The Illusion of Safe Zones in Syria: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 February 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
14 February 2017
• The Illusion of Safe Zones in Syria
By Chris Doyle
• Who Pays the Price for Iran’s Intransigence?
By Ahmed Ayash
• Trump and the Labelling Of Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Group
By Mohammed Al Shaikh
• Heightened Tensions between Iran’s Supreme Leader and the US
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
• The Illusion of Safe Zones in Syria
By Chris Doyle
• Does Trump’s Rhetoric Serve Iran’s Purpose?
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Trump’s Lifeline to Oil Producers?
By Dr. Mohamed A. Ramady
• Israel Wants Settlements, Not Peace
By Rami Hamdallah
• West Vs. East In The Middle East?
By Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
• ‘Tenet Medal’ For Saudi Arabia, the Conqueror of Terrorism
By Turki Aldakhil
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
The Illusion Of Safe Zones In Syria
By Chris Doyle
14 February 2017
Safe zones, buffer zones, no-fly zones, no-bomb zones, green zone. Everyone seems to want zones in Syria. Given the apocalyptic humanitarian crisis, who cannot but want a successful, credible safe-zone plan if it means saving thousands of innocent human lives? US President Donald Trump favours them, but is that a sign that it is a brilliant idea?
Russia has asked for details of the US plans, of which — in public at least — there are none. Lebanese President Michael Aoun has expressed his support. Intriguingly, so has Hezbollah. The Syrian regime scoffs at the idea. Fred Hof, the former US State Department adviser on Syria, suggested that once Daesh is booted out of Raqqa, it would become the “mother of all safe zones,” an idea that betrays a paltry knowledge of Syria at best.
The UN is highly resistant to the notion. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi was clear: “Frankly, I don’t see in Syria the conditions” to create successful safe zones. “Let us not waste time planning safe zones that will not be set up because they will not be safe enough for people to go back. Let us concentrate on making peace so that everything becomes safe. That should be the investment.”
UN officials are all too conscious of previous cases, especially Srebrenica, where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered under the eyes of 370 Dutch peacekeepers. This scar on the UN’s record, over two decades on, will not be erased easily.
But what is meant by a safe zone? This depends on who is speaking, which has clouded the entire debate. Of all the leaders who have expressed an interest, it is dubious that they have a common idea.
Turkey started touting safe zones way back in 2011. For most of the last five years, the no-fly zone was the holy grail of much of the Syrian opposition, naturally to halt the devastating bombardments the Syrian regime’s air force rained down on civilians and fighters alike. Russia was equally determined to prevent this happening, which it has, as well as the concept of a no-bomb zone, enforced by maritime assets in the Mediterranean.
All this was always fantasy, and often led Syrians to buy into what was a misleading pipe dream. No coalition of external powers were at any stage serious in imposing one, the US in particular, completely allergic to deploying the 15,000-30,000 ground troops estimated by the Pentagon to be necessary to enforce any safe zone.
Worse, certain powers such as Turkey kept hinting no-fly zones would be imposed, backed only by wishful thinking. This encouraged more hard-line positions by Syrian armed groups that ultimately did them a disservice.
Some want to create safe zones as a haven for opposition fighters as well as those fleeing the fighting. This remains deeply problematic. Either a zone is a haven for fighters or it is a humanitarian zone. It rarely can be both. Even then, who decides who can access such zones? Who could carry weapons? If fighters are allowed to carry weapons, opposing forces will consider the area a military target. It would not be a demilitarized space.
The option of creating a safe zone through mutual consent of all the belligerent parties has yet to materialize. Turkey is in the process of creating its own buffer zone in northern Syria, but on what terms it is not yet clear. It has a political and security imperative, not a humanitarian one. Its approach to refugees has been to close its borders, hardly an offer of protection. Both Turkey and Jordan fear Daesh using refugees to infiltrate.
