a week ago, a month ago, two months ago. And we're farther from containing the war, as the potential of this war expanding into the north with Hezbollah and also continuing, of course, on the ground in Rafah and more broadly in Gaza. I think that that is your baseline expectation for the coming weeks and months.
So not great news. And, you know, out of the Middle East these days, it really is. But that is where we are. I hope people find this worthwhile. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Israel rescues hostages, Gantz resigns ›
- Does Hamas have the Israeli hostages? ›
- Israel’s geopolitical missteps in Gaza ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Biden's second foreign policy crisis ›
- Ian Bremmer: Understanding the Israel-Hamas war ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Who is responsible for Gaza's enormous civilian death toll? ›
- ICC war crimes charge strengthens Netanyahu's position in Israel ›
Biden's Israel-Hamas cease-fire plan is trouble for Netanyahu
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take on the Middle East.
Latest on is there or is there not a deal that can get done between Hamas and the Israelis, at least creating a short-term cease-fire? The United States has been relentlessly pushing this, in part because Biden has lost a lot of support domestically as the wars continued.
And, of course, because around the world, pretty much every other country wants to see this war over. But easier said than done when you're talking with an Israeli government that overwhelmingly wants to destroy Hamas, whatever exactly that means before they end it. And Hamas, that intends to continue lobbing rockets at the Israelis and is continuing to hold a large number of hostages. A near-term agreement, for at least a temporary cease-fire and hostages being released, has been done once and could be done again.
That's been discussed continuously over the past several months. The details have been challenging in how many hostages would be released and how many are still alive or in a position that Hamas would be able to give them back to the Israelis. But there's a big question about what happens then, and Biden's announcement that there was an Israeli deal that was agreed to that would eventually lead to a permanent cease-fire is not exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has said. I mean, the same text has been agreed to, but the way it's being presented internationally and to domestic audiences is very, very different. The United States thinks that there's utility, therefore, in being ambiguous about the actual text and about what happens and how one gets to a permanent cease-fire, but that's not acceptable to the Israeli prime minister, who loses his support domestically and his far-right allies if he does that.
Also, he wants Hamas to say no, he wants them to be responsible for the Israelis continuing to fight. And he's become more popular with the Israeli population over the past weeks as he's taken that position. The issue is that, you know, you can have six weeks in response for lots of the hostages being released, but the Israeli position and this is broader than just the prime minister, is that they are not yet done taking out Hamas, that there are thousands of fighters that continue to exist on the ground. And until they destroy their ability to mobilize and attack, they're going to continue. The Biden position is that Hamas is no longer capable of organizing an October 7th-style attack, and that should be sufficient. That is absolutely not the Israeli position. And that's why we don't yet have a deal that Hamas is likely to accept for the long term.
So, you know, all of this is to say that over the coming weeks, there's lots of effort to try to get Hamas to come to yes, but will Hamas say yes? And are they credible if there is every intention of the Israelis to continue to destroy the organization they're negotiating with? And, look, it's hard to negotiate with terrorist organizations in the best of times. This is very far from the best of times. So I would still be reasonably willing to bet that the deal is not going to happen. And if it does, it is only short term; in other words, we are not at the precipice of maybe a sustainable cease-fire that would lead to governance in the region among the Palestinians.
Having said all of that, Bibi himself is under a lot more pressure. Benny Gantz, member of the War Cabinet, a three-man War Cabinet, is willing to leave, gives him an ultimatum to the Prime Minister if there isn't some plan for what to do with Palestinian governance after the war is over.
And Netanyahu has been kicking the can on this, just like he's been kicking the can on under what conditions the war in Rafah will be over. Meanwhile, the Israeli far right has said that the deal as it stands is unacceptable and they are out if the government accepts it. Now, the center opposition Lapid has said that he would support Netanyahu if he loses his government.
But is the Israeli prime minister willing to do that, willing to accept what's going to be a much weaker governance position for him and his country going forward? Probably not. Also, he sees that his support is more likely to come from a Trump presidency, even though Trump doesn't like the Israeli prime minister personally, than it would from Biden. You got $100 million just been given from Miriam Adelson, who was Sheldon's widow, to Trump PAC, and all of that is in support of a far right-wing Israeli political stance. So he certainly understands that giving something to Biden right now is not in his interests. And meanwhile, he has been invited to come and give a speech to a joint session of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, all four running the House and Senate, extended that invitation.
Biden really didn't want that to happen. But since he's no way politically to be able to oppose it in his election process right now. And so more cards are presently being held by the Israeli prime minister than by the American president. That is the reality. And it's one of the reasons why a deal is at this point, in my view, unlikely.
Anyway, complicated stuff. Super challenging in the Middle East, super challenging for the American elections. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
People attend a protest against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and to call for the release of hostages kidnapped in the deadly October 7 attack on Israel by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, June 1, 2024.
