First Let Us Saudise Saudis By Abdullah Bin Bakheet: New Age Islam's Selection, 22 September 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
22 September 2017
• First Let Us Saudise Saudis
By Abdullah Bin Bakheet
• The Story of the Saudi-UAE ‘Invasion’ Of Qatar
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Yemen: Is Saleh's Alliance With The Houthis Breakable?
By Gamal Gasim
• Iran’s Military Support for the Houthis Is Not the Biggest Threat
By Dr. Manuel Almeida
• Egyptians’ Sense of Humour Is Very Telling
By Abdellatif El-Menawy
• Christopher Kennedy’s Promises to Defend Arabs and Muslims Are Noteworthy
By Ray Hanania
• Invention of the Mizrahim
By Susan Abulhawa
• At UN, Trump Pours Cold Water on Iran’s Hopes
By Hamid Bahrami
• Failure of the Arab Project
By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
------
First Let Us Saudise Saudis
By Abdullah bin Bakheet
21 September 2017
WHEN I was a student at elementary school, the teacher did not only teach us but checked our clothes and nails to make sure they were clean. He would also, every now and then, give pieces of advice. If a student did not get better, he would be hit with a bamboo stick or ruler. Parents endorsed the way teachers behaved and never objected. In fact, parents used to do the same. They would hit their children with bamboo sticks as a way of disciplining them. Nevertheless, education in the country was on the right track.
At the time, we learned mathematics, Islamic jurisprudence, science, etc. We were taught how to speak to someone respectfully and how to take care of our health and how to be good citizens. The government took care of all students and ensured that each student would get vaccinated on time. Each school had a social counsellor who would follow up on student behaviour and report any unusual conduct to parents. At school, I played table tennis, volleyball and soccer and took part in theatre. I even learned calligraphy and art. More importantly, I learned how to be a good citizen and how to be patriotic.
Saudi students today need to be taught four things. Firstly, they should learn how to be humble. We are not the richest or strongest country in the world. Saudi students are not responsible for foreign causes and issues. It is not their job to deal with global issues, regardless of whether such issues are related to Islam. It is also not the job of a mosque imam or parents to deal with these issues. This is the task of the government and experts on international relations. The government and experts know how to handle Arab, Islamic or international issues.
Secondly, students should learn to be independent. Teachers should teach students how to make wise and responsible decisions and to use their mind and faith to do that.
Thirdly, students should understand that they are co-owners of public property and should, therefore, protect public property and keep public places clean. They should understand that the government spends a large amount of money to keep public places clean.
Lastly, citizenship should be a part of every student’s identity regardless of what tribe the student belongs to or hails from. We are all Saudi students. Schools should teach students how to be good citizens and then focus on mathematics, Islamic subjects, etc.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/article/517741/Opinion/Local-Viewpoint/Saudis
-----
The Story of The Saudi-UAE ‘Invasion’ Of Qatar
By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
21 September 2017
A news agency reported that the White House said American President Donald Trump succeeded in preventing a Saudi-UAE military attack against Qatar. It was barely an hour before Trump issued a statement denying the report.
Then another piece of news claimed that Trump scolded Qatar’s emir Sheikh Tamim when he met him in New York and showed him secret data that confirms Qatar is still funding terrorism although it pledged to the Americans that it will stop doing so weeks ago!
Many reports are emerging for political purposes although there’s a logic that clearly denies them. The nature of the crisis and Qatar’s early act of fortifying itself with the American base and international military alliances prevents considering that. However, Qatar has resorted to this propaganda since June to gain the sympathy of countries like Kuwait and portray the countries whom they are having disputes with as evil.
Bid to Topple Others
The opposite is in fact true. Qatar has for years worked on weakening and targeting governments of countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt for the purpose of toppling them. Targeting Bahrain is no secret as Doha supported opposition figures who publicly voice their willingness to topple the regime. It has funded extremist religious Saudi opposition figures in London since the 1990s. This opposition does not hide its desire to topple the Saudi regime and it is also involved in the assassination attempt against late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.
