The Blogs: India, IMEC, Saudi, Houthi: An Israeli Article on Benghazi Entered Libyan Politics

On December 29, 2025, I published an article on The Times of Israel’s Blogs titled “A Corridor Bypassing Yemen, India–Europe via Somaliland, Ethiopia and Benghazi.”

The article explored a possible alternative trade route between India and Europe: bypassing the Houthi threat in Yemen and the difficulties of an overland route through Saudi Arabia by combining land and sea routes through the Horn of Africa and the Mediterranean. Within that framework, I also discussed the Libyan port city of Benghazi.

Recent regional developments have brought these questions back into focus: the fighting against the Houthis, closer security ties among Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, and the possibility of renewed negotiations to expand the Abraham Accords. All touch on the issues underlying the original article: the security of trade routes, regional alliances and the potential to connect India with Europe.

In an October 16 report by Itamar Eichner on Ynet, President Trump was quoted as saying that Israel had “helped a lot” in Saudi Arabia’s operations against the Houthis. Trump also suggested that the Abraham Accords could return to the negotiating table, “perhaps more than ever,” and confirmed, in response to a question, that Israel had offered Riyadh additional assistance.

These remarks give the discussion of alternative routes and regional cooperation renewed relevance. Against this backdrop, it is particularly interesting to see how a proposal I put forward last December acquired a political framing in Libya.

From Trade Route Analysis to Political Messaging

The Tripoli-based television channel Tanasuh TV published a report and posts on X referring to my article. Its coverage emphasized that the analysis had appeared on an Israeli website and placed the reference to Benghazi within a broader political context.

Here lies the difference between the article I wrote and the way it can be read in another setting. In my analysis, Benghazi was a geographical location with logistical potential. Within Libya’s internal rivalry, its very appearance in an Israeli analysis can take on political significance.

In my assessment, the reference offered an opportunity to associate the eastern Libyan camp, identified with Khalifa Haftar, with the idea of a regional strategic initiative involving Israel. In this way, an analyst’s proposal can become material used in a struggle between local rivals.

An important clarification is needed: the original article presented my own analysis. It was not based on information about an agreement with Libyan actors, nor did it establish that Haftar or any other Libyan figure was involved in the proposed initiative. Including Benghazi in a potential trade route was part of the proposal I put forward.

When an Article Enters Another Arena

This case illustrates how content acquires new meaning as it moves between languages, audiences and political settings.

The name of a port, selected for its location and infrastructure, can become the focus of the story. The author’s identity and the website hosting the article may carry more weight than the qualifications and assumptions underlying the analysis.

This gap becomes particularly significant when a proposal for discussion is presented in a way that could be understood as revealing an existing plan. Readers encounter the same idea, but in a different context and with a different meaning.

As a writer, I found it interesting to see the article reach an audience I had not necessarily intended to address. It was also a reminder of how little control we have over the interpretations a text receives after publication.

We can choose our words, explain our assumptions and distinguish facts from proposals. Once an article is out in the world, others decide which parts to highlight and how to use them.

In this case, Benghazi was the link connecting an analysis of trade routes with Libya’s internal politics.