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.

Istanbul Canal: Benefits and pitfalls

Turkey has signaled that it intends to start work this year on Istanbul Canal project, an artificial canal connecting the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara. 

The project has faced controversy within Turkey for its cost, environmental impact and potential for corruption. But its international implications could be substantial as well, threatening the delicate regional military balance and impacting maritime trade with the Caucasus and Central Asia. 

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in early April that a tender would be issued and preliminary construction work would begin this year on the 45-kilometer ship canal. 

The stated purpose of construction of this canal is to create a safer transit route for oil tankers to transport crude from the Black Sea to global markets, which now traverse the narrow, occasionally treacherous Bosphorus straits through the country’s largest city, Istanbul. Construction of the canal and associated infrastructure is estimated to cost more than US$20 billion.

Most recently, the canal became the source of political turmoil in Turkey when a group of 104 retired admirals published an open letter warning that it would undermine the Montreux Convention, the treaty which since 1936 has governed passage between the Aegean and Black seas and given Turkey geopolitical heft in the region.

The convention stipulates that all merchant ships must be given free passage during peacetime through the Turkish straits, the Bosphorus through Istanbul and the Dardanelles further to the southwest that separate the Sea of Marmara from the Aegean Sea. It also restricts the movement of military vessels, limiting them to 15,000 tons or under, with additional curbs on the size and type of weaponry they can carry, and places a limit of 21 days in the Black Sea for military vessels from countries not bordering the sea. 

Following the admirals’ letter, Erdogan responded that Turkey remains committed to the Montreux Convention. But he also confirmed that the Turkish government sees the planned canal as not subject to the convention’s regulations.

That admission could give credence to the admirals’ warning that the canal would expand access for military vessels into and out of the Black Sea. It could thus both upset the regional security balance and pit Ankara against its neighbors and other international players.

The convention’s restrictions limit NATO members’ naval activities in the Black Sea, as well as Russia’s ability to send large vessels from its Black Sea fleet into the Mediterranean.

If the planned canal turns out not to be subject to the Montreux Convention, it would allow Turkey to permit larger and more powerful naval vessels, like aircraft carriers, in and out of the Black Sea, and for longer periods.

The public rationale for the project, though, has little to do with security. Its ostensible logic is instead rooted in the Bosphorus’s key role in international trade.

Currently, crude oil from Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan arrives in the Black Sea via five separate pipelines from central Russia and the Caspian Sea, where it is loaded onto tankers.

Turkish officials have argued that flow through these pipelines is going to rise, which would lead to increased tanker traffic through the Bosphorus.

Turkish officials insist that the canal will offer a safer option for transit than the Bosphorus, and have suggested that the canal would allow shippers to avoid the delays from which Bosphorus traffic occasionally suffers. 

While it’s true that navigation through the planned canal will not entail the same tricky 90-degree turns that the Bosphorus requires, accidents in the straits are nevertheless extremely rare.

The last major incident involving a tanker – a Russian fuel oil tanker, not a super tanker carrying crude oil, was back in 1999, before a radar vessel transit system (VTS) was installed to track vessels and help aid safer navigation. Over the 19 years since the VTS has been in operation there have been no major incidents involving tankers and no oil spills at all. 

Delays are not uncommon on the Bosphorus, which can be closed due to bad weather or the passage of unusually large vessels which require traffic to be restricted to one direction only. But they rarely last more than a few hours and the canal, if built, would likely face similar limitations.

Ankara says it will not allow tankers carrying liquid natural gas (LNG) to transit the Bosphorus, a stance that technically violates the Montreux Convention. Interestingly no Black Sea littoral state has an LNG import or export terminal. A point also to ponder is this canal will be narrower than and potentially just as dangerous as the Bosphorus.

And the recent incident on the Suez Canal, which was blocked for six days after a container vessel ran aground, demonstrates that even the best managed canals are not immune from accidents. 

Is Israel losing resilience?

Once upon a time Israel was considered invincible, but now it is being said openly that its security has eroded and its safety bubble burst in the last few months. The situations demands an assessment of Israeli vulnerability and the weakening of other US allies and partners in the region.  

It is being said that Israel faces political and social disintegration. It has suffered strikes against its maritime interests and also witnessed cyber security vulnerabilities.

The fragility and vulnerability of the Israeli national security system is getting exposed.

The country had held four elections to appoint a prime minister, but still unable to do so and probably go for the fifth election. The system has received extraordinary injuries.

It is not the first time that Israeli strategic installations have been attacked. While Tehran claims it is retaliating against Israel, most of these have been termed accidents or total myths by Israel.

Several Israeli-owned ships have been attacked in the Gulf of Oman. This includes a February incident involving the MV Helios Ray. The Hyperion Ray was allegedly attacked in April, after a Wall Street Journal report claim that Israel had struck a dozen Iranian ships.  

Israel seems to be collapsing from within and may face further problems with the US gradually leaving the region.

It seems the US is not willing to support its allies. It is distancing from Saudi Arabia, after having achieve self sufficiency in crude oil production.

Political balance seems to be emerging in Syria and the country is getting ready to hold election.

There is political unity in Iraq and resistance movements seem to getting further strength.

The US faces pressure from Iraqi groups who are trying to expel it from the region.

As the US losing influence, Iran is getting ready to play a new role in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan.

Corona virus likely to move from India to neighboring countries

The world is watching India’s coronavirus crisis but Asia’s developing nations are all at risk. From Laos, Vietnam and Thailand in Southeast Asia to Bhutan and Nepal bordering India, countries have been reporting significant surges.

The reported spikes in these handfuls of nations have been steep enough to raise the alert against potential dangers of an uncontrolled spread. The increase is mainly because of more contagious virus variants, though complacency and lack of resources to contain the spread have also been cited as reasons.

In Laos last week, the health minister sought medical equipment, supplies and treatment, as cases jumped more than 200-fold in a month.

In Nepal hospitals have been quickly filling up and running out of oxygen supplies. With infections surging, will Nepal be the next Covid-19 hotspot?

In Vietnam, authorities on Tuesday closed schools in Hanoi as Vietnam battles its first wave of Covid-19 cases via community transmission in more than a month.

In Thailand health facilities are under pressure, as 98% of new cases are from a more infectious strain of the pathogen, while some island nations in the Pacific Ocean are facing their first Covid waves.

Although nowhere close to India’s population or flare-up in scope, the reported spikes in these countries have been far steeper, signaling the potential dangers of an uncontrolled spread. The resurgence – and first-time outbreaks in some places that largely avoided the scourge last year – heightens the urgency of delivering vaccine supplies to poorer, less influential countries and averting a protracted pandemic.

Also on top of the list are Bhutan, Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname, Cambodia and Fiji, as they reported the epidemic erupting at a high triple-digit pace.

All countries are at risk as disease appears to be becoming endemic and will likely remain a risk to all countries for the foreseeable future.

The situation is very serious as new variants require a new vaccine and a booster for those already vaccinated. The economic hardship of poorer countries makes the battle even tougher.

The new cases emerged shortly before a three-day public holiday in Vietnam when many families travel across the country, raising the risk of a wider outbreak.

In Sri Lanka, authorities have isolated areas, banned weddings and meetings and closed cinemas and pubs to cap a record spike following last month’s local New Year festivities. The government says the situation is under control.

The Covax program to distribute vaccines around the world had planned to ship 1.9 million doses in the first half of this year. However, India’s surge in cases has resulted in global shortages.

The situations in many countries prove that vaccines are far from a panacea. Some vaccines, which had been considered highly effective, caused severe side effects, including even death, leading many countries to stop their use.