As for Egypt, all you have to do is watch Qatari channels for few hours and you will notice the open calls to topple Sisi’s government by force. This is in addition to Qatar’s continuous and major funding of the opposition there.
Despite all this, none of the targeted states adopted a military plan or plotted against Qatar at the time. Even former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak whom the Qataris plotted against the most, refused to respond to the Qatari government and chose to ignore their hostile acts.
The four countries - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain - spoke out and announced their atand against Qatar. There are also more than 10 other Arab governments that are very much against Qatar but have not voiced their stands openly yet.
Forcing Policy Change
The plan to tackle Qatar is based on a strategy to isolate and weaken it in hope of achieving one of these aims: to either force it to change its policies or to at least weaken it so it stops interfering in other countries’ affairs. However, no one said or hinted that there are intentions to topple the Al Thanis’ regime or its head. Many think – and perhaps rightfully so – that the current emir, Sheikh Tamim, is powerless and that the one who is in control and who is causing trouble is his father who formally gave up power four years ago.
Doha has sought American and even Iranian help ever since the crisis erupted and claimed that some dark scheme is being planned against it by the Saudis and Emiratis and that they are suffocating Qatar with a blockade that history has known nothing like!
This Qatari nonsense cannot be believed by anyone in a country that’s full of caviar and Ferrari cars.
In brief, the problem is that Doha’s spoiled rulers do not want to stop playing the role of major regional countries, and at the same time, they do not want to bear the consequences of their actions.
Source; english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/21/The-story-of-the-Saudi-UAE-invasion-of-Qatar.html
-----
Yemen: Is Saleh's Alliance With The Houthis Breakable?
By Gamal Gasim
21 September 2017
Today marks the third anniversary of the Houthi militias' capture of Sanaa, Yemen's capital city - a significant milestone in Yemen's descent into a failed state. This anniversary takes place just five days before Yemen's celebration of the September 26 revolution that, ironically, ended the rule of the traditional Imamate that the Houthis are now desperately trying to restore.
The Houthis' vast military expansions of 2014 and 2015 were accomplished only with significant help from former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his loyalists in Yemen's military institutions. Military conflict and profound levels of political mistrust have shaped Saleh's relationship with the Houthis for years. However, after being ousted from power as a result of widespread protests in 2011, Saleh successfully formed an unholy alliance with the Houthis. The main objective of this alliance was to undermine the transition of power in the country following the election of Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi as president in early 2012.
Saleh's alliance with the Houthis was a secretive pact in the beginning, but it was fully exposed after the start of the Saudi-led war on March 26, 2015. Now, this alliance is part of a de-facto coalition government in Sanaa. Nonetheless, this alliance is at best a political marriage of convenience rather than love, with inherent political contradictions that far exceed Saleh and the Houthis current shared goal of defeating the Saudi-led coalition.
Increasing Tensions
For some time, the Saudi-led coalition has counted on breaking the Saleh-Houthi alliance in order to weaken their control over Sanaa. Although the Saleh-Houthi alliance remains officially intact, there is increased tension between the two groups that could further complicate the political scene in Sanaa.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that dire humanitarian crises such as the cholera outbreak or the deterioration of economic conditions with hundreds of thousands of Sanaa government employees and retirees not receiving full salaries for several months are having any impact on the Saleh-Houthi alliance. None of these factors really matter to either political group.
Nevertheless, the Saleh-Houthi alliance is breakable and it will be the Houthis who decide the right time to disengage themselves from Saleh. Taking a page from Saleh's book of political cunning and manipulation, the Houthis view their alliance with the former president as a means to control government, military, financial, and judiciary institutions. The Houthis are closer than ever to achieving that goal and are now so politically emboldened that they are campaigning publicly for Abd al-Malik al-Houthi's right to rule Yemen based on the theory of Wilayat Al-Faqih, the legitimate right of a Muslim Jurist to rule.