Daesh and Al-Qaeda would not be party to this consent, and would infiltrate such zones. Daesh is widely held responsible for a series of bombings in Al-Rukban camp close to the Jordanian border. Criminals and smugglers would prosper. And who would trust the Syrian regime’s word to respect the zones given its record? A divided UN Security Council will not give legal cover to creating a safe zone, as happened in northern Iraq and Bosnia.
Another significant danger is that safe zones become dumping zones. Aoun is determined to send Syrian refugees back to Syria, so is an ardent supporter of the idea. The suspicion is that Trump supports just want to end the refugee flow from one of his seven black-marked states, not for any humanitarian merit. But rightly, under refugee law no refugees should be forcibly repatriated.
Will these areas be dead zones — devoid of real life and economy, and dependent on declining international largesse — or thriving economic hubs of life and progress? History does not favour the latter. If displaced people and refugees are herded together, they present a tempting target — kill zones, and not just for those who may wish to bomb them. Daesh and Al-Qaeda are adept already at recruiting in some informal safe zones in Syria.
In effect, there are unofficial safe zones in Syria where civilians are relatively safe and fighting is absent. Rather than taking a confrontational approach, which in all likelihood would fail, the most effective way to help innocent Syrians is to work to improve the safety and viability of these areas.
Everything returns to achieving the goal of a political solution to the Syrian crisis, combined with more effective, transparent monitoring of the cease-fire and genuine cross-border access for humanitarian aid. Ultimately, all of Syria must be a safe zone.
----
• Chris Doyle is the director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1053886
-----
Who Pays the Price for Iran’s Intransigence?
By Ahmed Ayash
13 February 2017
Iran resorting to the “Death to America” slogan again – in what is considered by Fars news agency as rebuttal to the US threat of a “military attack” – demonstrates sign of things to come in the region. This will be a sea change from the US cozying up to Tehran following the nuclear deal agreement reached with former President Barack Obama.
Even Iranian President Rowhani, who is regarded as a reformist, affirmed in a speech marking the 38th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that any nation threatening Iran would come to “regret” doing so.
Undoubtedly, the region is becoming more dangerous at a political level with prospects of the same turning confrontational. It is worth noting that the Iran’s is the only regime – regionally and globally – that has resorted to harsh rhetoric against Washington unlike other regimes which have been lashed by the Trump administration such as China and North Korea.
Even Syrian president Bashar al Assad has refrained from mentioning the challenges ahead of his Iranian ally. During an interview with Yahoo News he stressed that any conflict around the globe needs US-Russia rapprochement, which is intrinsic not just for Syria.
Moscow’s approval
The Economist magazine portrayed a gloomy prospect of Trump administration seeking “grand bargain” with Vladimir Putin, which includes among other things Moscow’s approval to not cooperate with Tehran. However, the magazine casts doubt on Putin’s response with regard to this demand.
The region is certainly passing through a difficult phase as illustrated by Iran’s foreign minister. The so-called Shiite intellectuals league in Lebanon believe that the followers of their sect inhabiting the “crescent” stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, whether they agree with the Iranian regime or not, are within the radius of paying the price.
During a meeting with a group of Shiite “elites” there were cautionary notes related to the involvement of Shiites of Lebanon as a result of the Iranian regime involving Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict, which has necessitated a counter movement.
What if these developments lead to a confrontation in which the Iranian regime is defeated? Considering this scenario, there are those who believe that the Middle East will change immeasurably.
Changes will not instantly benefit opponents of this regime, who are collectively being classified as the followers of the Supreme Leader, as long as his tone continues to be loud. It is hence their responsibility to calm the turbulence.
----
Ahmed Ayash is a writer for An-Nahar newspaper. He tweets @ahmadayash3.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/13/Who-pays-the-price-for-Iran-s-intransigence-.html
----
Trump And The Labelling Of Muslim Brotherhood As Terror Group
By Mohammed Al Shaikh
13 February 2017
In my opinion, Muslim Brotherhood is not merely a terrorist group, but mother of all terrorism. It has been the fountainhead of violent political Islamism since it was established in 1928. It has bred terrorist movements that exploited sacred Islamic text to justify violence and recruitment of terrorists.
