Middle East Press On: Diversity, Unified, Prince, Iran, Lebanese: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
28 April 2025
With Regime Change In Syria And Political Order In Lebanon, Iran Is Losing Control
A Strategy For Fostering Diversity Within A Unified Israeli Society
From Remembrance To Responsibility: Educating For Resilience In A Fractured Israel
Prince Khalid’s Iran Visit Creates A Positive Atmosphere
Will The Lebanese People Ever Get Their Money Back?
----
With Regime Change In Syria And Political Order In Lebanon, Iran Is Losing Control
By Neville Teller
April 28, 2025
The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria represented a major geopolitical defeat for Iran, and Syria’s interim government has taken decisive steps to curtail whatever hard power Iran still possessed within the country.
In an interview published by the London-based Asharq al-Awsat on December 20, Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, stated that his overthrow of Assad had “set the Iranian project in the region back by 40 years.”
In February he said on television that he intends to distance Syria from Iranian influence, and he denounced Iranian proxies as a “strategic threat.” He emphasized that by removing Iranian militias and closing Syria to Iranian influence, he intended to achieve what diplomacy and external pressure had very obviously failed to do.
He was clearly signaling that he intended to realign Syria’s relations with much of the world and reduce Iranian influence in the region.
A sign that Iran’s powerful foothold in Syria was about to give way occurred on December 8. As the rebel HTS group overran and captured Damascus, the Iranian Embassy – hurriedly evacuated the previous day – was ransacked.
Armed gunmen stormed the building and vandalized it by smashing windows, looting offices, and tearing down portraits of prominent Iranian figures such as Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei, Qasem Soleimani, and Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah. Video footage showed looters removing furniture and documents.
As a result, Iranian military and diplomatic personnel, including members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, have largely withdrawn from Syria.
AS FOR Lebanon, Iran’s influence has been exercised primarily through Hezbollah, which it has supported financially and logistically ever since the organization was founded in the early 1980s, shortly after the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Since its ceasefire deal with Israel, Hezbollah has been constrained militarily and wounded politically, though not fatally.
The Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, signed on November 26, 2024, expired more than two months ago. It was originally intended to last, with an agreed extension, until February 18, 2025.
That date has come and gone, but there has been no move to extend or renegotiate the deal. It appears to remain in effect by mutual agreement, but with no renewed legal basis.
Though Hezbollah’s capacity to operate independently is increasingly constrained, it remains a significant entity in Lebanon’s political landscape.
Acknowledging as much, Joseph Khalil Aoun, the country’s newly elected president, has with caution begun to reassert the sovereignty of the Lebanese state. On April 14, in a TV interview on Al Jazeera, he broached the delicate topic of disarming Hezbollah.
With the real danger of civil strife in mind, he declared that demilitarizing Hezbollah would be achieved through negotiation, as part of a national defense strategy, and not through force.
Disempowering Hezbollah means disempowering Iran, about which Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cannot be too pleased.
Hezbollah’s morale has collapsed following its substantial military defeat during the 2024 conflict with Israel. Reflecting this, on April 10 a Hezbollah official informed Reuters that the organization was willing to discuss disarmament. Its proviso is Israel’s withdrawal from five contested areas in southern Lebanon and the cessation of Israeli military strikes.
It was during his inaugural address to parliament on January 9 that Aoun first pledged to ensure that “weapons will only be in the hands of the state,” a position he has endorsed several times since.
Proceeding with caution, he has announced that implementation of the principle will depend on a “bilateral dialogue” between himself and Hezbollah.
Even so, Aoun said the Lebanese army has been confiscating weapons and dismantling unauthorized military facilities in southern Lebanon, as outlined in the ceasefire agreement.
The future of Hezbollah
Hezbollah’s future, and with it the extent of Iran’s influence within Lebanon, will probably depend on its ability to adapt to the evolving political environment, engage in constructive dialogue with the state, and redefine its role within Lebanon’s national framework.
The days of Iran’s dominant influence within the Lebanese state by way of its overmighty proxy are over. As indeed are Iran’s use of Assad’s Syria as a military hub and convenient transit route for supplying Hezbollah with weaponry with which to attack northern Israel.