The Houthis have recently erected billboards on the streets of Sanaa depicting the Houthi leader and advocating his right to rule. This followed controversial changes to the Yemeni school curriculum promoting the Houthi ideology. Through these political moves, the Houthis seem determined to at least monopolise control of North Yemen. Thus, the current escalation between Saleh and the Houthis should not be viewed as an isolated event, but as part of the Houthis' carefully calculated political plan to eliminate Saleh with the lowest possible cost.
Patience for Political Provocations
Less than one week before Saleh's celebration of the 35th anniversary of the establishment of the General People's Congress (GPC) on August 24, 2017, Khalid al-Radhi - a prominent Saleh loyalist - was gunned down by Houthi guards at a newly erected checkpoint a few miles from Saleh's residence.
It was later revealed that the primary target of this incident was actually Saleh's own son, who managed to escape from the Houthi guards. Furthermore, the Houthis made new high government appointments on September 12, 2017, including a new chief justice. Despite a high-level meeting between Saleh and Abd al-Malik al-Houthi via closed-video conference the next day to address rising tension between the two sides, the Houthis have continued to expand their political control and efforts to silence the opposition. The recent arrest of some journalists and the declaration that opposition media will not be tolerated is an indication that the Houthis are gradually implementing a state of emergency in their controlled areas, which their partner - the GPC - has previously opposed.
Many are puzzled by Saleh's unusual patience towards the Houthis' political provocations, although it is now obvious that he is without any reliable internal or external political allies. Saudi Arabia has burned most of its bridges with Saleh since the beginning of the Operation "Decisive Storm" in March 2015. Unlike Saleh, the Houthis enjoy the support of a key regional actor, Iran. Moreover, Saleh has lost the support of his significant military, tribal, and political allies such as Sheikh Abd Allah al-Ahmar's family, General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, and the Islah Party. His inner circle is now filled with young and non-savvy politicians and despite his own self-claimed political glory, Saleh has never fought a war alone and has always relied on his tribal and military allies to fight his battles. The Houthis have never fully trusted Saleh and will never forget the pain he caused them in the past. They understand Saleh's growing political vulnerability and, thus, will continue to exploit it.
Saleh - who once described his way of ruling Yemen as "dancing over the heads of snakes" - appears to be in his last round of dancing. The Houthis are closer than ever to abolishing his residual power unless Saleh can pull off one of his old political tricks and somehow reach out to the Saudi-led coalition to end his alliance with the Houthis and save his political life. Regardless of the outcome of the current political tensions between Saleh and the Houthis, the situation in Yemen will continue to grow increasingly complicated.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/yemen-saleh-alliance-houthis-breakable-170920122718455.html
-----
Iran’s Military Support for the Houthis Is Not the Biggest Threat
By Dr. Manuel Almeida
21 September 2017
Earlier this week, Vice Adm. Kevin M. Donegan, America’s highest-ranking navy officer in the Middle East, warned of Iran’s evolving military support to the Houthis via the smuggling of increasingly potent and advanced weapons. Yet despite Iran’s worrying military support to the Yemeni militant group, the deeper threat to Saudi and Emirati security is the ideological affinity between Iran’s hardliners and the Houthi leadership.
Donegan made a specific reference to anti-ship and ballistic missiles — many of which have been fired at Saudi Arabia — as well as technology and training provided by Iran to the Houthis. Recent reports claim the leadership of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has decided to step up this military support.
Among the gear military experts believe is being transferred by the IRGC to the Houthis is drone technology adapted to carry explosives. These have been used to disable radar components of the Arab coalition’s Patriot anti-missile batteries.
Over the past year, US officials confirmed the interception of five weapons shipments from Iran, the first of these in April 2015. Also that year, a UN panel of experts concluded that Tehran had been shipping weapons to the Houthis since at least 2009.
That year, the Houthis launched an offensive into Saudi Arabia, and there were reports of IRGC and Hezbollah advisers assisting them to coordinate their operations. At the time, Gen. David Petreaus, then-CENTCOM commander, hinted at Iran’s involvement in the conflict.