During the British colonial era in Egypt, the group was used by foreign intelligence agencies as a tool for political assassinations. It was said to have been used by former US president Ronald Regan in the eighties of the last century against ex-Soviet Union in Afghanistan and was manipulated by the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, to challenge the so-called socialist centralization of power.
For them, the group seemed nothing more than “gun for hire” to be used against adversaries. History of the group, since it was founded in Egypt, corroborate the fact that it has always being a political tool that have misused Islamic concepts such as “jihad” to accomplish political goals, either for their own political aspirations or for others.
Trump administration
President Donald Trump and officials from his administration have stated, on several occasions, plans to designate the group as a terrorist organization similar to that of Hezbollah in Lebanon. This could be done probably by passing a bill in the Congress. Apparently, members of Muslim Brotherhood, mainly in the US and Europe, are anticipating this move and are beginning to publicly detach themselves from the group.
This is, however, only part of the entire story. For example, the group was designated as a terrorist group in Egypt, the country of its origin, as well as the UAE and Saudi Arabia, a move of profound and palpable financial impact on the Muslim Brotherhood and its empathizers. Being officially classified as “terrorist organization” may have hampered their expansion, but did not totally obliterate the group. This is achievable only if it is done globally.
This will not only largely incapacitate its activities but will also compel its followers to disengage from terrorism. They will have to do so escape financial implications of breaching sanctions imposed by the US administration on terrorist groups, banks and financial institutions. Adding the group to the “terror list” will hasten Britain to follow the US path, as well as Europe, especially France and Germany, if the far-right prevailed.
The conclusion remains that Trump winning the US presidential election, and his pledge to eradicate violent ideology, means he will, undoubtedly, obliterate the Muslim Brotherhood.
-----
Mohammed Al Shaikh is a Saudi writer with al-Jazirah newspaper.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/13/Trump-administration-and-the-labelling-of-Muslim-Brotherhood-as-terror-group.html
----
Heightened Tensions between Iran’s Supreme Leader And The US
By Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
14 February 2017
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the senior cadre of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) undoubtedly knew that US President Donald Trump was not going to be the same as his predecessor Barack Obama regarding Iran and the Middle East.
Trump made his policy on Iran crystal clear throughout his election campaign, when he repeatedly argued for a tougher position against Tehran and its military adventurism. The policies of Trump and his advisers also highlighted the administration’s desire to restore and strengthen relationships with traditional US allies in the Middle East.
This raises the million-dollar question: Even though Iranian leaders knew it would be extremely provocative to the US and the Trump administration to test-fire a ballistic missile, why did they go through with it, thereby igniting a new era of increased tensions?
The first reason is inspired by the desire of Iranian leaders, particularly the hard-liners — who have the final say in foreign and domestic policies — to restore their level of hostility with the US. Bilateral relations were getting much closer than Khamenei and IRGC leaders were comfortable with.
It is worth noting that he previously gave the green light to the moderates (including President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif) to begin a partial rapprochement with the US to ease the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) four rounds of economic sanctions.
Since the ruling clerics’ hold on power was in danger, Iran’s international legitimacy and revenues needed a boost, which could be facilitated by investing in trade and re-joining the global financial system.
After the sanctions were lifted and Iran secured many business deals with Asian and European nations, Khamenei has now made a tactical shift to restore his hostility with the US and maintain the classic image he and his social base have portrayed of it as the “Great Satan.” In other words, Khamenei and the IRGC needed sanctions relief, but they also wanted to keep the US as their enemy.
By escalating tensions, Khamenei is using the opportunity to preserve his parochial and political interests, as well as increase his legitimacy, by shoring up his hard-line power base. He sees the tensions as a partial political victory; he recently told a group of military commanders: “We are thankful to (Trump) for making our life easy as he showed the real face of America.”