Syria’s interim President Sharaa, who led the Sunni militia HTS for eight years, has no time for Shi’ite Hezbollah. On March 16, Syria’s defense ministry accused Hezbollah of abducting and killing three Syrian soldiers near the Lebanese border.
According to the ministry, Hezbollah ambushed the soldiers, took them into Lebanese territory, and executed them. Hezbollah denied any involvement in the incident.
Regardless, Syrian forces shelled areas in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, and the Lebanese army returned fire. After two days of clashes, with casualties on both sides, Lebanon and Syria agreed to a ceasefire. The agreement was negotiated directly between the defense ministries of the two countries and did not involve Hezbollah.
Follow-up diplomatic exchanges led to discussions on border demarcation and security coordination, aiming to rebuild trust and stabilize bilateral relations. These, too, were conducted without the participation of Hezbollah. Clearly, its influence on events has been much diminished. Iran’s proxy is being sidelined.
It was on April 14, five weeks after Lebanon and Syria agreed on the ceasefire that ended cross-border clashes, that Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam visited Sharaa.
“This visit will open a new page in the course of relations between the two countries,” said Salam.
Beyond the talk of mutual respect and restoring trust and good neighborliness, the two leaders also agreed to cooperate in the economic field, signing off on creating a ministerial committee to follow up with issues of common interest.
The whole episode served to demonstrate growing confidence on the part of the Lebanese, whose delegates seemed no longer in thrall to Hezbollah. Nor did Iranian interests feature in Sharaa’s effort to establish good relations with his Lebanon neighbor.
DESPITE THESE setbacks, Iran is attempting to establish a connection with post-revolution Syria. So far, the new Syrian administration has shown little enthusiasm for opening bilateral relations with Iran. It is clearly favoring an independent and regionally integrated approach.
Despite its loss of status, Hezbollah retains a good deal of political clout, especially among the Shi’ite population. But many in Lebanon blame Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, for dragging the country into regional conflicts and provoking Israeli retaliation.
As the Lebanese state grows stronger and Hezbollah weaker, Iran can see its power in Lebanon slipping away. Meanwhile Assad’s successor as Syria’s president is clearly not inclined to allow Iran much influence in his post revolutionary country.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851737
-----
A Strategy For Fostering Diversity Within A Unified Israeli Society
By Ben Mollov
April 27, 2025
The renewed polarization of Israeli society is disconcerting for all concerned citizens of the State of Israel and its friends abroad. The polarization that afflicted Israel prior to October 7, by most accounts, contributed to a perception of Israeli weakness, which emboldened Hamas to carry out its massacre on that fateful day.
In the first stages of the war, many articulated the view that diminished the significance of the issues dividing the country, claiming that they were “ inconsequential.”
While the ability of Israeli society to unify in the face of a common threat was impressive, in my view, the issues at stake were not inconsequential as they involved clashing values and deeply held perspectives which coalesced around the fault lines of the government’s judicial reform program that would affect the very shape of Israeli society.
In fact, the respected Jewish People’s Policy Institute suggested that even if a reasonable solution were to be found concerning the judicial program, the fissures within Israeli society would recur around some other issue.
Thus the deeper question is how can the Israeli body politic with its different worldviews, deeply held values often overlapping with sub-groups which former president Reuven Rivlin termed the “tribes of Israel” coexist and even enrich one another in positive interactions.
A melting pot
The Zionist social vision prior to and in the early years of the State sought to create a new pioneering society around the image of a new, proud, secular Sabra Jew of Ashkenazi background and promote unity based on uniformity.
Many of the perceived grievances by various sub-groups, such as the sector represented by Shas, Haredim Ashkenazim, and Arab society, have in effect been a reaction to the previous attempts to impose a uniform Israeli cultural identity as represented by the melting pot or the unity through uniformity model.
From this melting pot model, Israel has effectively become a multicultural society, which is in need of a new paradigm. A possible approach can be based on the work of the eminent political scientist Daniel J. Elazar, who pioneered in the fields of the Jewish political tradition and the area of federalism, which he contended was based on the Jewish idea of “Brit” or Covenant.