A 2016 report by the UK-based private consultancy Conflict Armament Research described evidence of a constant flow of weapons from Iran to Yemen. A well-known case took place in 2012, when the vessel Jihan, with an all-Yemeni crew, was intercepted by a joint operation by the Yemeni Coast Guard and US Navy.
Crew members said they had departed from Chabahar in Iran, and among the weapons seized were man-portable air-defense systems, 122-mm rockets, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and C-4 plastic explosive blocks.
Domestic factors are crucial in explaining the Houthi rebellions against former President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s government between 2004 and 2011. But Western experts generally downplay Iran’s radicalizing influence. An opinion commonly heard about the degree of Iranian involvement in Yemen is that Iran’s ties to the Houthis are superficial, and the actions of the Arab Gulf states and the US are pushing them to align with Tehran.
Writing in Foreign Policy magazine earlier this year, two Yemen experts at the International Crisis Group argued: “The Houthis are not Hezbollah and, despite their publicly expressed sympathies for the Islamic Republic, have not developed a similarly tight relationship with Tehran. Yet the combined efforts of Washington and its Gulf allies could still drive the Houthis into Tehran’s arms.”
This argument could have held some ground had it been made 10 years ago. General statements from Iranian officials boasting about Tehran’s control of four Arab capitals, Sanaa included, and Houthi chants of “Death to America! Death to Israel! Curses upon the Jews!” dating back to the early 2000s are only the tip of the iceberg.
Various senior Iranian figures, mostly associated with the IRGC, have made specific comments about the nature of Iranian support to the Houthis, and how the militant group fits into Tehran’s larger regional strategy. Moreover, in media interviews, Hezbollah commanders make no secret of their active role in building up the capabilities of Houthi militias over the years, including training in Iran and Yemen.
But it is not the military equipment, the logistical, financial and intelligence support, or the training from the IRGC and Hezbollah that pose the biggest threat to Gulf security. Accessing arms in Yemen is easy. Sitting next to major shipping lanes and the Horn of Africa, with a modern history filled with armed conflict, and with weak government control over territory and porous borders, Yemen has been a primary target for arms trafficking.
According to a 2015 report by a UN panel of experts, “estimates reiterated by sheikhs, Government officials and independent researchers put the number of serviceable weapons in Yemen at between 40 million and 60 million.”
The mercurial pact with Saleh also provided the Houthis with a major source of weaponry, a significant proportion of it supplied over the years by the US to Yemeni government forces. In the arsenal of Saleh’s forces were the feared ballistic missiles that have repeatedly been fired at Saudi territory, and that were one of the main targets of Operation Decisive Storm.
Iran’s military support to the Houthis is a symptom of how the Houthi leadership willingly fell into the trap of Iranian hardliners’ revolutionary, radicalizing and instrumental narrative of Muslim (and specifically Shiite) oppression. But what is often missed is that there are various branches of Zaydism, the religious current to which about 40 percent of Yemen’s population adheres.
The Houthi leadership’s specific branch, Jaroudiah, is closer to Twelver Shiism, and has been shaped further in that direction by Houthi ideologues. They are Zaydi revivalists who have pledged allegiance to Iran’s clerical establishment. The question is, is it too late to bring the Houthis back into the realm of moderation?
Source: arabnews.com/node/1165181
----
Egyptians’ Sense of Humour Is Very Telling
By Abdellatif El-Menawy
21 September 2017
Ancient Egyptians sanctified humour, to the extent that they even consigned a humour goddess and married her to the deity of wisdom. This is the closest explanation to the relationship between Egyptians and their sense of humour, showing their attitude to life. It is said that ancient Egyptians believed the world was created out of laughter.
Papyrus and limestone were their most famous raw materials, on which they would use sarcasm and humour to criticize social and political conditions. Museums worldwide have preserved papyrus showing such depictions. Humour altered with the times, and was represented either via a puzzle, riddle or joke. The purpose of jokes, since the dawn of history, has been to deal with taboo subjects that cannot be tackled openly.