Khamenei is also buttressing the argument Tehran has been making for over 30 years, that the US is Iran’s foremost enemy and no one should trust it. In addition, by blaming the US he is projecting the idea that he has been vindicated. From his perspective, maintaining hostility with it preserves a core pillar of his policy and ensures his hold on power.
The second reason behind Iran’s provocation is that its leaders are trying to examine Trump’s boundaries. First, Tehran test-fired a ballistic missile, raising concerns about its compliance with UNSC Resolution 2231, which “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”
Iran carried out the test despite being previously warned by the US, the UNSC and other powers that it should refrain from engaging in activities linked to its ballistic missile program.
After the Trump administration imposed limited sanctions on some individuals and companies linked to Iran’s ballistic program, Tehran pushed the boundaries more. It held a military exercise that included test-firing missiles, utilizing radar systems, command-and-control centers and cyber-warfare systems.
Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the IRGC’s aerospace division, said: “If we see the smallest misstep from the enemies, our roaring missiles will fall on their heads.” Gen. Hossein Dehghan was quoted by the semi-official Tasnim news agency as saying: “The recent missile test is in line with our plans.” On Wednesday, Iran launched another missile.
The third reason behind Iran’s choices is about projecting regional power. A fourth reason is to send a strong message to state and non-state actors, as well as to Iranians, that it will not moderate its behaviour or alter the core pillars of its revolutionary and foreign policies.
When the Trump administration assumed office, Iranian leaders had a priceless opportunity to turn over a new leaf and demonstrate they are willing to be respectful and constructive members of the international community, and are ready to resolve regional conflicts. In other words, by acting rationally and avoiding tensions from the outset, Iran had a great opportunity to influence and shape Trump administration policy.
However, Iran decided to return to what it feels comfortable with: Hostility with the US. What Iranian leaders have not yet recognized, but should be cautious about, is that the Trump administration might not be a classic US administration with which they are familiar.
----
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. He serves on the boards of the Harvard International Review, the Harvard International Relations Council and the US-Middle East Chamber for Commerce and Business.
Source: .arabnews.com/node/1053826
----
Does Trump’s Rhetoric Serve Iran’s Purpose?
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
13 February 2017
A recent piece published by The Economist is entitled: “Donald Trump is helping Iran’s radicals.” It cites the Iranian Supreme Leader’s statement: “Thank you, Mr. Trump, for showing the true face of America,” adding that Mohammad Javad Zarif, “Iran’s foreign minister, has lost his smile. Iran has difficult days ahead.”
The article concludes that the extremist wing within the Iranian regime benefits from Trump’s extremist political rhetoric and gives this wing a chance to rise and strengthen its position at the expense of the moderate wing. These fears seem logical and reasonable but when applying them on the political reality within the Iranian regime, we realize they are not true.
We believed in this conclusion in the 1990’s when Hashemi Rafsanjani became president as he represented moderation but his presidential term passed by and further proved that the Iranian regime is in fact extremist on the ideological level and governs through a structure of centralized control regardless of the president elected by the people and accepted by the Supreme Leader.
This analysis became clearer when Mohammad Khatami won the presidential elections. Everyone realized later that he was a figurehead while the real power was in the hands of the Supreme Leader’s office and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Then Mahmoud Ahmedinejad became president and he had full powers as he had strong relations with the supreme guide’s and Revolutionary Guards’ institutions.
During three decades, nothing happened to prove that there’s real competition between radicals and moderates inside the ruling command. Major events rather confirmed that the real governing figures were the radical ones while the moderate ones were just frontmen. Hassan Rowhani, the current president, and Zarif, his foreign minister, also represent the moderate face and they succeeded at swaying the administration of former president Barack Obama and convincing it that lifting sanctions and encouraging Iran’s openness are in the interest of moderate figures, the region and the world.