Its underlying principles are those of promoting diversity within unity, social partnership even in the absence of agreement on basic definitions, and advancing a sense of mutual responsibility among various and even disparate groups that need to interact and co-exist under a larger umbrella.
Elazar’s ideas of federalism and covenant have served as the basis of a graduate course in Bar-Ilan University’s Graduate Program in Conflict Management, which I initiated and have been running for over 20 years in cooperation with the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The course entitled “New Approaches to Conflict Resolution in Israeli Society” has, in effect, been serving as a social laboratory for testing the ideas of federalism and covenant as a basis for promoting diversity within unity in Israeli society.
The hundreds of students who have been through this course, many from high levels of government, military and education have been exposed, in addition to the ideas of federalism and covenant, to the group narratives of eight Israeli subgroups those being Haredi-Ashkenazi, those affiliated with the Shas movement, Russian speaking population, religious Zionists, liberal secular outlook, Ethiopian Jews, Druze and Arab society. The idea has been to promote “responsible empathy” towards all sectors of Israeli society.
Federalism based on covenant has also been uniquely positioned as an anchor to promote dialogue among these various groups, particularly based on finding commonalities between them. The underlying cultural and religious foundations of the Arab-Israeli conflict have also been discussed, along with interreligious and intercultural strategies for promoting dialogue and conflict moderation between the Jewish and Arab sectors of Israeli society. Indeed, from my experience, the interreligious and intercultural approach has also opened up larger horizons for dialogue and potential peacebuilding rather than a nationalistic dialogue, which inevitably leads to a zero-sum dead end.
Another one of my observations which I have shared with my students, also based on Judaic ideas is that the body politic composed of different subgroups and worldviews must accommodate all of these elements in some kind of reasonable balance in which those holding more traditional and nationalistic views along with those of more liberal outlooks must all feel that they have a place under the “collective tent”. The Israeli tendency to seek a “knock out” of the opposing side is counterproductive if not outright dangerous to the future of this country.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851728
-----
From Remembrance To Responsibility: Educating For Resilience In A Fractured Israel
By Dr. Granit Almog-Bareket, Miri Dayan
April 27, 2025
Each year on Yom HaZikaron, Israel pauses together. For one sacred minute, the siren sounds, and we stand united in grief and memory. But when the silence fades, we are left with a pressing question: What kind of society are we building in their memory?
The October 7 attacks made this question impossible to ignore. Alongside the tragic loss of life, they exposed deep fractures in our society—ideological, social, and civic. If we are to heal and if we are to prevent further disintegration, we must do more than remember. We must rebuild. And we believe that the path begins with education.
To that end, the Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem has launched two groundbreaking initiatives: the Leadership Academy and the School of Civic Discourse —complementary educational responses to a national crisis.
The Leadership Academy
The Leadership Academy offers fully customized programs for youth, educators, soldiers, and national security professionals in the IDF and Israel Police. This comprehensive national platform identifies and cultivates leadership from adolescence through military and government service.
We work with 9th–12th graders across all sectors—religious, secular, Druze—throughout the country. Each group receives a customized experience that reflects their own needs and challenges.
In partnership with the Ministry of Defense, we run programs for students in Israel’s periphery—from Netivot to Kiryat Shmona—hosting roundtable discussions about the challenges of life on the margins. These help them articulate their concerns and develop an understanding of fellow Israelis long before they enlist.
Additionally, our work with Israel’s security forces has become especially vital in the aftermath of October 7. Through our 06:29: From Darkness to Light exhibition, which tells the story of 35 brave women who witnessed the horrors of that day, we offer a powerful springboard for meaningful reflection about the societal and ethical dimensions of that day.
Soldiers and commanders from the Israeli security establishment, like MAGAV (Border Police) and the Ministry of Defense, engage with this content as a means to process, analyze, and ultimately grow from the events of October 7. We also offer in-depth discussions from those who were personally affected by that tragic day, for example, a bereaved mother Sigal Mansuri has shared her painful story about how her two daughters were brutally murdered at the Nova Festival.