When Romans ruled Egypt, they forbade Egyptian lawyers from accessing Alexandria’s courts because they used to laugh at Roman judges and their poor verdicts, and make jokes and songs to defend political prisoners. “Egyptians are twisted and bitter people with a sense of humour,” said Roman poet Theocritus.
Egyptians made fun of Ottoman rulers’ appearance, saying they were arrogant and overweight. Egyptian scholar Al-Jabarti wrote: “Egyptians made jokes about the Turkish pasha.”
During the French occupation, Egyptians mocked their French rulers. Napoleon Bonaparte ordered the arrest of those who made such jokes, making humour a crime for which people would be punished and even executed. During the British occupation, Egyptians used to meet in cafes just to laugh at the cruel occupiers. This led to the British closing them down.
When Egyptians start to lose their sense of humour, this represents a big crisis. Such an atmosphere prevailed during the last few months of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule in 2013, when most Egyptians suffered severe depression. That is what made them take to the streets to end Brotherhood rule and take back control of their destiny and their capacity to laugh.
Political and economic conditions have heavily affected Egyptians’ ability to speak out, thus resorting to sarcasm and humour to express their pain. The smile on Egyptians’ faces, engraved since the beginning of their civilization, hides the details of their bittersweet lives.
When Egyptians tell a joke, their purpose is not to make you laugh, but to make themselves laugh. Laughter shows a desire to live; Egyptians resort to sarcasm and humour to express their own viewpoint or evade their problems.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1165171
------
Christopher Kennedy’s Promises to Defend Arabs and Muslims Are Noteworthy
By Ray Hanania
21 September 2017
US Sen. Robert Kennedy won the California primary election on June 5, 1968, and was predicted to easily defeat Republican candidate Richard Nixon to become America’s 37th president.
But after celebrating his victory, Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Christian immigrant whose family became refugees after Israel’s creation two decades earlier. Sirhan was angry that the US was arming Israel to sustain its year-old occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Fifty years later, I was among an Arab and Muslim audience as Kennedy’s son Christopher announced his candidacy for governor of Illinois and promised to fight racism, stereotyping and exclusion of Arabs and Muslims from state and local government.
How many times have Arabs and Muslims heard such promises before elections, only to see them broken afterward? Many US politicians who vowed to fight discrimination end up supporting laws that deny Arabs and Muslims their fundamental civil rights, because it appeals to their core voters and helps them raise money to stay in office.
Arabs and Muslims are marginalized in the US because it is easy to do so. We are weak, poorly organized, and lack public relations strategies to highlight our value to American society.
But I believe Christopher, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Illinois, is different. Here is a candidate whose father was killed by a Palestinian Arab over US bias toward Israel, telling an audience of Arabs and Muslims he will fight for their rights.
Christopher’s appearance resonated powerfully. I asked him why he of all people would do that considering what happened to his father? He seemed surprised by my question. “You can’t blame an entire people for the act of one person,” he said matter-of-factly. “We can’t judge each other by the act of one person.” What he said is fundamental to human rights, but Arabs and Muslims are still blamed for the terrorism of the 9/11 hijackers.
I was only 15 when his father was assassinated. And I was only 9 when his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. My family believed in the Kennedys, and supported both John and Robert, not just because my parents were Democrats, but because the Kennedys symbolized the values all immigrants seek when they come to the US.
My parents immigrated to America, fleeing the Israeli violence that consumed their homes in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. They connected with the experience of the Kennedy family, which Christopher shared with the Arab and Muslim audience. He spoke of how his family experienced the same racism and stereotypes that Arabs and Muslims face today when they immigrated to America from Ireland in the mid-19th century.
The man he hopes to unseat is Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who vowed repeatedly to oppose racism and discrimination, and said he would make government inclusive. But once elected in November 2014, Rauner proceeded to fuel hate. Last year, he signed legislation that singles out Arabs and Muslims for special punishment if they support boycotting Israel.
