Middle East Press On: Iran, US, Genocide In Gaza, Extremism: New Age Islam's Selection, 19 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
19 April 2025
Why Did Iran Agree To Negotiate With The United States?
Netanyahu’s Losing Game: Isolation In The US, Genocide In Gaza
War Diary: Trump's 'Midas Touch' Delusions Will Fail To Solve The Gaza Crisis
Is The UK's Push Toward Wokeness Just Extremism?
Meta Must Ban Students For Justice In Palestine
Saudi Arabia And Abraham Accords: Normalization With Israel Is In Riyadh's Best Interests
Egypt’s Three Options In The Sudan Civil War
Last Chance For Lebanon, A Country At War With Itself
Fractures In Political Life In Türkiye And AK Party
----
Why Did Iran Agree To Negotiate With The United States?
By Mustafa Caner
Apr 19, 2025
The discipline of international relations is generally understood to focus on the relationships between two or more states based on notions such as defined national interests, geopolitical balances and power competition. Yet, another perspective – often overlooked but still encompassed within the discipline – is the consideration of the relationship between a state's foreign policy behavior and its internal dynamics. This perspective is particularly important for understanding why Iran chose to sit at the negotiating table with the U.S. and why it somewhat softened its rigid stance despite President Donald Trump’s domineering attitude, even though Supreme Leader Khamenei had banned negotiations with the U.S. as recently as February.
Especially in an era where global politics has largely replaced traditional international relations – an era in which not only state-level actors but also global economic forces, domestic political players, public opinion and many other actors shape outcomes, often operating through diverse cultural codes and contexts – the relationship between a state's internal and external political dynamics becomes particularly crucial. Understanding this relationship is key to grasping why the U.S. side refers to the talks as “direct” while Iran persistently describes them as “indirect.”
Since 1979, Iran’s political culture has been shaped around the notion of “resistance against U.S. arrogance.” Its diplomatic posture and tradition are rooted in a quest to be recognized not as a marginal or sidelined player in the international system, but as an equal and dignified actor. Therefore, sitting down at the negotiating table directly with the U.S. – especially after Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 – would have been a move Iran could neither explain to its domestic audience nor reconcile with its identity. If faced with another U.S. reversal similar to 2018, Iran might not have had the luxury of recovering from the resulting cognitive dissonance.
Having said that, Iran has entered into negotiations with the U.S., whether directly or indirectly. Naturally, it is important to trace the internal dynamics that have driven Iran to the negotiating table. Doing so helps us understand how urgently Iran needs a deal and to what extent it might be willing to show flexibility in the process. Iran’s need for an agreement stems broadly from problems in three interconnected areas: economic, political and social. These spheres are not isolated from one another; rather, they reinforce and influence each other. Let us now take a closer look at the challenges in each of these areas.
Economic problems
A widely accepted fact is that the main reason behind Iran’s long-standing economic downturn is the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and, under U.S. pressure, by other countries as well. Due to these sanctions, Iran is unable to sell its oil and is therefore deprived of billions of dollars in revenue. It cannot modernize its facilities in the energy, transportation and production sectors. Despite being one of the richest countries in the world in terms of oil and natural gas reserves, Iran faces energy shortages. This situation is increasingly worsening the daily lives of ordinary citizens. The national currency continues to lose value. People struggle to make ends meet and face growing difficulty in accessing basic necessities, an indication that the country’s reserves of political discontent are steadily filling up. To overcome its economic problems, Iran must see the sanctions lifted. An Iran that is integrated into the global economy, participates in international trade, attracts investment from around the world, and can both utilize its oil and gas reserves for domestic energy needs and sell them abroad, would be able to improve its citizens’ standard of living and reduce grievances stemming from economic hardship. Otherwise, it seems inevitable that economic weakness will translate into political and military vulnerability.
Domestic political issues
Over the past decade, Iran has experienced significant political turbulence. A series of domestic protests (such as those triggered by fuel price hikes or the Mahsa Amini case), foreign policy crises (including direct confrontations with Israel), and setbacks in regional politics (like the weakening of Hezbollah and the fall of Bashar Assad’s power in Syria) stand out as key developments. The domestic reverberations of these crises have activated political fault lines based on ethnicity, sect and gender, raising fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the political system.