Participants—from elite intelligence officers to new recruits—grapple with more than just tactical failures. They explore the civic implications of their service, confront ethical dilemmas, and discuss the values that must guide their mission. For MAGAV officers, for example, often the first point of contact with Israeli civilians is in tense situations. As such, we emphasize communication, empathy, and exposure to a wide range of Israeli voices.
This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Some units receive ongoing training; others participate in high-impact one-day intensives. The model is strategic, modular, and deeply responsive to each group’s needs.
The School of Civic Discourse
Running in parallel is our School of Civic Discourse, which is part of the museum’s deep commitment to educating the next generation of Israelis. The School of Civic Discourse addresses the very foundations of how we engage with one another as citizens. Our mission is to equip young Israelis—mechina students, gap-year participants, and high schoolers—with the cognitive, cultural, and communication tools to disagree better, speak with purpose, and listen deeply.
This program rests on two central pillars. First, the Jewish tradition of machloket l’shem shamayim—disagreement for the sake of Heaven. Our one-to-three-day seminars at the Museum introduces students to the ethos and methodology of Jewish disagreement, so they can learn how to live with ideological differences in a diverse society and work to ensure that all voices can be heard.
As such, the School of Civic Discourse offers seven unique seminars and 55 workshops, which were co-written by Dr. Sigal Khanovich, a psychologist with thirty years of experience in talent development, learning management, and digital transformation.
Secondly, the school teaches digital and civic literacy. A core objective of the school is to foster an understanding of human attention and the digital space of social networks, which exploit that attention to engineer consciousness, sow division, and incite polarization. This understanding aims to awaken individuals to take responsibility and adopt healthier digital behavior—because in today’s world, digital health is not a personal concern but a civic necessity.
It helps, of course, that our classroom is Jerusalem itself—a city that embodies both conflict and coexistence. It’s where Prime Ministers David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin once warned of civil war and chose restraint for the sake of the collective good. We not only teach that history here, we build on it.
Together, these two schools form a framework for strengthening the social fabric of Israel. One teaches how to listen with humility. The other, how to lead with integrity. Both are grounded in a core belief: that the ability to live with disagreement is not a liability—it’s a strength.
This Yom HaZikaron, we remember the cost of our freedom. But remembrance is not enough. We must learn how to move forward, and in our little corner of the universe, teach how we can live with disagreement to create a better tomorrow.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-85167
----
Prince Khalid’s Iran Visit Creates A Positive Atmosphere
Hassan Al-Mustafa
April 27, 2025
The visit of Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman to the Iranian capital, Tehran, this month and his meeting with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei carried several political implications, particularly as he delivered a written message from King Salman. This indicates there has been communication between the highest authorities in Saudi Arabia and Iran, highlighting the significance and confidentiality of the message’s content.
What does it mean for a letter to be handwritten? This approach to messaging involves assigning a person to write the message by hand, dictated by the king, who then signs it himself. The message is placed in a special envelope, within an elegant leather folder adorned with the emblem of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
A written message typically conveys respect, while it also signifies the importance of the content, necessitating a high level of seriousness in its consideration.
The written message was conveyed by Prince Khalid, the son of the king and brother of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He possesses both military and political expertise, having served as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington. He also participated in the initial stages of Operation Decisive Storm in 2015 and has been responsible for various political and security matters assigned to him by the crown prince, particularly regarding the Yemen conflict. This background explains the presence of Saudi Ambassador to Yemen Mohammed Al-Jaber during Prince Khalid’s visit to Iran.
Al-Jaber’s presence in the discussions between the Saudi delegation led by Prince Khalid and the Iranian delegation headed by Maj. Gen. Mohammed Bagheri indicates that the Yemeni issue was a significant topic of conversation. This is particularly relevant given the strong ties between Iran and the Houthis, led by Abdul Malik Al-Houthi, which has conducted terrorist operations against the Kingdom in recent years. However, Riyadh has reached an understanding with the Houthis to cease hostilities, paving the way for a lasting peace in Yemen that includes all parties and the formation of a national unity government in which the Houthis will participate.