The legislation is the basis for even more draconian laws that have been introduced to Congress by politicians who have also promised to fight discrimination. One of those bills, S-720, was introduced to the Senate by Sen. Charles Schumer, who is leading the attacks against President Donald Trump and accuses him of being “anti-Muslim.” Schumer’s legislation takes the one signed by Rauner a step further, making it a felony for any American to support boycotting Israel’s illegal, racist settlements.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Schumer’s bill “states that violators shall be fined in accordance with the penalties laid out in Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That section provides that violations are punishable by a civil penalty that could reach $250,000 and that wilful violations are subject to criminal prosecution, which could result in a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison.”
As an American who served in the military during the Vietnam War, and whose father and uncle defended the US against the Nazis during World War II, I am outraged. I have a right to boycott products manufactured on Palestinian land stolen by Israel to build and expand settlements, which are illegal under international law. Those products are sold to Americans in stores with labels that falsely declare them “Made in Israel.”
The last time laws were passed targeting the beliefs of a specific group of citizens was in Nazi Germany in 1933, when Jews were denied their fundamental rights spelled out in the German constitution. We know what those restrictive, racist laws led to.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1165166
-----
Invention of the Mizrahim
By Susan Abulhawa
21 September 2017
The State of Israel was conceived at the turn of the 20th century in Eastern Europe by a group of elite European Jews who launched a movement called Zionism that sought to establish a physical nation state exclusive to Jews. It was a typical settler colonial enterprise, complete with the narrative of a divine mandate and a non-existent or savage indigenous population, central to which was the myth that Jews of the world formed a singular people, favored by God, who were returning to their singular place of origin - Palestine - after a three thousand year absence.
Although it was a project conceived in Europe by Europeans and for European Jews, they lacked sufficient numbers to build a population large enough to conquer the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, recruitment of Jews from the surrounding Arab world was a necessary inconvenience. They did so through propaganda and by creating false flag terror incidents (bombing of synagogues or Jewish centres) in order provoke an exodus of Arab Jews. A prime example of this happened in Iraq, where the oldest Jewish community in the world had lived for millennia as contributing members of Iraqi society, and who prospered, contributed to the arts and the economy, and participated in government.
But these Jews were not embraced as brethren by European Zionists. Zionism was decidedly colonial, and that meant that Jews of the Arab world were seen as incomplete, barbaric, dirty, uncivilised. Za'ev Jabotinsky, one of the forefathers of Zionism said, "We Jews have nothing in common with what is called the Orient, thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses [Arab Jews] have ancient spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned away from them, and this is in fact what we are doing in every decent school, what life itself is doing with great success. We are going in Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to sweep out thoroughly all traces of the Oriental soul."
A multitude of programs and protocols were implemented towards this goal. One of the most egregious was a large initiative of stealing the babies of Arab Jews and giving them to be raised by European Jews. But the larger efforts were simple propaganda campaigns that were implemented in schools, communities, and national projects.
In essence, it was a project to strip ancient peoples of their identities, which was not unlike what they tried to do to Palestinians. Zionists were trying to create a new nation with a unified people. So, they could not abide allowing parts of this population to continue to identify as Iraqi, Moroccan, Persian, Tunisian, and so on, and certainly not as Arab Jews. At the same time, the racist impulses of colonialism could not abide putting these people on par with Jews of Europe. They could not simply be Jews in the new Jewish state.
Thus, the word Mizrahim, from the Hebrew and Arabic words meaning "those of the East," was popularised to lump all of these peoples of different nations into a single miscellaneous category that erased their individual ancient histories and cultures that spanned thousands of years of life and tradition, replete with countless and invaluable achievements in their respective nations.