Wrong perspective
Once again, evidence suggests this perspective was wrong. The Iranian command became more aggressive than before and for the first time since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, it dared expand its military activity outside its borders. It participates in four wars outside Iran and funds them. All this happened thanks to the nuclear deal which opened the doors of relations, trade and activity to it and kept silent over Iran’s threats to the region’s countries.
Trump’s extremist rhetoric is the outcome of the disappointment in Washington due to Iran’s actions after signing the nuclear deal. Things will get worse unless there is a strict international position against Iran’s adventures and unless Iran is forced to end the chaos which it funds in the region and the world.
Those who know how the Iranian regime works cannot believe the excuses being made by Iran’s friends and which stipulate that being lenient with Iran can lead to positive things. The nature of the regime in Tehran is religious and it has a revolutionary ideology. It has a political agenda that has not changed much since it attacked the American embassy in Tehran and held diplomats hostage.
The same logic leads us to conclude that Iran will dominate through using power via its proxies and militias across the region and through encouraging and supporting the rebellious behaviour of certain local parties in neighbouring countries. Iran has not changed much since it announced it plans to export revolutions to the world. The only change that happened is that its financial and military situations improved a lot thanks to the nuclear deal it signed with the West.
---
Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the former General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/13/Do-Trump-s-threats-serve-Iran-s-purpose-.html
----
Trump’s Lifeline To Oil Producers?
By Dr. Mohamed A. Ramady
13 February 2017
While President Trump seems to be making the headlines for the wrong reasons concerning rather blunt speaking telephone calls with foreign heads of state and the shambolic introduction of his US entry executive orders on some Muslim countries, in contrast oil producers seem to have found a new found friend who has thrown them a lifeline.
Oil producers had been coming under increased pressure over the past decade from global environmentalists and climate change advocates who have vigorously campaigned for a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and renewed emphasis for renewable and clean energy sources.
Trump’s victory, with his belief that climate change proponents have been exaggerating the degree of harm to the environment, and has even called climate change a hoax, coupled with his election promises to push harder for domestic US oil and coal production has seemingly changed the energy equation, at least for the next four years of his administration.
Mixed energy portfolio
Now no less than Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Khaled al-Falih has announced that US president Donald Trump’s policies would be good for the oil industry, as according to the minister, Trump has steered away from excessively anti-fossil fuel’s unrealistic policies and that he wants a mixed energy portfolio that includes oil, gas and renewables.
The American president has followed up on his rhetoric by appointing unapologetic climate change skeptics in key administration positions such as Scott Pruitt as head of the Environment Protection Agency, as well as other climate change skeptics like David Schnare, Chris Horner and William Happer.
According to reports, in 2015, the environmental group Greenpeace UK announced that it had caught Happer in a sting operation. Greenpeace officials, posing as representatives of an unnamed Middle Eastern oil company, offered Happer money to write a report on the benefits of increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 while keeping the funding source a secret.
Happer agreed, but maintains that he did nothing wrong. He says that he told the ‘oil company’ officials that any payments should be sent to the CO2 Coalition, a US non-profit organization that promotes “the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy”.
The Paris Agreement
The seemingly unabashed new Trump embrace for fossil fuel will put into question the USA’s commitment to the December 2016 Paris Climate Change Conference which ended in much fanfare to try and enforce stricter national compliance in reducing global emissions, with fossil and coal being the primary targets.
This was much to the annoyance, but grudging acceptance of major oil producers who have pointed out that they either need to be compensated for future loss of oil revenues, which was discounted by consumer nations, or try to diversify their oil-based economies. The result has been a plethora of Visions and Missions all over the Gulf countries to do exactly that, and hope that the private sector will take up the challenge of being the future engine of non-oil growth.
By contrast, the European Union as a whole has set a target of an 80-95 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Among EU nations, Sweden, Britain, Denmark and Finland have also passed climate laws meant to make long-term policies less easily overturned and to give more certainty to investors, especially those embarking on long term and costly renewable energy programs.