Although the Iranian state has managed to weather these crises to some extent, the political and security capital it has spent in doing so has gradually depleted public consent. The election of reformist figure Masoud Pezeshkian to the presidency represents one of the state’s strategies to overcome these challenges and ease tensions in state-society relations. Pezeshkian was granted political space and a degree of political credit. He has implemented various initiatives to address discontent rooted in gender issues and identity-based grievances from Sunnis, Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs and Turks. While these efforts have somewhat eased domestic political tensions, they are unlikely to yield long-term stability unless U.S. sanctions are lifted and the regional conflict dynamics – especially the persistent threat posed by Israel – are brought under control.
For this reason, a new agreement akin to the 2015 nuclear deal is seen as essential. Such a deal could not only offer relief from sanctions but also potentially neutralize regional conflict dynamics and introduce a U.S.-backed security guarantee capable of restraining Israeli aggression.
Social problems
The Iranian people are weary of the decades-long isolation their country has endured. This isolation not only limits Iranians’ connection with the outside world but also serves as a major driver of economic and political discontent. In an age defined by the communication revolution, where alternative lifestyles are encountered through social media, such isolation breeds social unrest. Moreover, it calls into question the founding narrative of the political system itself.
In 2025, it will increasingly become difficult to sustain the political culture of 1979. A new political culture must establish a connection with the needs and realities of the times. If this political-cultural transition is to be managed in a controlled manner, without harming the delicate bond between the state and society, then Iranian decision-makers must begin to open the door to an agreement that would reintegrate Iran into the global system.
Of course, negotiations are a multifaceted and multi-actor process. The counterparts, particularly the U.S., also have their own distinct motivations, and the negotiation dynamics involve numerous challenges and obstacles. However, developments so far indicate that both sides are willing to reach an agreement. This mutual willingness is undoubtedly a key factor that increases the chances of the negotiations succeeding.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/why-did-iran-agree-to-negotiate-with-the-united-states
----
Netanyahu’s Losing Game: Isolation In The US, Genocide In Gaza
By Mehmet Rakipoğlu
Apr 18, 2025
As of April 2025, the Gaza Strip has become a territory of Israeli systematic annihilation and extermination. Officially, over 50,000 Palestinians – mostly civilians – have been killed since Oct. 7, 2023, and the social, medical and educational infrastructure of the enclave lies in ruins. The total toll of deaths in Gaza is estimated at more than 186.000, according to the Lancet report. Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza is a deliberate, large-scale effort not only to eliminate Hamas but to dismantle Gaza’s capacity for survival and continuity.
Despite extensive documentation by international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the Israeli government has escalated its attacks under the guise of security while framing territorial fragmentation, through corridors such as Netzarim, Philadelphia and now the Morag Axis, as tactical imperatives. These maneuvers constitute a broader project of demographic re-engineering and forced displacement in Palestine. Despite Israel’s ability to implement every strategy to destroy Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is losing the war. As former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert penned for Haaretz, stating that Israel is closer to a civil war than ever before, Netanyahu seeks to find ways out of the Gaza quagmire, Israel’s Vietnam.
Collapse of strategic alliance
Netanyahu wages a relentless war on Gaza, and he finds himself politically cornered. As the military campaign failed to eliminate Hamas and international outrage mounted over what has been widely referred to as genocide, Netanyahu is relying on two tenuous strategies: the first is about support from the U.S., and the second is about the Gaza war.
Netanyahu is seeking to reactivate full-scale U.S. support under Donald Trump’s presidency, as this endorsement is the top priority, serving as an international shield protecting Israel. In this sense, Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on April 7 clearly aiming to resurrect the historic alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv. However, unplanned and diplomatically barren, the trip signals the erosion of unconditional U.S. support. Trump’s remarks about negotiation with Iran and the success of Türkiye in Syria, the absence of a joint news conference, revealed that Netanyahu’s attempt to stage a political comeback on U.S. soil had failed. Similarly, these political differences highlighted how far apart the two leaders have drifted. No photo op or formal communiqué could conceal the deeper political rift.