Before Israel, Jews of Iraq identified as Iraqi, of Morocco as Moroccan, of Tunisia as Tunisian, of Iran as Persian, of Syria as Syrian, of Egypt as Egyptian, and of Palestine as Palestinian. They spoke Arabic, ate the same foods as their Christian and Muslim compatriots, celebrated and partook in the same national events and traditions, lived by the same social protocols, and moved through their respective cultures as other natives did. And despite the similarities of their cultures, Tunisians were distinct from Egyptians, who were both distinct from Iraqis, who were distinct from Moroccans, etc. But Israel collapsed them all under a single identity, which was to be distinguished only from Ashkenazis, European Jews, who were higher up on the social order, and, of course, from non-Jewish Palestinians and Arabs, who were to be despised. The level of their resulting self-hate can be measured in the heightened cruelty they practise against Palestinians.
However, as Zionists would learn from Palestinians, erasing the identity of others is not an easy task. Memory is stubborn, and roots will continue to tug at humans long after they've been uprooted. Arab Jews continued to speak Arabic at home, to dance to Arabic music, eat Arab food, and dream of once again seeing the mountains, rivers, architecture, libraries, and colours of Persia, Babylon, North Africa and the Levant.
Israel has moved away slightly from early Zionism's contempt for our part of the world. And while it remains a colonial project, bent on erasing the native Palestinian presence, their social efforts are more focused on "indigenising" themselves to the land. The obstinacy of Arab Jews in clinging to their cultural roots has provided a convenient avenue to lay claim to regional indigenous culture. So now, Arab foods (like falafel, hummus, Shakshouka), traditional Arab clothing (like Tatreez, Galabiyas, Keffiyehs), and Arab folkloric dancers are all being rebranded as "Israeli," yet another phase of colonial renaming, and they use the rebranded Arab Jews to justify their claim.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/invention-mizrahim-170920103701750.html
------
At UN, Trump Pours Cold Water on Iran’s Hopes
By Hamid Bahrami
21 September 2017
“We cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for eventual construction of a nuclear program”.
These words were enough to prompt a grimace from the Iranian regime’s representative as he listened to President Trump’s first speech at the UN General Assembly, where world political leaders gather every year.
All journalists were focused on President Trump’s remarks as he is famous around the world for being an unpredictable political leader, which brings media attention.
His speech totted a full package of fiery and logic words about most important subjects such as the US national interests, the threats from North Korea, Iran’s malign activities in the Middle East and the refugee crisis.
Highlighting the various threats posed by the regime in Tehran, the US president mentioned Iran 11 times during his speech indicating that Tehran’s destabilizing actions in the region will be one of the most crucial issues for the US foreign policy.
The US president also launched a vitriolic attack on the catastrophic nuclear agreement, the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and described it as “an embarrassment to the United States” and “the worst and most one-sided transactions the United State has ever entered into”.
Appeasers and Proponents
Iran’s president had hoped that his participation at the General Assembly would help appeasers and proponents of the agreement to defend the nuclear deal but these words show that the US foreign policy team will not condone Iran’s infractions.
Indeed, President Trump allocated more than four minutes of his 42 minutes speech to Iran as he harshly criticized the regime’s destructive behaviour in the four corners of the Middle East. “Iran’s government must stop supporting terrorists and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbours”, the US president said in his remarks.
Although everyone expected that Trump to point finger at the Iranian regime, the amount of time spent on concerns related to Iran sent a strong message to the Iranian authorities and leaders to be careful.
Democratic Aspirations
For Iranian people, a vital part of president Trump’s speech was about change in the country. He started by calling the regime a corrupt dictatorship and carried on to say words, which would have been punishable by death if uttered in Iran.
He pointed out that “The longest suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are, in fact, its own people”, and went on to criticize the Iranian government for using the country’s resources and oil revenues to support terrorism in the Middle East instead of improving people’s live.
It is worth noting that anyone in Iran who uttered these words would be sent to the gallows immediately. In a direct acknowledgement of the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations, president Trump said: “The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most.”
“Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the people will face a choice. Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed and terror, or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a centre of civilization, culture and wealth, where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?” he asked.
As he was addressing the Iranian people, the Iranian regime’s representative was moped.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/21/At-UN-Trump-pours-cold-water-on-Iran-s-hopes-.html'
-----
Failure of the Arab Project
By Fahad Suleiman Shoqiran
21 September 2017
The big fuss about establishing an independent Kurdish state in Iraq reflects the threats against the concept of the state in the region. Many countries are under the threat of divisions, including Iraq and Syria.