These countries and others want to set an example at a time when climate sceptics are seemingly gaining power in the world again. Despite US skepticism, at least from Trump appointees, they feel encouraged by pledges by China and India, the world’s other large emission countries to fulfil their commitments to the Paris Agreement.
So will the Paris Agreement get anywhere? On the one hand, it doesn’t oblige any government to cut their greenhouse gases. But on the other, each country’s efforts will be scrutinized every five years. And although the agreement has no teeth, it does represent something unique: the first time that every nation on the planet has signed up to try to head off the worst effects of global warming.
Potential Game Changer?
China in particular, is investing billions in solar that could be a potential game changer, and put at risk those that still want to invest in fossil fuels and ultimately be the losers.
Despite Trump’s seeming lifeline to Gulf oil producers, the major fossil producers know that this lifeline is short term as the environmental bandwagon and scientific evidence points toward an eventual reduction in fossil fuel consumption.
They too have been embracing a future that encompasses renewal, especially solar energy, and are planning significant investment in the sector. In this respect, Minister Falih is also right by hedging his long-term bets on a mixture of energy portfolio too, given that in the short term the new Trump energy policies might increase US oil production and reduce dependency on oil imports from the Gulf countries.
Oil producers like Saudi Arabia have seemingly welcomed additional US oil production if this helps to meet increased global demand. This is a big “if” in face of global uncertainties on renegotiated trade agreements and protectionist economic policies.
----
Dr. Mohamed Ramady is an energy economist and geo-political expert on the GCC and former Professor at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/13/Trump-s-lifeline-to-oil-producers-.html
----
Israel Wants Settlements, Not Peace
By Rami Hamdallah
14 February 2017
Israel is above international law, or so it seems. On December 23, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2334, re-affirming the illegality of Israeli settlements.
The vote was significant for two reasons: Unlike previous UNSC resolutions targeting Israel, it was not vetoed by the Obama administration, who decided to abstain. Secondly, it demonstrated an international consensus on the illegality and illegitimacy of Israel's settlement enterprise, and showed that these settlements constitute an obstacle to peace.
These points were reiterated by then-US Secretary of State John Kerry in his December 28 speech, and subsequently in the January peace conference held in Paris, which was one of the largest peace conferences ever held in terms of high-level participation.
The fact that even Israel's staunchest ally, the United States, affirmed the illegality of settlements, did nothing to change the course of the Benjamin Netanyahu government.
On the contrary, since the UN Security Council passed the resolution, Israel hurried to approve the construction of even more houses in illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Within one month, the government gave the green light for the construction of more than 6,000 housing units - a higher number than the total number of settlement housing units approved in all of 2016.
The 'regularisation bill'
In parallel, the Israeli parliament passed a legislation - dubbed the "regularisation bill", but essentially a land theft - enabling settlers to "legally" steal Palestinian land, thereby accelerating construction of settlements.
The bill also retroactively "legalised" existing outposts, which are considered illegal even under Israeli law. Yet under international law, both settlements and outposts are illegal. There is no such thing as a legal settlement.
Although the government of Israel and settlers have been building settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem for nearly half a century, this law crosses a dangerous red line, to the point where even Israel's attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, declared that it violated the Fourth Geneva Convention and that he would not defend the bill if it was challenged in an Israeli court.
Make no mistake: soon, thousands of settlers will scramble to establish new settlements - and that is in addition to the thousands of settlement housing units that will be sponsored and built by the Israeli government itself.
The continued Israeli policy of building settlements makes the establishment of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state increasingly impossible and seriously threatens the two-state solution. But settlements are not merely a factor to be dealt with in future negotiations: their presence has serious consequences for Palestinians, even now.
The building and expansion of settlements is pushing Palestinians out of the Area C, which constitutes 60 percent of the West Bank and is under full Israeli control.