Netanyahu’s failure to secure full support is not just about political personalities – it reflects a more fundamental structural change in U.S. public opinion. According to Pew Research Center’s April 2025 report, support for Israel among Americans has dropped significantly since the Gaza war reignited in October 2023. Only 54% of Americans now say that the Israeli-Palestinian war is relevant to them – an 11-point drop from 65% in January 2024. Similarly, the percentage of people who believe the war is significant to U.S. national interests declined from 75% to 66% over the same period. This decline is especially pronounced among young Americans. For instance, Republicans under 50 now show only 17% interest in the war compared to 7% among older Republicans, suggesting a generational divide that undercuts traditional bipartisan support for Israel.
More damning is the public’s changing view of Israel itself. In 2022, 42% of Americans held a negative view of Israel. In 2025, that figure climbed to 53%. The share of Americans with "very negative" opinions nearly doubled, rising from 10% to 19%. Among Democrats, negative views have soared to 69%, while only 37% of Republicans now express unfavorable views.
This data signals more than public disapproval. It reflects a paradigm shift in how Israel’s war is perceived by the very electorate that shapes U.S. foreign policy. The erosion of American moral and strategic support for Israel is no longer theoretical but statistical, demographic and generational. Despite Netanyahu's efforts to reverse this trend, he is unlikely to achieve full U.S. support for Israel during Trump’s second term.
Tactical escalation of Morag Axis
Confronted by this shifting tide, Netanyahu has turned to his second – and more dangerous – option: intensifying the Gaza war. This is no longer simply a military campaign against Hamas. It is a broader, systemic campaign of destruction and demographic engineering. Netanyahu knows that his military campaigns are not producing a concrete victory but failure. However, his only chance to remain in power is the continuation of the war. Thus, when the war ends, his coalition will be dispersed since they are pro-war and far-right actors. Therefore, Netanyahu's second political maneuver is not just about deepening Israeli operations in Gaza but also about deepening Israeli operations in Gaza and also about his political career.
In this regard, the Morag Axis is central to lasting the war and marks a new phase in Israel’s strategy. This strategy aims at killing those civilians who may govern Gaza after the war, and keeps alive those who desire the war, and involves de-Palestinianizing Gaza. This axis stretches between Khan Younis and Rafah and was initially declared a humanitarian safe zone. Yet, these areas have been repeatedly bombarded, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 civilians in recent weeks, including medical personnel and aid workers. This is a blatant violation of international law.
The corridor’s name, “Morag,” references an illegal Israeli settlement that existed in the same region between 1972 and 2005. Its revival in military vocabulary signals a symbolic return to settler-colonial aspirations and hints at future plans for territorial reoccupation. Like the Netzarim and Philadelphia Corridors, the Morag Axis is part of a broader “divide and rule” doctrine: to fragment Gaza, depopulate strategic areas and render long-term Palestinian governance unviable.
Ethnic cleansing
Israel’s corridor strategy is more than battlefield maneuvering. It is demographic manipulation masked as security. The so-called safe zones function as tools of forced displacement. By bombing the very areas where civilians are told to seek refuge, Israel is creating an impossible choice: flee or die. This amounts to nothing less than ethnic cleansing. Moreover, the deliberate targeting of Gaza’s civilian leadership, aid infrastructure and health services further reveals the larger objective. The goal is not merely to dismantle Hamas but to eliminate Gaza’s capacity for governance and recovery. This is a campaign to erase Gaza, not just militarily but also socially and politically.
Netanyahu has also begun framing the Morag Axis as a “Second Philadelphia Corridor,” despite Israel’s earlier commitment to withdraw from the original Philadelphia Corridor under the January 2025 cease-fire agreement. This reinterpretation of agreed zones is a clear violation of diplomatic frameworks and a signal that Israel’s intentions are rooted in permanent territorial alteration.
To sum up, Netanyahu’s dual strategy, seeking cover in Washington while accelerating ethnic cleansing in Gaza, is no longer sustainable. The diplomatic trip to the U.S. revealed isolation, whereas Israeli military actions in Gaza have revealed the intention of destruction. Israel’s Gaza project is not a war. It is a project of annihilation of Palestine. If this continues, the consequences are more likely to extend beyond Gaza.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/netanyahus-losing-game-isolation-in-the-us-genocide-in-gaza-
--------
War Diary: Trump's 'Midas Touch' Delusions Will Fail To Solve The Gaza Crisis
By Mordechai Beck
April 19, 2025
The legend of King Midas is well known. He was the king of Phrygia (in what is now Turkey) who was granted a reward by Bacchus for his hospitality. The god of wine and dance endowed him with the ability of having everything he touched turn into gold. This made the king happy for a while, until he realized that this “Midas touch” had a downside: It included his food and drink and much else besides, which included his beloved daughter. He begged to be released from this unbearable gift. And his request was granted, to his great relief.
