Bennett must usher paradigm shift in foreign policy of Israel

Naftali Bennett government has been endowed a unique opportunity to bring positive changes in the foreign policy of Israel. A perception is being created that this government will be ineffective due to the ideological differences among its member parties. 

It is also believed that Israel’s foreign policy was distorted under Benjamin Netanyahu regime and his departure from office will create positive diplomatic momentum. This offers fertile ground for action on which the government could agree despite its diversity.

Despite Netanyahu achievements, Abraham Accords on top, his acts created deep antagonism, especially on the part of leaders of liberal democracies. He was regarded as challenging the fundamental principles of governance and democracy, supporting racist parties in Israel and abroad, and undermining prospects of a two-state solution.

Netanyahu’s credibility was questioned in Washington, Paris, Amman and perhaps in other capitals. His aggressive approach prompted loud clashes with critics of Israel, even with those inherently enjoying friendly relations. It also became evident that during the recent political crisis Netanyahu’s actions were driven, first and foremost, by his desire to remain in power.

This criticism was generally voiced behind the closed doors, but it surfaced occasionally and created much-publicized crises. Netanyahu’s oust enable the new government to improve diplomatic relations with the many countries, particularly the Muslim world.

However, the foreign policy potential of the new coalition does not stem only from Netanyahu’s absence. Yair Lapid serving as foreign minister has long been preparing himself for the job. He has entered the office with experience, contacts and plans to revamp Israeli diplomacy.

Most notably, he clearly has a strong desire to strengthen the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and its public standing. The approval of appointment of 35 ambassadors could be the biggest achievements, which Netanyahu has been holding up for over six months.

The participation of the Labor and Meretz parties in the new government will also contribute to restoring diplomacy to its rightful place in Israeli decision-making. Members of Knesset from both parties have challenged Netanyahu’s foreign policy approach repeatedly and sought to advance new paradigms and guiding principles shaping a pro-peace, multi-regional, internationalist, modern and inclusive Israeli foreign policy.

Labor and Meretz will be in charge of the Ministry of Regional Cooperation and the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs in the new government, both with distinct diplomacy components, as well as the Ministries of Health and Environmental Protection, both of which deal with issues high on the global diplomatic agenda to which Israel has much to contribute.

Their voices are also expected to be heard and exert influence regarding the Palestinian issue. In addition, the election of Israel’s new President Isaac Herzog – a pro-peace, liberal democratic leader with extensive diplomatic experience and who enjoys international respect – will bolster the assets of the new Israeli leadership and its capabilities in the international arena.

There are reasons to believe that the coalition parties can reach agreement on a series of urgent foreign policy goals that include: 1) rebuilding trust with the Jordanian monarch and restoring Israel’s strategically important ties with the kingdom; 2) deepening ties with the US Democratic Party to restore bipartisan support for Israel; 3) leveraging the normalization agreements with Arab states to forge bilateral and regional cooperation; 4) improving relations with European Union and renewing the high-level dialogue (Association Council) which has not convened since 2012; 5) leveraging opportunities in the Eastern Mediterranean, including restoring relations with Turkey and advancing maritime border negotiations with Lebanon and 6) strengthening the moderate Palestinian leadership, along with restoring Israeli-Palestinian dialogue channels to advance mutual interests.

Although, the new government is not likely to achieve a final-status peace agreement with the Palestinians, which should be a top foreign policy and national security for Israel, it could be instrumental in mending and healing Israeli foreign policy and leaving a significant diplomatic legacy that will better position Israel in the region and internationally.

Arabs will take time to understand Naftali Bennett

After more than a decade under Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has a new prime minister, Naftali Bennett. Netanyahu’s years in power have been extremely significant for country’s relations with the Arab world. Most notably, with the aid of former US president Donald Trump, Netanyahu signed normalization agreements with four Arab and African countries.

Bennett, head of the right-wing Yamina Party, has been a part of Israel’s political system for 15 years, but his regional and international presence has been relatively minor. Now, the Arab world, which has complicated relations with Israel, is crafting its image of Israel’s new premier.

The Qatari-based media giant Al Jazeera published an article about Bennett shortly after he was sworn in, calling him “Netanyahu’s student.” The article took note of that fact that Bennett is the first prime minister to come from what Al Jazeera called “the hard-line religious right,” and said that he is “one of the strongest opponents to the founding of a Palestinian state.

The Saudi-financed Al-Arabiya news website notably does not mention Bennett’s position on the Palestinian-Israel conflict. In an article that can almost be called flattering, Al-Arabiya tells of the new premier’s success in business, his background in Israel’s elite military forces and his various political exploits in recent years.

Oraib Al Rantawi, Founder and Director General of the Al-Quds Center for Political Studies in Amman, told The Media Line, in light of the recent political upheaval, “First of all I think there is a deep feeling of relief, among most of the Arab countries – especially in Palestine and Jordan – at seeing Netanyahu depart.”

In terms of how Bennett is viewed in the Arab world, Rantawi said, what matters is his approach to the Palestinian-Israel conflict. He’s in the far-right camp.” Bennett, he adds, is seen as opposing the two-state solution and a Palestinian state, as well as supporting Jewish settlements in the West Bank. This, and statements perceived as hawkish in the past, have built his image as a hard-line leader in Arab eyes, which Rantawi calls a cause for pessimism.

At the same time Bennett is seen as a weak leader, lacking the international status and personal charisma to rival Netanyahu, Rantawi says. 

“He has no charismatic personality, no connection with the international scene – this will make it easier to counter the Israeli narrative, especially in the US decision-making institutions. We don’t think that Bennett can fill the vacuum of Netanyahu or succeed in establishing strong influence in many international capitals. Not only in Washington and European countries, but also with Russia,” he said.

 “Some countries... are not happy to see Netanyahu depart the scene, especially the Emiratis, and the Saudis to a certain extent,” he also said. “For them, Netanyahu, together with Donald Trump, was a strong ally” regionally and, most notably, against a mutual enemy, Iran. Others such as the Jordanians and the Palestinians often termed ‘The Resistance Axis’ – Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, are happy.”

Many Arab voices in the media are saying that Bennett and his partners will be a continuation of the same policies because Netanyahu’s legacies will outlast his presence as prime minister.

The new government notably includes an Arab Israeli minister from the left-wing Meretz Party and an Arab-Israeli party, the Islamist Ra’am (United Arab List) Party, headed by Mansour Abbas. While this may be seen as something that would help ease relations between the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors, Rantawi believes it will have little to no influence.

Oman urges Israel to create Palestinian State

Omani Foreign Minister told his Israeli counterpart he hopes Israel's new government will take concrete steps towards creating an independent Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, reported Omani state media said on Thursday.

Oman's Badr al-Busaidi spoke by phone to Israel's Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, according to ONA, the state news agency of Oman, which has a longstanding policy of neutrality in the turbulent region and often acts as a mediator.

In February this year, Busaidi said Oman was satisfied with its current relationship with Israel, even after fellow Gulf States the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain normalized ties with Israel last year under US-brokered accords.

Lapid will travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) next week in the first official visit by an Israeli minister to the Gulf state since they established diplomatic relations. He will inaugurate the Israeli Embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Consulate General of Israel in Dubai.

Israel and Oman enjoy bilateral relations. In line with the Arab League position in relation to Israel, Oman does not officially recognize the state of Israel and took part in the boycott of Israel during much of the 20th century.

It may be recalled that in 1994, the two countries established unofficial trade relations, which were discontinued in 2000. In 1994, then-Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin visited Oman, where he was greeted by Sultan of Oman; Qaboos bin Said al Said in Muscat.

Among other things, the two sides discussed issues such as sharing water and how to improve water supplies.

In 1995, a few days after Rabin was assassinated, then-acting Prime Minister Shimon Peres hosted Omani foreign minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah in Jerusalem.

In January 1996, Israel and Oman signed an agreement on the reciprocal opening of trade representative offices.

In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu led a delegation to Oman and met with Sultan Qaboos and other senior Omani officials.

In February 2019, Omani foreign minister, Yusuf bin Alawi, said that Oman will not normalize its relations with Israel until a sovereign Palestinian state has been established.

Maldives turning foe for India and Israel

Maldives, a small country with a population of around half a million people with Muslim majority, faces likely retaliation from India for supporting Palestinians. In this endeavor,  support of Israel can't be ruled out. While the probability of an assault is low, both the countries can follow the typical 'regime change' mantra of United States.

Maldives have suspended all relations with Israel – including imposing a ban on all Israeli products ‑ because of the atrocities committed against the people of Palestine. Lately, President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih said via Twitter that the people of Maldives stand in solidarity with Palestine.

If one can recall, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih won the most votes and was sworn in as the Maldives new president in November 2018. There was also a change in foreign relations. His predecessor Abdulla Yameen was politically very close to China with some ‘anti-India’ attitude, but President Solih reaffirmed the previous ‘India-First Policy’ and Maldives and India strengthened their close relationship.

The spokesperson to the President, Mohamed Mabrook Azeez, added that the stance of Maldives was clear. “We stand against injustice and in solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle to secure their inalienable right to statehood,” Mabrook said.

He further said all relations between Maldives and Israel were now suspended, including the import of Israeli products. Import of most Israeli products was banned by Maldives since 2014. Only special medical products could be imported, and that require a special permit.

During the recent conflict in Palestine the Maldivian public showed their support for the Palestinian cause by using the colours of the Palestinian flag all over the island nation.

The public outcry to ban Israeli tourists from Maldives has also increased. An emergency motion was submitted to the Parliament by opposition party Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) member, Ahmed Shiyam, calling to ban Israeli tourists.

It is worth mentioning that The Maldives established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1965, as it was the third state to recognize Maldives. But Maldives suspended the ties in 1974.

In 2009, under President Mohamed Nasheed, Maldives signed cooperation agreements with Israel on tourism, health, education, and culture. In 2010, the Israeli government sent a team of eye doctors to treat patients and train local medical personnel in Maldives.

In May 2011, the Maldives’s then-foreign minister, Ahmed Naseem, became the first top official from the Maldives to visit Israel. However, the renewed relationship did not develop into full diplomatic relations.

But in July 2018, under President Abdulla Yameen, Maldives terminated the cooperation agreements with Israel.

In 2020, after UAE and Bahrain recognized Israel and it was reported the government had discussed establishing ties with Israel, but the Maldivian foreign minister denied having initiated discussions regarding establishing ties with Israel.

India ditches Palestinians, as usual

Israel’s recent airstrikes in Gaza and its targeting of Palestinians elsewhere in the occupied territories has attracted strong reactions from across the world. While millions of conscientious people of all faiths and nationalities condemned this butchery, many of Tel Aviv’s supporters and friends termed Israel’s brutalities self-defence. 

One of the surprises was that some states that had formerly supported the Palestinian cause were conspicuous by their silence, apparently to please Israel.

India was among this group at the recent vote at the UN Human Rights Council calling for a probe into Israel’s recent atrocities, it chose to abstain. This led the Palestinian foreign minister to observe in a letter to New Delhi that the abstention stifles the important work of the Human Rights Council at advancing human rights for all people.

Indian stance towards the Palestinian cause didn’t surprise many. Under the Hindutva banner India is a firm ally of Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu boasting of the deep friendship between New Delhi and Tel Aviv.

For years, India has diplomatic relations and has been trading with Israel. Thousands of Israeli tourists flock to India every year. Israel is the third largest weapons supplier to India after the United States and Russia.

This may be termed a natural pairing as both the states have applied similar brutal methods in occupied Palestine and held Kashmir. Today, India-Israel relations are clearly a marriage of convenience, with both states sharing notes on how to brutalize the Palestinians and Kashmiris.

While people of conscience across the world will continue to raise a voice for the Palestinians, the plight of the Kashmiris will also not be forgotten. State-sponsored brutality cannot snuff out the desire of the people of Palestine and Kashmir for freedom and dignity.

One can still recall that on his recent visit to India, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said in a TV interview that the relationship between the two countries was “a marriage made in heaven”.

According to ex-Senate Chairman, Raza Rabbani, “It is more of a union conceived in hell”. He warned the Muslim world that the emerging nexus between the United State, Israel and India was a major threat to Muslim Ummah”.

Let all congratulate Isaac Herzog, President-elect Israel

It is time to congratulate Isaac Herzog on his election as 11th President of Israel.

As the world is now talking about ‘Two States’ his biggest responsibility will be to give Palestinians their legitimate share by accepting Palestine as a state. 

He will have to stop annexation and construction of settlements on occupied land and relinquish control of Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem.

A veteran politician, Herzog is a former head of the Labor Party, a former opposition leader, a former labor, social affairs and social services minister and Diaspora minister and is the son of Chaim Herzog, who served as Israel’s president from 1983 to 1993. Therefore, is perfectly aware of the issues and also the possible solutions

His openness deserves admiration, he said, “I call my opponent, Israel Prize-winning educator Miriam Peretz, a hero and an inspiration.”

US President Joe Biden words must be kept in mind, “Throughout his career, President-elect Herzog has demonstrated his unwavering commitment to strengthening Israel’s security, advancing dialogue and building bridges across the global Jewish community”.

Now, he has to build bridges to improve relationship with Palestinians, if he believes in ‘mutual coexistence’.

If he is serious in bringing peace and prosperity for Israelis, he will also have to eradicate hostilities against Palestinians.

Above all, he has to convert Gaza, world’s largest open air prison, into a peaceful neighborhood.

Two States Concept: Solution or Prolongation of Miseries

After recent 11-days deadly encounter between Israel and Hamas many international organizations, humanitarian institutions and observers are expressing concerns about the settlement based on two-state solution: Palestine and Israel. 

There is growing consensus that the proposed solution does not offer a viable settlement to the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel is facing global condemnation because it did not take into account the repercussions of storming Al-Aqsa, arresting worshipers, putting them into prison, and humiliating them in front of the eyes and ears of the world. Most radios and televisions across the world covered the event. Israelis were also under the impression that the Palestinian cause has lost color with the passage of time and some Arab countries normalizing their ties with Israel.  

In the recent crisis in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, where the Palestinians have been facing discrimination since 1972, an Israeli plot to displace them and build settlements on the ruins of their homes under the claim that the land on which their homes were built by the Jordanian government was rented. These are intended to legalize their existence and occupation.

The international community, including the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council, as well as the United States of America, European countries, and official and unofficial bodies are talking a lot about the two-state solution to resolve the crisis between Israel and Palestine.

Concerted efforts have been made in putting an end to such a situation, including nearly three decades of diplomacy; the Oslo Accords, the Camp David summit, the Clinton Parameters, the Taba summit, the Arab Peace Initiative, the road map for the Middle East, and Abbas and Olmert's talks in the context of the Annapolis process, and John Kerry's efforts to achieve peace and other relentless attempts.

The Zionist regime considers the formation of any future Palestinian government is synonymous with facing a huge human force that is not stopped by the F-35 fighters or cruise missiles and is not prevented by tanks.

Some Israelis who believe in building a state based on their military power designate the Palestinians as terrorists groups willing to cut settlers into pieces while others, who are more realistic, believe that the Palestinians are a people who do not compromise their cause and do not accept trading their homeland despite the fact that the world has abandoned them. They were fighting with stones, but with the establishment of the state, they would target Israel with missiles, fighters, and all that they would possess.

Accepting a Palestinian state means living alongside the Palestinians in their vicinity, and not to continue bombing, killing, displacing, or desecrating the sanctities of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the rest of the holy sites for Muslims and Christians until hearing the last Palestinian breath out.

Many analysts don’t expect that Israel will accept the idea of a two-state solution, which means the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside itself. It should be noted that the West Bank, including Jerusalem, for the Jews, is the core and essence of the biblical land.

Another obstacle facing the two-state solution is settlement operations; the presence of settlers, and the absolute control of Israel over more than half of the West Bank, according to the Oslo agreement, makes it difficult for the establishment of a Palestinian state with real sovereignty, due to lack of independence, security and economic components as it is surrounded by Israel from four sides. In addition Israel is not likely to abandon Jerusalem due to political, religious, economic and tourism considerations.

One of the other main obstacles to achieve the two-state solution is the idea of returning of Palestinian refugees to their homeland from which they were forcibly evicted. 

The right of return is the essence of the Palestinian cause. Their leadership constantly reiterates the right of return, they are fully aware that this will not be achieved in light of the circumstances that Palestine is experiencing at regional and international levels.

 What is the benefit of the two-state solution if half of the Palestinian people remain homeless and scattered? It seems impossible that Israel to accept this level of embarrassment; and even though it is now not in a position to be forced to make all these concessions, knowing that this step can put existence at stake.

Love and hate relation between Netanyahu and Hamas

The recent 11-day encounter between Israel and Hamas clearly demonstrates that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu hates Hamas the most. Netanyahu’s retaliation against Hamas was based on one fact ‘people of Gaza refuses to become subservient to Israel’s dictate, while people living areas under the control of Palestinian Authority and West bank don’t behave in the similar manner’.

This point gets credibility because elections in PA administered area were postponed on the fears that Hamas has also developed its strong clout there. It may also be said that Israel wanted to destroy Hamas infrastructure, which could only be done by dragging it into an encounter, paving way for the most precise air attacks, including blowing up of tunnels and the tower housing Hamas intelligence office.

The media outlets towing Israeli policy are saying: 1) Hamas has suffered a devastating blow. Its military assets, administration infrastructure and underground system of tunnels have been destroyed, 2) already difficult humanitarian conditions of two million Palestinians living in Gaza has become even worse, 3) the citizens are incapable of paying the high price of Hamas’s aggressive ideology and 4) a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on two-state solution is not yet achievable.

Hamas is also being portrayed as ‘bad boy’ adamant at keeping its control over Gaza and pursuing the role of leading the Palestinian national movement and of taking over the PLO.

It may sound a bit shocking, but it is reality that Israelis are sick and tired of Netanyahu’s policy of maintaining Hamas’s control in Gaza. The money, supplied to Hamas by Qatar with the support of Netanyahu, enabled the huge military build-up that Israel is now trying to destroy.

It is not only Israelis, several Arab countries, who don’t like Hamas want to see the end of its regime in Gaza.

With the support of the international community and under the auspices of the Arab League, it is being proposed to establish a civilian, non-partisan Palestinian administration in Gaza. The new order in the Gaza will be enshrined in a new UN Security Council resolution and resolution from the Arab League.

If such a non-partisan administration is established, Qatar will no longer be dominantly involved in Gaza. Other Gulf countries will replace it. The external security of the Gaza could be under the responsibility of Egypt. Domestic security would be under a new police agency, reporting to the civil administration, not to Hamas.

Israel expresses its readiness to assist in the activities of the new Gaza administration, including those involving trade, labor, energy and activity

This alternative path will promise to offer people living in Gaza a safer and better future. The citizens of Israel living in the South would gain the calm and security they deserve after thousands of rockets hitting them for more than two decades.

Whatever the next step is to improve the Gaza situation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be resolved. The International quartet, together with the Arab quartet will encourage the parties to resume negotiations for a permanent status agreement based on two states, which may not be achieved in near future.

What after ceasefire?

Israel and Hamas finally agreed to a ceasefire on Thursday, ending a bruising 11-day war that caused widespread destruction in the Gaza Strip and brought life in much of Israel to a standstill. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the Egyptian proposal and Hamas was quick to follow the suit.

In a statement, Netanyahu’s office said the security cabinet unanimously approved the proposal after recommendations from the military chief of staff and other top defence officials. The statement boasted of significant achievements in the operation, some of which are unprecedented.

The agreement would close the heaviest round of fighting between the bitter enemies since a 50-day war in 2014, and once again there was no clear winner. Israel inflicted heavy damage on Hamas but was unable to prevent the rocket fire that has disrupted life for millions of Israelis for more than a decade.

The fighting began on May 10, when Hamas fighters in Gaza fired long-range rockets toward Jerusalem after days of clashes between Palestinian protesters and Israeli police at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound.

Israel launched hundreds of airstrikes targeting what it said was Hamas’ military infrastructure. Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets at Israeli cities, with hundreds falling short and most of the rest intercepted.

The OIC statement came after a virtual meeting in which Saudi Arabia condemned the violation of the sanctity of Muslim holy sites and evictions of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud urged the global community to end the escalation in violence and revive peace negotiations based on a two-state solution.

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates called for a ceasefire. "De-escalation and the highest degree of restraint are important to avoid dragging the region to new levels of instability," said UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem al-Hashimy.

“The massacre of Palestinian children follows the purported normalization,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said. “This criminal and genocidal regime has once again proven that friendly gestures only aggravate its atrocities.” Zarif accused Israel of “genocide and crimes against humanity”.

"Each time Israel hears a foreign leader speak of its right to defend itself it is further emboldened to continue murdering entire families in their sleep," Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki told the Security Council.

The OIC video conference meeting attracted criticism on countries like Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates, which reached normalization deals last year to recognize Israel. Supporters of the Palestinians criticized the countries for recognizing Israel before the formation of an independent Palestinian state.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu joined Zarif in criticizing the normalization. Cavusoglu called for an international protection mechanism for Palestinian civilians and told the OIC that Israel should be held accountable for war crimes and that the International Criminal Court should play a role.

The United States told the United Nations Security Council that it has made clear to Israel, the Palestinians and others that it is ready to offer support should the parties seek a ceasefire to end the worsening violence by Israel in Gaza.

"The United States has been working tirelessly through diplomatic channels to try to bring an end to this conflict," US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the 15-member council. "Because we believe Israelis and Palestinians equally have a right to live in safety and security."

"We call upon the US to shoulder its responsibilities, take a just position, and together with most of the international community support the Security Council in easing the situation," said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who chaired Sunday's meeting because China is president for May.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the United Nations is "actively engaging all sides toward an immediate ceasefire" and called on them "to allow mediation efforts to intensify and succeed".

Way Forward

These quotes clearly indicate that the root cause of the problem is known to all and they are also aware of the solution. Following two states theory can help in establishing sustainable peace in the region. There is a need to convert ‘Gaza the world’s largest open air prison’ into home for Palestinians. United States and other world powers should support Palestine Authority (PA) to initiate economic activities. On top of all Israel must immediately stop eviction of Palestinians from Jerusalem and construction of settlements on occupied land.

Creations of two states only solution for establishing sustainable peace in Middle East

This morning I saw a picture on Facebook, which offers the solution for sustainable peace in the Middle East. May be, many of the readers of this blog don’t agree with me, but there is no harm in exploring this option with cool head.

Please allow me to say any idea of uprooting Jews from Israel is only a diabolic thinking and unworkable option. It can bring unrest, killing of innocent people, destruction of infrastructure and properties, but certainly cannot establish peace in the region.

The new effort has to start with accepting the reality of two states, Israel and Palestine. To begin with Israel will have to stop occupying more and more area owned by Palestinians and abstain from constructing settlement.

This prompts me to refer to one of my blogs, written as back as in December 2012 titled, “Israel must be brought back to its original size”. Its opening paragraph said, “The latest announcement of Israel to build 3,000 new settlement homes on occupied land is a slap on the face of international community that has just recognized Palestine State, accepting the philosophy of two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine. The latest announcement once again proves that Israel is a usurper and also responsible for any retaliation by Palestinians.”

It also said, “If the international community, particularly United States wants Palestinians to behave diligently, it must ask Israel to stop construction of settlements on occupied land and also bring Israel back to its original boundaries demarcated at the time of creation of a state for the Jews.

Israel's decision embarrasses the United States, which was among just nine countries in the 193-member General Assembly to vote against accepting Palestine as a non-member observer state. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland criticized the Israeli announcement. "These actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution," she said.

The United States smashed all its previous efforts, when Donald Trump declared Jerusalem as Capital of Israel and also shifted the US Embassy there. This US decision changed mindset of the ruling Junta of Israel and encouraged it to evict Palestinians from Jerusalem.

Since the United States paved way for Israel to continue annexation and construction of settlements on occupied territories, it will have to stop Israel from bombing Gaza, announce immediate truce, and sit down on negotiation table to work out details of modus operandi for establishing working relations with state of Palestine.  

Softening Israeli stance or buying time for deadlier attacks

With mounting tension in Jerusalem, postponing the Sheikh Jarrah evictions, temporarily barring Jews from the Temple Mount and diverting the traditional Jerusalem Day march away from both Damascus Gate and the Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem’s Old City have been termed ‘smart acts’ of Israel.

Rockets were still fired on Jerusalem, and then they pounded the South. Riots broke out in the mixed Jewish-Arab cities of Haifa, Ramle and Lod, as well as in Arab cities in the Galilee. Arabs blocked roads in the South, and passing motorists were threatened and pelted with rocks. Playing things smart is making a difference in shaping the narrative and getting legitimacy for action. Israel has struck Gaza harder after Hamas fires rockets on Jerusalem.

It is too early to tell whether this round of fighting in Gaza will be short – two or three days – or a longer more intense military campaign. Hamas, by firing rockets onto Jerusalem, is trying to create a new equation, to set new “ground rules,” whereby whenever there is trouble in Jerusalem, they will get involved: If there is fire in Jerusalem, there will be fire in Gaza, or fire from Gaza onto Jerusalem.

Israel must disabuse Hamas of this notion and convince its leaders that this is not a new line of action worth pursuing; that it is simply not worth their while.

And the only way to do that is to hit Hamas very hard – not cosmetic targets, but strikes that will convince them that they have too much to lose. Otherwise, Hamas will present itself as the guardian of al-Aqsa and fire rockets toward Jerusalem each time there is trouble in the capital – and there often is trouble in the capital.

Another is that someone quickly needs to step up among the Arab-Israeli leaders and condemn the random violence and rioting among Arab-Israelis over the last two days and work to tamp it down, or relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews could be set back two decades to where it was at the outset of the Second Intifada.

It is frustrating that the rioting and violence would kill all the efforts to normalize ties between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Fighting corona pandemic had created a sense of “we are all in this together.”

Mansour Abbas appeared on the scene, gave speeches in Hebrew about coexistence without the usual rhetoric about the evils of Israel and Israeli society, and for the first time ever, an Arab party was seen by much of the public as a legitimate government partner.

Even the Likud of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and parties to his right – Yamina and New Hope – were willing to cooperate with Ra’am. Only the Religious Zionist Party, a party dismissed by many as an extremist, racist party, was opposed – and many saw their opposition as anachronistic.

The recent rioting of Arab-Israelis will likely set all of that back. It will be increasingly difficult for part of the public to see Ra’am, let alone the Joint List – a less conciliatory Arab party – as legitimate coalition partners, especially since they have not come out strongly against the violence and demonstrated that they were trying to stop it.

When Jewish extremists act outrageously, they are widely condemned by the government and the country’s leaders. There is growing realization that an entire community cannot and should not be judged by the actions of a radical and violent minority. But it can be judged by how it responds to those elements within it.

What is holding back OIC from asking Israel to stop its atrocities?

Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan has condemned Israeli attack on Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque during the holy month of Ramazan and reiterated his call on the international community and the Muslim world to take steps to protect the Palestinians and their legitimate rights.

One of my critics asked this question; even if they convene a meeting and pass a resolution condemning Israeli acts, will it make any difference? I insisted that holding an emergency meeting may prove that Muslim countries are united and support the Palestinians cause.

Having said that I could not resist from saying, “They may show lukewarm response and send low ranking official to attend the meeting, but wording of the resolution will be non-consequential.”

In support of my rational I have the following arguments:

It is no secret that for more than seven decades residents of, Palestine and Kashmir have been bearing the brunt of divided Muslim Ummah. Their miseries have persisted because of the vested interest of those countries, which enjoy the power to convince the global and regional super powers to resolve these long outstanding issues.

Today, I will not talk about Kashmir issue because it does not have common border with countries located in Arabian Peninsula. My heart is bleeding on the apathy of these countries towards killing of their Arab brothers by Israel in the occupied territories. I will not talk about heinous crimes against Palestinians over the last seven decades, but the most recent one, indiscriminate killing of Muslims in Jerusalem on last Friday.

It is known to all and sundry that Jews paid a heavy amount to the then US president, Donald Trump to do two things: 1) recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and 2) relocate the US embassy to newly recognized capital. All the oil rich Arab countries didn’t resist this move. In fact they were advised to normalize relationship with Israel, some have already done this, while others have also accepted but waiting for an opportune time to make the declaration.

Another friend said, “Iran is anti-United States and can be convinced to draft a heavily worded resolution.” I also have my doubts because most of the Arabs believe “Iran is a bigger threat as compared to Israel” and may not even like to invite it.

Many ardent followers of Imran Khan in Pakistan believe that he is capable of leading Muslim Ummah. However, many Arab countries also may not like the idea. Regrettably, some of these countries believe only they have the right to lead Muslim Ummah.

Therefore, I don’t expect any encouraging response from oil-rich Arab countries on holding an emergency meeting of OIC. They may not like making Khan a leader of Muslim Ummah.

Commemorating Nakba Day

Every year on May 15, millions of Palestinians around the world commemorate Nakba Day, or the catastrophe that befell them in 1948. This catastrophe resulted in the dispossession of an estimated 750,000 refugees from historic Palestine, and the uprooting of two-thirds of the Palestinian Arab population and their society in the process of the creation of the State of Israel. 

73 years later, the Nakba remains central to Palestinian national identity and political aspirations, as evidenced by the 2018-19 Gaza March of Return and even the recent protests in Jerusalem. However, despite being a core Palestinian grievance, the Nakba continues to be whitewashed or denied outright by pundits, lobbyists, and even policymakers. 

Commemoration of the day has been taught by Arab citizens of Israel who were internally displaced as a result of the 1948 war has been practiced for decades, but until the early 1990s was relatively weak. Initially, the memory of the catastrophe of 1948 was personal and communal in character and families or members of a given village would use the day to gather at the site of their former villages. Small scale commemorations of the tenth anniversary in the form of silent vigils were held by Arab students at a few schools in Israel in 1958, despite attempts by the Israeli authorities to thwart them. Visits to the sites of former villages became increasingly visible after the events of Land Day in 1976.

As early as 1949, one year after the establishment of the State of Israel, 15 May was marked in several West Bank cities (under Jordanian rule) by demonstrations, strikes, the raising of black flags, and visits to the graves of people killed during the 1948 war. These events were organized by worker and student associations, cultural and sports clubs, scouts clubs, committees of refugees, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The speakers in these gatherings blamed the Arab governments and the Arab League for failing to "save Palestine". By the late 1950s, 15 May would be known in the Arab world as Palestine Day, mentioned by the media in Arab and Muslim countries as a day of international solidarity with Palestine.

In the wake up of the failure of the 1991 Madrid Conference to broach the subject of refugees, the Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced in Israel was founded to organize a March of Return to the site of a different village every year on 15 May so as to place the issue on the Israeli public agenda.

By the early 1990s, annual commemorations of the day by Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel held a prominent place in the community's public discourse.

It is believed that Israeli Arabs taught the residents of the territories to commemorate Nakba Day. Palestinians in the occupied territories were called upon to commemorate 15 May as a day of national mourning by the Palestine Liberation Organization's United National Command of the Uprising during the First Intifada in 1988. The day was inaugurated by Yasser Arafat in 1998.

The event is often marked by speeches and rallies by Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, in Palestinian refugee camps in Arab states, and in other places around the world. Protests at times develop into clashes between Palestinians and the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 2003 and 2004, there were demonstrations in London and New York City. In 2002, Zochrot was established to organize events raising the awareness of the Nakba in Hebrew so as to bring Palestinians and Israelis closer to a true reconciliation. The name is the Hebrew feminine plural form of "remember".

On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinians and other Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria marched towards their respective borders, or ceasefire lines and checkpoints in Israeli-occupied territories, to mark the event. At least twelve Palestinians and supporters were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of shootings by the Israeli Army. The Israeli army opened fire after thousands of Syrian protesters tried to forcibly enter the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights resulting in what AFP described as one of the worst incidents of violence there since the 1974 truce accord.

The IDF said troops "fired selectively" towards "hundreds of Syrian rioters" injuring an unspecified number in response to them crossing onto the Israeli side.

According to the BBC, the 2011 Nakba Day demonstrations were given impetus by the Arab Spring. During the 2012 commemoration, thousands of Palestinian demonstrators protested in cities and towns across the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Protesters threw stones at Israeli soldiers guarding checkpoints in East Jerusalem who then fired rubber bullets and tear gas in response.

Arab League declares annexation ‘war crime’

Israeli plan to apply sovereignty to any part of the West Bank will end the two-state solution and eliminate the possibility of establishing an independent, sovereign and geographically viable Palestinian state, said Riyad Malki, Foreign Minister of Palestinian Authority.

In a speech before an emergency videoconference meeting of the Arab League foreign ministers, he said if implemented, the Israeli plan would also place al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem under Israeli control “before it is demolished and replaced by the ostensible Temple.”

The meeting was held at the request of the Palestinians to discuss the “dangers” of the Israeli plan.

The Arab ministers condemned the plan as a “new war crime” and “flagrant violation of United Nations resolutions and international law.” They urged the United States to back away from supporting the plan and said the Arab countries will support by all political, diplomatic, legal and financial means any decisions taken by the Palestinians to confront it.

The foreign ministers also called on the Quartet (United States, Russia, European Union and United Nations) to convene an urgent meeting to save the chances of peace and a two-state solution and to take a position consistent with international decisions to compel Israel to “stop implementing its colonial plans, including annexation and settlement expansion.”

Malki warned that if the Israeli plan is implemented, it would “transform the conflict from a political to a religious conflict that will go on forever because the Palestinians would not accept it and won’t accept anything less than the borders of 1967 to establish their state, with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

The Israeli plan to apply sovereignty to any part of the West Bank “would never guarantee stability, security and peace,” he said.

Malki accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic “to pass his decisions to annex large parts of the occupied Palestinian territory to Israel.”

 He also urged the Arab states to provide financial aid to the Palestinians as they face difficult financial conditions “due to the restrictions of the occupation.”

Any Israeli decision to annex parts of the West Bank would not change the status of these lands, Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit said in a speech during the meeting, adding that they will remain “occupied territories in accordance with international law.”

The purpose of Thursday’s meeting was to warn about the “dangers of the Israeli schemes to annex parts of the West Bank and the possible repercussions on regional stability,” he said. 

Biden administration considers West Bank occupied territory, says Ned Price

Biden administration clarified that it considers the West Bank to be occupied territory, but ducked a question as to whether it held that settlements were illegal. "It is a historical fact that Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights in the 1967 War," US State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters in Washington on Wednesday.

The issue was raised after the Biden administration published on Tuesday the 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. It is the first of the annual reports released since US President Joe Biden took office in January 2021. The report affirmed steps taken by the previous Trump administration, which had both recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

It also kept in place a description change made to the report by former US president Donald Trump, in which he replaced the phrase "Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories" with "Israel, West Bank and Gaza."

But within the report, the Biden administration reintroduced the word "occupied" to describe Israel's seizure of territory during the 1967 Six Day War. 

When questioned by a reporter as to whether the US considered that Israel occupied the West Bank, Price affirmed that it did.

"In fact, the 2020 Human Rights Report does use the term 'occupation' in the context of the current status of the West Bank," Price said. "This has been the longstanding position of previous administrations of both parties over the course of many decades."

Israel has long argued that the West Bank does not meet the standard of occupied territory, because it captured the area from Jordan, whose sovereignty there from 1948-1967 was not recognized legally and which itself was considered to be occupying it.

Prior to the 1948 War of Independence, the territory was held by Great Britain; prior World War I, it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

The Trump administration believed that Israel had historic and religious rights to portions of that territory and did not refer to it as occupied. Its top officials agreed with the Israeli Right, that the proper term was Judea and Samaria and not the West Bank, terminology linked to the time when the territory was under Jordanian rule.

Trump also changed US policy toward Israeli West Bank settlements. It rejected a 1978 memo by then US State Department legal advisor Herbert J. Hansell declaring that the settlements were illegal, declaring instead that they were not inconsistent with Israeli law.

The United Nations holds that Israel's settlements are illegal and that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory.

The Biden administration has yet to clarify its stance on the settlements, even though it is presumed to support a two-state solution at the pre-1967 lines.

At Wednesday's press conference, a reporter asked Price, "Does the US consider, for example, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be illegal as a result of this stance?"

Price responded that the US position had not changed, but he clarified that stance in his own way.

"We – as you have heard me say before – we continue to encourage all sides to avoid actions – both sides, I should say – to avoid actions that would put the two-state solution further out of reach. 

"Again, our ultimate goal here is to facilitate – to help bring about – a two-state solution because it is the best path to preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state while bestowing on the Palestinians their legitimate aspirations of sovereignty and dignity in a state of their own," he said.

These lines are often his and other Biden official's standard response to many questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Bahrain faces anti normalization protest

Reportedly, anti normalization protests erupted in the streets of the Bahraini capital of Manama after Friday prayer. 

Protesters held up banners denouncing normalization, with the unified slogan “Anti-normalization Friday”, along with a photo of a masked Palestinian militant.

Bahrain’s normalization agreement with Israel was met with widespread anger, despite tight security restrictions, as well as the summoning of the demonstration organizers and participants, forcing them to sign an order to stay off the streets and not to engage in disruptive activities.

The protesters expressed their rejection of normalization by carrying banners with the slogans: “Normalization is treason”, “We reject submission, humiliation and surrender to the instructions of the US and Britain” and “Israel is a cancer that must be eradicated, and we will”. Other slogans stated: “We will never surrender” and “Normalization is shameful, it is a betrayal”.

After Bahrain announced normalizing relations with Israel, the hashtag “Bahrainis against normalization” was widely circulated by Bahraini activists on Twitter.

The Emirati and Bahraini normalization agreements with Israel were categorically rejected by the Palestinian authorities and factions, who considered the decision as a betrayal of Al-Aqsa mosque, Jerusalem and the Palestinian cause.

Deal of Century or an attempt to remove Palestine from world map

The United States believes that “Deal of Century” should create a strong barrier against Iran’s expansionism and must secure interests of US and Israel in the region. Arab countries should pay US$50 billion to US and Israeli companies with regard to Kushner’s plans and prosperity of Palestine. 

Several resolutions and agreements have been signed between Israel and Palestine since 1967 in the process of Peace Talks, the solution of two states, one government, and even confederation have been included in these agreements. In this regard, each of former presidents of the United States presented a peace plan to solve the problem and this time, it was Trump’s turn. 

The family of Donald Trump and Jared Kushner formulated and compiled the ‘Deal of Century’. It was not considered important that the differences between Palestinians and Israelis are a difference in the width of history and in the extent of ideological differences. 

In formulation of the ‘Deal of Century’ not attention was paid to the issue that resolving problem of Israel with the Islamic countries is not the problem that is confined or limited only to the United States or Israel.

From the political point of view, the issue is not even comprehensible for them, despite all international efforts and political initiatives taken in the recent decades, resolving this crisis has become more complicated with the passage of time. 

The situation in Palestine is tied with the Resolution 242 of the United Nations inked in 1967, stipulating that Israel must withdraw from the Golan Heights, Jordan River, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. The resistance of Palestinian people, which began with the throwing of stone, has now been turned into resistance with the power of deterrence that owns pinpointing rockets and missiles. 

Even if the Palestinians relinquish their inalienable rights, the future of Bait Al Muqaddas (Jerusalem), as the first Qibla of Muslims and the Ascendant of the Holy Prophet of Islam as well as Palestinian citizenship within a ‘geographical area under Israeli mandate’ will turn the Palestinian problem from a territorial problem into an ideological and trans-regional problem. Such a situation would add to the desire Palestinians for more resistance and also would confront Israel with new trans-regional political and armed groups as well. 

Jared Kushner unveiled the plan of ‘Deal of Century’ to the representatives of Arab and European countries in Manama, capital of Bahrain on 25th June 2019. In this initiative plan, Kushner considered economic solution as ‘alternative’ of political solution for ending the conflict between the two parties, Palestine and Israel. In the opening remarks of the ‘Deal of Century’, he clearly put the value of land and territory of Palestine and its identity at US$52 billion. By insulting the Palestinians and their struggles, he called Palestinians as people who have lived without understanding what the peace means.

In the ‘Deal of Century’, Kushner defines Palestine as land and territory which is confined to a geographical area without a nation, government, army and also conceptual boundaries. Moreover, in his defined project, Kushner said that Palestine is an area in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that are connected with each other through railway. This area is supposed to be managed and administered by multinational companies whose staff is from the people of Palestine under the strict supervision of the United States and Israel. In Kushner’s plan, people of Palestine have been supposed as ‘unable, unhealthy’ people and emphasized, “We need a healthy economy and healthy people for empowering them.” 

The ‘government and accountability of the government towards people’ have been highlighted in formulation of the ‘Deal of Century’, while Palestinian land and territory and also Palestinian government have not been taken into consideration. In this Plan, it has only been emphasized that Palestine was established through foreign investment. In formulation of ‘Deal of Century’, Kushner has considered Palestinian land as a free trade zone than a state with clear-cut government, nation and identity. The “Deal of Century” is about turning the Palestinian nation and people into an Israeli-led development project. 

In Kushner’s plan of ‘Deal of Century’, share of Palestinian people in empowerment and reconstruction of Palestine has been considered ‘negligible and insignificant’. In this plan, share of Palestinian people to create equality and justice in the newly-established companies and lending facilities has been considered just $100 million out of US $52 billion that is supposed to be put available to US companies. 

The “Deal of Century” was unveiled in Bahrain Conference with US$52 billion investment of Trump’s family to resolve Palestinian problem. However, it should be considered that what achievements this plan would bring about for Palestine, Israel and other countries if the plan is succeeded. The “Deal of Century” will resolve the problem of Resolution 242 for Israel, allowing Tel Aviv, capital of Israel, to legalize its settlements with the geographical privileges it receives. Under the Plan, Israel can maintain its border security more than before. In addition, risk of outbreak of a civil war, from withdrawing the areas that are home to hundreds of thousands of Jews, will also be removed. 

From the United States point of view, recognizing Al Quds as capital of Israel and relocation of embassies of other countries to Jerusalem (Al Quds) is raised and it is not supposed that a state named ‘Palestine’ will be recognized as the capital of Al Quds. 

In Manama Conference, Kushner emphasized, “After ceding their land and territory, Palestinians can export their traditional foods, which have unique tastes and flavors, along with their handicrafts to the world markets.”

Interestingly, after the plan of “Deal of Century’ was unveiled it was even criticized by the US President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In media circles and public opinion of the United States, this plan has also been nicknamed as “Waste of Time”. 

US foreign policy to be driven by love for Israel

According to Reuters report, the United States is likely to review its ties with countries it deems ‘anti-Israel’. It can be termed a shift in policy toward equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Earlier in March, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo had said in a speech that anti-Zionism - opposition to Israel’s existence as a homeland for the Jewish people - was a form of anti-Semitism, or hostility toward Jews, that was on the rise worldwide and that Washington would “fight it relentlessly”.

The State Department’s special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, Elan Carr, said this US position could spell reviews of ties with foreign governments or leaders.

“The United States is willing to review its relationship with any country, and certainly anti-Semitism on the part of a country with whom we have relations is a deep concern,” he told Reuters during a visit to Israel.

“I will be raising that issue in bilateral meetings that I am undertaking all over the world,” he said. “That is something we are going to have frank and candid conversations about - behind closed doors.”

Carr declined to cite specific countries or leaders, or to elaborate on what actions the Trump administration might take.

“I obviously can’t comment on diplomatic tools that we might bring to bear,” he said. “Each country is a different diplomatic challenge, a different situation, number one. And number two, if I started disclosing what we might do it would be less effective.”

Some US political analysts say that President Donald Trump and other Republicans hope support for Israel will attract Jewish voters, including those disaffected by pro-Palestinian voices within progressive Democratic Party circles.

At the same time, critics have credited Trump’s confrontational, nationalistic rhetoric with encouraging right-wing extremists and feeding a surge in activity by American hate groups. The administration has flatly rejected that charge.

Carr said the administration’s equating of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism “certainly breaks new ground ... by making clear that something that a lot of us who are involved in the Jewish world and a lot of us who are proponents of a strong US-Israel relationship have known for quite some time, and that is that one of the chief flavors of anti-Semitism in the world today is the flavor that conceals itself under anti-Zionism”.

United States Fueling Iran Arab Animosity

There exists an overwhelming perception that Gulf States like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are deeply worried about Iran and ask the United States to take care of the problem.  The usual causes of conflict are cited to be Sunni-Shiite divide, Iranian subversion, its support for Hezbollah, and omnipresent fear about Iran's nuclear energy program.  United States has been successful in creating these fears and also doing well in projecting Iran as a growing monster that can eat Arab monarchs.

Reading an article of Stephen M. Walt printed in Foreign Policy reveals that oil producing Arab countries are keen in keeping oil prices high to finance budgets in a period where heightened social spending and other measures are being used to insulate these regimes from the impact of the Arab Spring. According to the IMF, these states need crude prices to remain above U$80 a barrel in order to keep their fiscal house in order. 

The Article also discusses the potential interest of Saudi Arabia that wants to keep Iran in the doghouse, so that Iran can't attract foreign companies to refurbish and expand its oil and gas fields and also make it more difficult for Iran to market its petroleum in the global markets. It is but obvious that if UN and other sanctions are lifted and energy companies start operating freely in Iran, its oil and gas production would boom, overall supplies would increase, and the global price would drop.

If this happens Iran can emerge a more formidable power in the Gulf region but lower oil and gas prices would make it much harder for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to stave off demands for political reform through social spending. Saudi Arabia could cut production to try to keep prices up, but that would still mean lower overall revenues and a budget shortfall.

When one hears how worried the Gulf states are about Iran, and how they support the efforts to keep tightening the screws, remember that it's not just about geopolitics or historical divide between Sunnis and Shiites or between Arabs and Persians. It is only to keep inflow of petro dollars high but why should United States be conniving with Arabs?

However, Stephen forgot to mention one point.  By keeping Iranian threat high United States is able to sell more arms to Arab countries. It is on record that United States is the biggest arms seller in the world and Arab monarchies are the major buyers, Saudi Arab being the biggest buyer.

Diverting attention of Arabs towards Iran also helps in saving Israel. At a recently held conference some of the Arab countries termed Iran a threat bigger than Israel. In the latest bid of the United State is fully supported by Arabs to topple government in Syria, and earlier in Libya. Over the years Arabs have been giving charity to Palestinians living in refugees’ camps but not supporting in the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Makkah Summit

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has called an emergency Islamic Summit in Makkah to discussed key issues facing Muslim Ummah.

This offers an opportunity to Muslim leaders to discuss the prevailing situation, showing deep divided and to come up with solution that can exhibit their unity and solidarity. 

However, there is no mention of Iran, enduring economic sanction imposed by the Western countries for more than three decades. One can still recall that some of the Arab countries had provided huge funds to Iraq when it attacked Iran, which helped in extending the war for nearly a decade.

World renowned, Abdullah Omar Naseef emphasizing the significance of the Summit has said, "There is nothing strange in this call by King Abdullah for an emergency summit. It shows his deep concern toward Islamic issues as a prominent Muslim leader in the world," He also said, "This summit is being held at the right time, when the Islamic nation is facing a lot of challenges and crises, such as the worsening situation in Syria, the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and the continuing Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.”

A member of the World Council for Mosques, an affiliate of the Makkah-based Muslim World League, Dr. Baheej Mulla Owais said, "We are pinning great hope on this extraordinary summit and pray that it will be a great success in realizing its objectives." He also mentioned another summit held in Makkah, called by King Abdullah about five years ago to reconcile Iraqi factions. "That summit was successful in reducing the bloodbath between Iraqi groups and narrowing their differences. Sitting in front of the Holy Kaaba, they had pledged to stop fighting each other," he added.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian called on Muslim leaders to address the Syrian and Bahraini crises simultaneously in their gathering in Makkah. Iran has also proposed that the Palestinian issue and solidarity in the Muslim world should be discussed at the meeting and that divisive issues would not be raised. 

 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leaving Tehran to attend the emergency Islamic summit said is likely to express the views of the Iranian nation on the issues facing the Muslim world. “This meeting is an opportunity for our nation’s standpoint to be explained clearly and for efforts to be made toward the convergence and protection of the interests and integrity of Muslim nations.”   

One just can’t resist from mentioning meeting of leaders of 42 countries who have given their node to participate in the XVI Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which is scheduled to be held in Tehran from Aug 26 to 31. 

While efforts by Saudi Arabia and Iran deserve appreciation, the bottomline remains can Arabs really come out of the pressure of United States? There is growing consensus among the analysts that toppling of Asad regime in Syria is part of the grand agenda to isolate Iran, which is considered a threat for Arab monarchies.