Settlers routinely attack or harass Palestinians living close to settlements and they also vandalise Palestinian properties in complete impunity, with the aim of forcing Palestinians to relocate to overcrowded cities outside the Area C.
Moreover, in order to expand or build new settlements, Israeli bulldozers routinely demolish Palestinian homes and other Palestinian infrastructures in the Area C.
Farmers and Bedouins, who need large tracts of land to grow crops and herd cattle, have been hit the hardest and forced to change their traditional lifestyle, losing their means of livelihood in the process.
Taking concrete steps
The international community cannot afford to ignore Israel's settlement frenzy. Following the announcements for renewed settlement construction and the passing of the so-called "regularisation bill", world powers, rights-based groups and UN officials, including Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, promptly issued condemnations.
Yet, past experience has shown that these statements are ineffective and have never deterred Israel. The same can be said about UNSC resolution 2334, which was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, meaning that it doesn't obligate Security Council members to take concrete steps if Israel violates the resolution.
Now, more than ever, the international community must take concrete steps, such as economic and diplomatic sanctions, against Israel. This is not simply a moral or legal obligation: it is also in everyone's interests.
International law and international humanitarian law, much of which has been drafted following the horrors of World War II, is meant to prevent the re-occurrence of such tragedies. Countries that flaunt international law (and are allowed to get away with it) invalidate basic human rights, pushing humanity back towards darker ages, when colonialism and ethnic cleansing were the norm.
Palestinians might be the ones who are most affected by Israel's settlement enterprise, but in the long term, we will all be affected.
----
Dr Rami Hamdallah is the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/israel-settlements-peace-170212111010770.html
----
West Vs. East In The Middle East?
By Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Feb 14, 2017
IT seems that the Cold War era between the West and the East is back. Middle Eastern nations are aligned now along two lines. The United States and the NATO are facing off Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. What such confrontation means to us?
I believe the Middle East is at the old crossroads, again. We could look no more than Syria to see how this phenomenon is manifesting itself.
The Russian-led camp is making up an Eastern block in defiance of world opinion — especially the Western block. In UN, the Security Council and the battlefields, this alliance has demonstrated its agreement, solidarity and consistency over Syria.
On the other side, Saudi Arabia and its GCC partners are building up an alliance with Turkey. The Trump administration and the United Kingdom are turning away from previous stands in support of their traditional Arab allies.
The more threats and dangers Middle East states perceive or face, the more ways they will find to solidify their common interests, improve cooperation and deepen coordination. It helps that they all belong to the same faith and culture, and use similar Western financial, administrative, technological and military systems.
In a recent interview, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan talked about the necessity of such alliance. In a TV interview with the Saudi host, Jamal Khashoggi, he explained that, “there are very brazen acts going on against the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are targeted. Also, if you look at developments in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Tunisia, these developments cannot be left aside nor can the developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are all related to each other. In fact, we find intrigues and plots being encouraged against the Islamic world, and so the countries of the Islamic world must stand in solidarity. But if that solidarity is not achieved, we will lose a great deal.”
President Erdogan, who is on a Gulf tour to Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, emphasizes his position toward Iranian intervention and threats to its neighbours, “the aim is to achieve the security, stability and welfare of Syria. We told them we do not want to see you doing this. Does Iran have borders with Syria? No. But we do have borders with Syria for more than 900 km. Does the US have borders with Syria? No. Are there borders between Russia and Syria? No. The military intervention in these countries must be stopped. If there is a solution it will be by a political way which necessitates Assad, the killer, being removed from power. He is the person who killed 600,000 of Syria’s citizens and should not remain in office no matter what and who stands behind him. They would also be held to blame for this great injustice.”
In the absence of the leadership roles of Egypt, Syria and Iraq, and in the aftermath of the so-called “Arab Spring,” Iran and its sectarian militias has no equal to reckon with in the Middle East except Saudi Arabia and Turkey. A strong alliance that also includes the GCC states, Jordan, Morocco, Malaysia, Sudan, Yemen, and Egypt, would certainly balance the power scale, and give a pause to the Eastern Block’s destructive behaviors.