Biden’s deal is Netanyahu’s dilemma
Israel is reportedly expected to accept US President Joe Biden’s proposal for a cease-fire with Hamas. The three-phase plan includes a six-week stop to combat, hostage releases in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, and, in an eventual third chapter, a permanent cessation of hostilities and reconstruction. Ophir Falk, chief foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said of the deal that “it’s not a good deal, but we dearly want the hostages released, all of them.”
What’s behind Israel’s about-face? Netanyahu is not only facing increasing pressure from the families of the hostages and the Israeli public but also from the United States. White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said on Sunday that if Hamas accepts the deal to end the Gaza war, the US expects Israel to accept it as well.
Whether Bibi will keep power long enough to see the deal through is another matter. Far-right coalition members including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir arethreatening to bring down his government, withBen-Gvir describing the deal as “reckless” and a “security danger to Israel.” Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party is currently propping up Netanyahu’s coalition; without its support, the government would fall and elections would have to be called.
In response, Defense MinisterYoav Gallant said officials are working on a “governing alternative to Hamas” in Gaza by “bringing in other forces that will enable the formation of a governing alternative [to Hamas].”
Hamas’ response, meanwhile, has been cautiously positive, with a spokesperson saying the group is ready to engage in exchange for a permanent cease-fire and the assurance of continuous humanitarian aid.
Big Picture. For Biden, the deal is about ending current hostilities, but it’s also about establishing a wider basis for peace in the Middle East. The US wants Israel to be part of a regional security network “to counter the threat posed by Iran” and is working to revive the normalization agreement Biden was trying to broker between Israel and Saudi Arabia before the war broke out.
But unless the deal can be inked and enforced, that prospect remains remote. Meanwhile, Israel’s War Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz and opposition leader Yair Lapid are urging Israeli leaders to discuss “next steps” as soon as possible. Stay tuned.Smoke billows after an explosion in northern Gaza, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, as seen from Israel, May 12, 2024.
Israel increasingly isolated on world stage amid Gaza offensive
Israel marked a somber Memorial Day on Sunday, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declaring that the nation is prepared to "stand alone" if necessary. The Jewish state has become increasingly isolated as it faces pushback from adversaries and allies alike.
Meanwhile, 300,000 Gazans fled Rafah on Sunday in anticipation of ground operations. Battles resumed in the Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun and in nearby Jabaliya, Hamas said that its fighters were engaged in “fierce clashes” with Israeli soldiers in the area.
Last Friday, the UN General Assembly voted 143-9 in favor of recognizing Palestine's eligibility for full UN membership, with 25 abstentions. The US voted against the resolution.Palestine now gains additional rights, including the right to propose agenda items, reply in debates, and be elected as officers in UN committees. The resolution also recommends that the Security Council reconsider Palestine's full membership favorably, but the US will likely veto any attempt.
At the same time, Washington expressed serious concerns last week about Israel's use of US-supplied weapons in Gaza. US President Joe Bidenthreatened to withhold weapons sales. And on the legal front, Egypt joined South Africa’s lawsuit at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide and human rights violations.
We’re now watching for how Biden handles growing bipartisan discontent in Congress over his threat to withhold weapons.Displaced Palestinians, who fled Rafah after the Israeli military began evacuating civilians from the eastern parts of the southern Gazan city, ahead of a threatened assault, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, travel on a vehicle, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip May 6, 2024.
Hamas accepts cease-fire proposal, but Israel still strikes Rafah
On Tuesday, the Israeli military reported its tanks had rolled into Rafah and established control over the Gaza side of the border crossing with Egypt. The incursion was more restrained than the long-threatened ground invasion was expected to be, likely because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing pressure to agree to a cease-fire with Hamas, which is backed by the United States and Arab nations.
On Monday, Hamas unexpectedly accepted a Qatari-Egyptian cease-fire proposal for Gaza, which Israel says it is examining. The deal would secure the release of hostages still being held in Gaza. But rather than stalling the invasion, the Israeli war cabinet “unanimously decided” to continue with plans for the invasion and launched strikes in eastern Rafah late Monday.
The diplomatic breakthrough – which followed mass weekend protests demanding the Israeli government bring home the remaining hostages held in Gaza – was meant to put pressure on Netanyahu. The United States and other key allies had also been pressuring Israel to refrain from attacking Rafah.
“Netanyahu is trying to have it both ways — continue talks in Egypt by sending a team while proceeding with attacks into Rafah,” says Eurasia Group analyst Greg Brew. ”The door hasn't closed on a deal yet.”
Israel’s war cabinet said it would continue to work on a deal, sending delegates to Cairo on Tuesday to negotiate aspects it still finds objectionable (the deal’s full details are not publicly known).
We’re watching for Hamas’ reaction to the Rafah attacks and how it affects any longer-term cease-fire prospects.