In September 2023, Prince Khalid met with the “Sanaa delegation,” when “it was reaffirmed that the Kingdom will continue to support Yemen and its brotherly people, and its constant keenness to encourage the Yemeni parties to sit at the dialogue table to reach a comprehensive and lasting political solution in Yemen under the supervision of the United Nations,” according to the Saudi Press Agency.
Saudi Arabia aims to ensure stability in Yemen by promoting internal reconciliation, fostering a genuine and serious political process, and facilitating an open dialogue that includes all parties, ultimately leading to the resolution of the existing division and political stagnation.
At the same time, there are risks threatening the security of maritime routes, particularly in the Red Sea and the Bab El-Mandab Strait, due to the involvement of the Houthis in supporting Hamas and launching missile strikes against Israeli targets. This has also endangered maritime navigation by targeting a number of commercial vessels under the pretext that they are Israeli or American or carrying goods for Israel, prompting many shipping vessels to alter their routes.
This prompted the administration of US President Donald Trump to decide to intensify military strikes against Houthi leaders in Yemen, as well as their training centers and weapons depots, until the Houthis cease their military operations.
These events collectively heighten the level of tension in the Middle East and the Red Sea, a tension that Saudi Arabia does not wish to persist as it jeopardizes its national and regional security.
Hence, the ceasefire file in Yemen is a critically important issue. Riyadh hopes that Tehran will exert genuine pressure and persuade the Houthis, its ally, to cease their military operations.
It is true that there is a continuous Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, along with daily violations of the sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria and a systematic displacement of Palestinians from their lands. However, despite the extreme brutality of these Israeli crimes, they will not be halted by the missiles or drones of the Houthis. Therefore, it is essential to consider alternative solutions that are more effective and lead to a just peace, ultimately resulting in a two-state solution.
There are also files concerning the armed factions in Iraq, Hezbollah and its weaponry in Lebanon, and the relationship with the new regime in Syria. All these files will be monitored for changes in the upcoming phase, particularly regarding the performance of Iran’s allies in these countries.
Through these foreign issues, where the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran intersects, Riyadh seeks to ease tensions and push for comprehensive regional reconciliations that will reduce the likelihood of war. This is because Saudi Arabia is concerned with consolidating peace and security so that its massive development and economic plans, outlined in Saudi Vision 2030, can succeed.
On the other hand, there are ongoing Iranian-American negotiations, facilitated by Oman, regarding Iran’s nuclear program. To date, three rounds of these discussions have taken place, with Saudi Arabia expressing its support for them.
Saudi Arabia’s support for a serious dialogue between Tehran and Washington has not been merely verbal; Saudi diplomacy actively engaged in its relations to avert any potential US military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. While Riyadh opposes any efforts that would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the Kingdom simultaneously recognizes that war poses a significant threat to all Gulf Cooperation Council countries and thus has advocated for its prevention.
Another matter is that Saudi Arabia expects Iran to adhere to the terms outlined in the security agreement the two countries signed in 2001, which is commonly referred to as the Naif-Rouhani agreement. This deal provides a regulatory framework from which current and future security cooperation can be initiated, while also preventing any violations or interference in the internal affairs of either nation.
A significantly positive atmosphere has been generated by Prince Khalid’s visit to Iran and his meeting with Khamenei. The next steps will depend on actions, bilateral cooperation and the initiation of measures to strengthen the region and close any gaps that extremists in Israel or terrorists might exploit to undermine the fragile security in the Middle East.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2598687
--------
Will The Lebanese People Ever Get Their Money Back?
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib
April 27, 2025
A parliamentary committee in Lebanon last week issued a draft law for restructuring the country’s financial sector. The Lebanese people surely breathed a sigh of relief, but does this mean they will finally regain access to their bank deposits, which they have been unable to withdraw for several years? That remains uncertain.
The committee found that 84 percent of depositors have less than $100,000 in their accounts. So, they came up with a formula: amounts up to $100,000 will remain in their accounts. Anything over $100,000 will be converted into some obscure form of government-linked debt instrument.