It didn’t matter to the unholy alliance of Russia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Daesh and Hezbollah the heavy civilian and civic cost, with more than half the population (11m) displaced, and the country in ruins, as long as Assad, like Roman Emperor, Nero, can stay longer to watch his country burn, divided and occupied.
For Russia and Iran, it is a matter of to be or not to be. The gates’ key to their geopolitical ambitions is in the hands of one man. He, alone, can allow them to occupy and rule his nation, and serve their military and economic interests under some sort of legitimacy.
Iran cannot link Lebanon to Iraq and its territory, and reach the Mediterranean sea without hands and feet in Syria.
Without Assad, Russia would lose its military based, strategic position and billions worth of oil, gas and mineral treasures.
Unfortunately for all, the Eastern block underestimated the resolve and staying power of the Saudis, Turks, and Syrian resistance. This failure extended and deepened the misery of the Syrian people.
The unity of the Saudi-Turkey-led alliance is all the more crucial today in the face of the new evil axes. The Muslim and Arab world has pined its hopes in saving the region from total destruction and foreign occupation on such unity. Hopefully, other major regional players will join in, like Algiers, Pakistan and Indonesia.
United States, Europe and the rest of the civilized world would be best advised to side with the righteous, just and winning side.
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi is a Saudi writer based in Jeddah. He can be reached at kbatarfi@gmail.com. Follow him at Twitter:@kbatarfi
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/west-vs-east-middle-east/
-----
‘Tenet Medal’ For Saudi Arabia, The Conqueror Of Terrorism
By Turki Aldakhil
13 February 2017
Is it so difficult to understand why Saudis were not banned from entering the United States?
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud recently received a medal, named after George Tenet from the CIA, for his anti-terrorism efforts. This award ends all the confusion and clarifies the situation as Saudi Arabia is one of the superpowers’ most important partners in the war against terrorism.
Saudi Arabia has provided accurate intelligence information and saved developed countries like Britain and the US from terrorist operations. I’ve mentioned some examples of this in my previous article.
The fiercest attacks
Honoring of the crown prince is a testimony to the fact that Saudi Arabia has led the fiercest attacks on terrorist organizations in the region. It drove al-Qaeda to Yemen, outside its borders.
Moreover, despite the group’s recent attempts to expand in Saudi Arabia, beginning from Abyan and neighboring areas, the coalition forces, working to restore legitimate government in Yemen, continue to attack the commanders of the organization and target the group and the Houthi militias.
Therefore, it is normal for Saudis to be welcomed and allowed in other countries as the Saudi government does not shield any terrorist, unlike other countries which harbored al-Qaeda commanders for years and facilitated the September 11 attacks, such as Iran whose citizens are banned from entering the US.
Turki Aldakhil is the General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. He began his career as a print journalist, covering politics and culture for the Saudi newspapers Okaz, Al-Riyadh and Al-Watan. He then moved to pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat and pan-Arab news magazine Al-Majalla. Turki later became a radio correspondent for the French-owned pan-Arab Radio Monte Carlo and MBC FM. He proceeded to Elaph, an online news magazine and Alarabiya.net, the news channel’s online platform. Over a ten-year period, Dakhil’s weekly Al Arabiya talk show “Edaat” (Spotlights) provided an opportunity for proponents of Arab and Islamic social reform to make their case to a mass audience. Turki also owns Al Mesbar Studies and Research Centre and Madarek Publishing House in Dubai. He has received several awards and honors, including the America Abroad Media annual award for his role in supporting civil society, human rights and advancing women’s roles in Gulf societies. He tweets @TurkiAldakhil.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/13/-Tenet-medal-for-Saudi-Arabia-the-conqueror-of-terrorism.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/the-illusion-safe-zones-syria/d/110064