The Kurds have been paving way for this step and historical dream ever since the 1960’s. They have actually separated after Kuwait’s liberation in 1991 and they have a government and a system and well-known borders. There is also a dispute regarding the city of Kirkuk.
Also read: Barzani demands alternative to referendum be presented within three days
Arabs are not in agreement here as this step harms “the dreams of unity” of people who are influenced by national slogans. This category thinks divisions reflect the collapse of the Arab state, particularly of a big country like Iraq, which has sentimental significance considering it’s the backbone of Muslims’ history.
It’s the Kurds’ right to establish their independent state. The rise of religious voices and clerics’ interferences in the Iraqi authority strengthens the idea of independence. The establishment of a Kurdish state, however, may pave way to more divisions in Syria and other countries.
Mitigating Pressure
This state, if established, will pose a challenge to Iran and Turkey and mitigate pressure off Gulf countries which worry about these two countries’ ambitions to expand. It may also contribute to deterring political Islam if it manages to create a secular ruling system with a modern educational system and moderate policies that support stability and dialogue to resolve political matters in the region, including the Palestinian cause.
There are two different visions pertaining to the Kurdish state debate. I will address them by discussing the opinions of experts Rasheed al-Khayoun and Abdulrahman al-Rashed.
In one of his recent op-eds, Khayoun wrote: “Choosing this particular time to hold the referendum is a stab to those who shed blood in valleys and mountains for the sake of the Kurds. It is a stab to the homeland, Iraq, which was never an occupier whom you’re now asking to give you the right to choose your fate”.
Also read: How Iran-backed Popular Mobilization militias threatened Iraqi Kurds
“This request is understood as liberation from occupation and domination. We congratulate our Kurdish brothers for this most hated halal, if it makes them happy. However, what we fear is gloating. We fear a divorce that may pave way to wars and make them lose their gains and hopes which we wish will not disappoint us all.”
Meanwhile, Rashed wrote in an op-ed: “Personally speaking, I mostly tend to agree with the Iraqi Kurds’ right to establish their own state. On the political and rational level, however, I think this desire must meet certain conditions before it’s achieved”.
“Rehabilitating the Kurdish region is not enough to establish a state as the Iraqi state itself must be rehabilitated to live without its Kurdish region and not be subject to collapse or wars. Kurdistan’s exit from the state system will most likely threaten the sectarian demographic balance in Iraq immediately and it may cause new domestic conflicts.”
Different Views
The two opinions express the different political views toward this division in the state that is suffering from fragility or wars and disturbances. Establishing a Kurdish state may be the division model to follow in other countries, and Syria is one of those threatened.
Kurds have been a part of the Arab’s literary, social and political history, same as the Amazigh. The domination of the unitary discourse, however, destroyed diversity which Islamic history celebrated.
Amazigh thinker Mohammed Arkoun talked about burying linguistic heritage and the magnificent diversity and said: “In order to establish the Arab Maghreb Union, they forcibly and randomly decided to delete all the old Amazigh history. It no longer exists. They simply told us: You are Arabs and there’s no such thing as Berber or Amazigh. This is what President Ahmed Ben Bella said in his first speech after the independence. He simply said: We are Arabs. He did not say: We speak Arabic.”
Arabism did not succeed in strengthening the idea of the state in its modern concept but it tried to melt non-Arab entities within its project. The Kurds suffered a lot from this ugly nationalist orientation which forced them to establish a strategy to survive, especially with the rise of hate speech against them and that resonate with the racist rhetoric against the Amazigh.
Therefore, the Kurdish state may be an existential necessity. And as much as it reflects the success of the Kurdish project, it expresses the failure of the destructive nationalist rhetoric and unitary projects.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/21/Failure-of-the-Arab-project.html
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/first-let-saudise-saudis-abdullah/d/112613