Some relief for depositors, then — but it does not mean that they will simply be able to withdraw up to $100,000 of their money. Article 37 of the draft law states that its implementation will be suspended until another law, the financial gap law, is passed.
In other words, the financial restructuring law does not mean a bank is under any obligation to make up to $100,000 readily available for depositors to withdraw. It simply means this is the maximum amount the bank can owe a customer.
The bank can then write off any money over this $100,000 threshold, converting it into long-term, government-linked debt instruments, which can be uncertain investments and difficult to convert into cash at a fair market price.
The long-running financial crisis in Lebanon is not the fault of the depositors but of greedy bankers and corrupt government officials, yet once again it is the depositors who are paying the price. No one is being held accountable, either among the political elite or the banking sector.
It is important to note that the banks have been acting unlawfully since 2019. Article 140 of the 1963 Code of Money and Credit law states that if a bank “declares itself in a state of suspension of payments,” it should be delisted. However, banks in Lebanon have continued to operate, despite their inability to pay depositors.
Also unlawful is the fact that banks have selectively allowed some depositors to withdraw money. Several politicians transferred huge amounts of money — billions of dollars — to banks outside the country when the crisis began. Meanwhile, small depositors could not withdraw even a few hundred dollars to meet their daily expenses. There has been no real investigation into this.
Lebanon’s financial crash of 2019 can be compared to the crisis that hit Iceland in 2008. In both cases, the signs were the same: a banking sector that was bloated in comparison to gross domestic product. In both countries, the banks were driven by greed. The difference is the ways in which the two states handled the crisis.
Iceland’s parliament immediately — it did not wait six years — put in place an emergency law that placed control of the banks in the hands of the Financial Supervisory Authority, which launched an investigation to uncover any evidence of fraud. About 30 bankers were prosecuted, convicted and jailed.
In Lebanon, no bankers have been prosecuted, as those at the top have been able rely on political cover.
Icelandic banks were put into receivership or faced liquidation. Their shareholders incurred most of the losses. Banks’ assets were distributed among depositors, with priority given to domestic customers. In other words, the depositors were the top priority.
This is not the case in Lebanon, where the depositors have been the ones bailing out the banks.
Yet, despite the very accommodating nature of the new law, the banks in Lebanon are fighting it, using the media as a tool with which to trash the legislation. They do not want to accept any responsibility for the crisis.
The banks enjoy the protection of a corrupt political class. The corruption of the government was financed by the banking sector. Banks used customers’ deposits to finance the government; they lured depositors with the promise of high interest rates and then put their money into bonds at the central bank, a very profitable strategy with very little risk to the banks. The central bank in turn provided the government with loans that were squandered through corruption.
The banks are responsible for all this, for failing to make the interests of depositors their main priority and instead providing loans to the government because this allowed them to make quick and easy money.
The banks have tried to deflect the blame on to others. They have pointed fingers at Kulluna Irada, a civil society organization and pressure group that has lobbied for financial reforms. They claim the group spread rumors that instigated a run on the banks and left them unable to repay depositors. The media, which has close links to the banking sector, has smeared the organization.
They even propagated a conspiracy theory suggesting that Kulluna Irada was financed by the “global left” and the American billionaire George Soros. This is inconceivable. After all their shady and twisted operations, which were so obvious to most observers, the banks dared to blame it all on an international left-wing conspiracy, Soros and his Open Society Foundations. This is an insult to the intelligence of the Lebanese people.
The status quo is very convenient for the political class and the banks. However, they can no longer ignore the financial crisis and the wiped-out deposits or act like it is business as usual. The International Monetary Fund has requested significant financial reforms to clean up Lebanon’s banking sector before billions of dollars of financial aid can be unlocked. As long as the political class protects the banking class, however, there will be no real reform.
The new restructuring law — suspended until a financial gap law is passed — is not a solution. It is a legal illusion. Without a financial gap law, it allows failed banks to write off savings, remain open while insolvent and avoid accountability.
It offers no guarantees, no timeline and no restitution. The depositors will continue to bail out the banks and the chances are that they will see very little of the money they worked so hard to save.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2598681
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/diversity-unified-prince-iran-lebanese/d/135335
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism