What is causing burning of Jerusalem?

For weeks now, Palestinian protesters and Israeli police have been clashing on a daily basis in and around Jerusalem. Interestingly the city has sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims and the emotional epicenter of the Middle East conflict.

Here's a look at why Jerusalem always seems to be on edge and what set off the latest round of violence. Allow me to say that this year the situation has got real volatile. Since United States has accepted Jerusalem as capital of Israel, the extremist Jews want full control of the city and evict all the Muslims.

Capital of two peoples

Israel views Jerusalem as its "unified, eternal" capital. It had captured east Jerusalem, which includes the Old City, in the 1967 Mideast war, along with the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians want those territories for their future state, with east Jerusalem serving as their eventual capital. But Israel annexed the eastern part of the city in a move not recognized internationally. The fate of east Jerusalem has been one of the thorniest issues in the peace process.

Israelis were set to mark Jerusalem Day, a national holiday celebrating the annexation. In past years, thousands of Israelis mainly religious nationalists have marched through the Old City, including the densely populated Muslim Quarter, in a display considered provocative by many Palestinians. In recent days, hard-line Israelis have staged other events in east Jerusalem, leading to scattered, violent altercations with Palestinians.

The holy hilltop

Monday's clashes took place in and around the Al-Aqsa mosque in the Old City. The mosque is the third-holiest site in Islam and sits on a sprawling plateau that is also home to the iconic golden Dome of the Rock. Muslims refer to the compound as the Noble Sanctuary.

The walled plateau is also the holiest site for Jews, who refer to it as the Temple Mount, because it was the location of biblical temples.

Neighboring Jordan serves as the custodian of the site, which is operated by an Islamic endowment known as the Waqf. The site is open to tourists during certain times but only Muslims are allowed to pray there. The Western Wall is the holiest site where Jews can pray.

In recent years, groups of religious and nationalist Jews escorted by police have been visiting the compound in greater numbers and holding prayers in defiance of rules established after 1967 by Israel, Jordan and Muslim religious authorities. The Palestinians view the frequent visits and attempted prayers by Jews as a provocation.

Some Israelis say the site should be open to all worshippers. The Palestinians refuse, fearing that Israel will eventually take over the site or partition it. Israeli officials say they have no intention of changing the status quo.

Discriminatory policies

Jews born in east Jerusalem are Israeli citizens, while Palestinians from east Jerusalem are granted a form of permanent residency that can be revoked if they live outside the city for an extended period. They can apply for citizenship, but it's a long and uncertain process and most choose not to because they don't recognize Israeli control.

Israel has built Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem that are home to some 220,000 people. It has severely limited the growth of Palestinian neighborhoods, leading to overcrowding and construction of thousands of homes that are at risk of demolition. The discriminatory policies make Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid.

Threatened evictions

The recent clashes began at the start of Ramadan, when Israeli police placed barriers outside the Old City's Damascus Gate, a popular gathering place after the evening prayers during the holy month when Muslims fast from dawn to dusk. They later removed the barriers, but then protests escalated over the threatened eviction of dozens of Palestinian families from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

The families have been embroiled in a long legal battle with ideological Jewish settlers who seek to acquire property in crowded Palestinian neighborhoods just outside the Old City. Israel portrays it as a private real-estate dispute, but the families' plight has attracted global attention.

Wider unrest

Clashes in Jerusalem, and particularly in Al-Aqsa, often reverberate across the region. The Palestinian militant group Hamas has called for a new intifada. Gaza militants have fired rockets and balloons with incendiary devices attached to them in support of the protesters as an informal cease-fire with Israel has started to fray.

Jordan and other Arab nations that have friendly ties with Israel have condemned its crackdown on the protests, while Israel's arch foe Iran has encouraged Palestinian attacks. The US and the EU have condemned the violence and expressed concern about the evictions.

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.

Hillary and Condoleezza express concerns over withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan

Two of the former US Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee they're worried about President Biden's plan to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, with Rice suggesting the US may need to go back. 

The position puts two former Secretaries of State — one from the Obama and other from Bush administrations at odds with one of Biden's most significant foreign policy moves to date.

The new president has vowed to complete the withdrawal by 11th September 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. U.S. forces were sent to Afghanistan by Rice's then-boss, former President George W. Bush, to destroy havens used by the attack's organizers.

Clinton and Rice offered their reactions during a members-only Zoom call.

Rice's office did not want to comment on a private briefing. Clinton's spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

"We had Secretaries Clinton and Condi Rice Zoom with the committee," one committee member told. "A little disagreement on Afghanistan, but they both agreed we're going to need to sustain a counterterrorism mission somehow outside of that country."

“Condi Rice was like, you know, we’re probably going to have to go back, amid a potential surge in terrorism,” the member said.

Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republican on the committee, told "With the potential for an Islamic State, coupled with what they're going to do to our contractors in Yemen and Afghanistan is, sadly, it's going to be tragic there and we all see it coming."

Another member of the committee confirmed both Clinton and Rice raised concerns about the potential fallout from a quick removal of all US troops.

Both also expressed concerns about protecting US diplomats on the ground following the withdrawal and what the move will mean for the global war on terrorism.

Both Rice and Clinton supported military intervention in the Middle East following the attacks on 11th September 2001.

Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser at the time, helped craft the administration's wartime response.

Then Senator Clinton — considered by many as a military hawk — voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to go to war, a vote she later said she regretted while on the presidential campaign trail.

Clinton also supported surging additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009.

Unending saga of ship that stuck in Suez Canal

Evergreen mega container ship that grounded in Suez Canal on 23^rd March 2021, despite being afloat after six days and resumption of traffic, has not been allowed to move out of Suez Canal. While there is talk about the claim filed by Suez Canal Authority (SCA), no one seems bothered about fate of the cargo loaded at the ship.

Lately, an Egyptian court has rejected an appeal by the owner of the mega container ship that has been impounded by SCA for blocking the channel for nearly a week in March 2021.

The SCA said the vessel would not be allowed to leave the country until a compensation amount is settled on with the vessel’s Japanese owner, Shoei Kisen Kaisha.

A court in Ismailia had ordered the seizure of the vessel. The Ever Given’s owner filed an appeal on April 22 in hopes of overturning the decision.

The SCA has demanded US$916 million in compensation that covers salvage operation, costs of stalled canal traffic and lost transit fees for the week the Ever Given blocked the canal.

Negotiations between the SCA and the ship owner were still ongoing to settle the compensation claim. Shoei Kisen said it has notified a number of the owners of the approximately 18,000 containers on the ship to assume part of the damages demand.

The Ever Given was on its way to the Dutch port of Rotterdam and on 23rd March 2021 it slammed into the bank of a single-lane stretch of the canal about 6 kilometers north of the southern entrance, near the city of Suez.

A massive salvage ended the crisis after six days, allowing hundreds of waiting ships to pass through the Canal.

The blockage of the canal forced some ships to take the long alternate route around the Cape of Good Hope at Africa’s southern tip, requiring additional fuel and other costs. Hundreds of other ships waited in place for the blockage to end.

In a statement, Osama Rabie, the SCA chairman, expressed hopes that a solution acceptable to all parties will be found.

“The Authority is dealing with all the specific requirements of the negotiation with complete flexibility, in full respect for international norms in these sorts of situations,” Rabie said.

Rabie denied claims that the ship’s crew had been arrested, and said that the authority has no objection to crew members leaving or being replaced, provided that a sufficient number of sailors needed to secure the ship is present. He said that the ship’s captain needs to be present as the guardian of the vessel and its cargo.

The ship’s protection and indemnity insurer, UK Club, and its technical manager, Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM), have said they were disappointed that the ship was being held.

UK Club has filed an appeal in an Egyptian court against its detention, citing a lack of supporting evidence for the SCA’s claim.

 Suez Canal chiefs on Tuesday implemented an Egyptian court order to seize the giant cargo ship that blocked the waterway for almost a week in March.

 “On April 12, a carefully considered and generous offer was made to the SCA to settle their claim. We are disappointed by the SCA’s subsequent decision to arrest the vessel today.”

Reinsurers are set to foot most of the bill for the grounding of the ship that halted traffic in the Suez Canal, industry sources said, with payouts expected to run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Analysts at DBRS Morningstar said that total insured losses “will remain manageable given the relatively short period of time that the canal was blocked.”

Lloyd’s of London last week said the incident would likely result in a “large loss” for the commercial insurance and reinsurance market of at least US$100 million.