Something similar seems to have happened to the newly re-elected president of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump. Believing in his supernatural powers, he set an unachievable goal of dismantling the Palestinian territory of Gaza and turning it into another one of his Shangri-las, complete with casinos, luxury hotels, and golf courses – apparently dismissing, or suppressing, the fact that he has seen six of his earlier casinos sue for bankruptcy.
Mr. Trump is under the illusion that he can force the Palestinians to give up their ancestral lands for money – lots of it. He was not shy to speak of the millions of dollars his government gives to the Palestinians every year. This is like King Ahab and his wife, Jezebel, offering to buy out the vineyard of Nabot, who refused to sell on the grounds that his land was a family inheritance going back to the time of Joshua and was therefore not for sale. The Palestinians likewise can point to the centuries of their inherited lands, though not as far back as Joshua. Either way, their claim is based on a value much higher than mere lucre.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-850221
-----
Is The UK's Push Toward Wokeness Just Extremism?
By Jonathan Lieberman
April 19, 2025
Is it me or is the world spinning out of control? Where have all the sensible people gone?
Regular readers of this column will know that I have a great affinity for the place of my birth, the UK. And a great love for the National Health Service (NHS) in which I have worked for 43 years and continue to do so to this day.
But, I could weep at what is happening to this beloved institution and the country it serves.
Allow me to explain.
In recent years, the United Kingdom has witnessed a growing trend toward ideological extremism – an aggressive push toward so-called wokeness – that seems to be increasingly detached from common sense and traditional values. What once might have been well-intentioned efforts to promote inclusivity and sensitivity have snowballed into a culture of overcorrection and, in some cases, outright absurdity.
The latest example of this occurred at Norwood Primary School in Eastleigh, Hampshire, which decided to cancel all Easter celebrations, including its Easter Bonnet Parade and Service, to “respect diverse religious beliefs.”
But many parents and commentators are rightly asking: is this really inclusivity, or is it cultural erasure under the guise of progressiveness?
Let’s not forget that Britain is a Christian country. Its calendar, institutions, and traditions are deeply rooted in Christian heritage. Easter is not a fringe holiday – it is central to British cultural life. To cancel Easter celebrations in a British school to appease a vague notion of “diverse beliefs” is not inclusivity; it is an act of self-negation. It sends the message that traditional British culture is something to be ashamed of, rather than something to be respectfully celebrated alongside other traditions.
This is not an isolated case. Across the public sector, we see similar trends. Take, for instance, the accusation leveled at NHS Trusts that they are manipulating interview shortlists to discriminate against white applicants, in a misguided effort to promote diversity.
DESPITE ETHNIC minorities being statistically overrepresented in the NHS workforce, these policies persist in the name of equity. What we are seeing is not fairness: It is reverse discrimination, a new kind of ultra-extremism that vilifies white Britons as default oppressors, automatically privileged, and inherently racist.
Such policies and decisions are not only unjust, but they also breed resentment and division. Instead of moving toward a truly fair and equal society, we are hurtling toward an Orwellian world in which language is policed, tradition is suspect, and history is rewritten to suit modern ideological fashions. This is not progress – it is ideological tyranny masquerading as virtue.
Contrast this with the situation in the United States. There, at least in some quarters, there is a growing resistance to wokeness. President Donald Trump has declared a full-blown war on what he calls the “woke mind virus,” and conservative media outlets have echoed this sentiment with gusto. But a recent Guardian headline lamented: “Wrecking ball: Trump’s war on ‘woke’ marks US society’s plunge into ‘dark times.’”
Sadly, some of the anti-woke backlash in America goes way too far, with some describing it as “a modern-day blend of McCarthyism and white grievance”.
And what about here in Israel? We are no strangers to extremism either. On the one hand, we have haredim (ultra-Orthodox) who refuse to serve in the army, even as others risk their lives defending the country. On the other, radical settler extremists attack non-Jewish properties in the West Bank, bringing shame to the Zionist enterprise.
And let’s not forget the hard-Left activists who disrupt traffic, stage protests at every turn, and reflexively oppose any government measure simply because it originates from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Each side believes it holds a monopoly on truth and righteousness, and in the process, society is torn apart by competing ideologies, each more entrenched than the next.
So again, we must ask: Where have all the sensible people gone?
THIS IS not a new dilemma. The medieval Jewish philosopher and physician Maimonides, known as the Rambam, grappled with these very questions of balance and extremism. In his Mishneh Torah, he advocates for the “Shvil HaZahav” – the Golden Mean. According to the Rambam, every character trait exists on a spectrum between two extremes. The proper way – the “Derech Hashem,” the path of God – is to follow the middle road, to cultivate moderation in all things.
He draws on the philosophies of Aristotle and Al-Farabi, fusing Jewish tradition with classical thought to articulate a timeless truth: extremism, whether to the Right or the Left, leads to chaos. It is balance that brings harmony.
In our world today, that message could not be more relevant. Whether in Hampshire classrooms, NHS boardrooms, the streets of Jerusalem, or the corridors of power in Washington and Westminster, we are witnessing the unraveling of societies pushed to their ideological edges. The problem is not one specific ideology; the problem is extremism itself. The inability to see nuance. The refusal to consider other perspectives. The abandonment of tradition in the name of progress, or the rejection of change out of fear.
It’s time to return to the center. Time to speak out against absurdity, whether it comes dressed in the language of inclusivity or nationalism. Time to reclaim common sense as a civic virtue. To teach our children to be proud of their heritage while respectful of others’. To resist the mob, whether digital or real-life, that seeks to silence dissent.
Let us strive for the Golden Mean – not just as individuals, but as communities and nations. Only then can we build a society that is not just tolerant, but truly just. Not just diverse, but united. Not just passionate, but wise.
In a world veering off course, moderation is not weakness: It is strength. And it is the only path forward.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-850503
---
Meta Must Ban Students For Justice In Palestine
By Zachary Schildcrout
April 19, 2025
The advent of social media has, in many ways, enriched the lives of Internet users the world over, allowing a level of human connectivity that would seem unimaginable not even two decades ago.
Nonetheless, even an invention as spectacular as social media presents challenges, offering extremists and bigots platforms for the rapid proliferation of disinformation and hate. The antisemitic acts that Jewish communities worldwide have faced since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre in Israel – many of them undoubtedly inspired by online hate – have laid bare the direness of the situation.
Students for Justice in Palestine, the vociferously antisemitic student activist group with hundreds of chapters throughout North America, is one of many extremist networks that exploit this new virtual ecosystem.
Even as the horrific events of October 7 were still unfolding, SJP sent its propaganda machine into overdrive, particularly on Instagram, disseminating content celebrating the attack and expressly supporting Hamas to millions of users on the platform.
Since last July, the Antisemitism Research Center by the Combat Antisemitism Movement has monitored 276 Instagram accounts associated with SJP, Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine, and similar groups, documenting 269 posts that likely violate Meta’s (Instagram’s parent company) “community standards,” including 236 posts which fall foul of Meta’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, which forbids glorification of terrorism. The ARC detailed its findings in a recently published report.
Details of just some of the content the ARC documented churn the stomach. On the same day as the October 7 slaughter, Bears for Palestine at the University of California, Berkeley wrote in an Instagram post, “Towfan Al-Aqsa [Hamas’s moniker for its attack] now stands as a revolutionary moment in contemporary Palestinian resistance,” and, “We support the resistance, we support the liberation movement, and we indisputably support the Uprising.”
Also, on that dark day, Students Allied for Freedom and Equality at the University of Michigan wrote, “Palestinians in Gaza are fighting back in unprecedented magnitudes [sic] toward the Israeli colonial entity,” and “Palestinians have broken free from their cage.” The group further asserted in the caption of the post, “Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from their oppressors.”
Pro-Palestinian groups referred to October 7 as 'a people's victory'
In October 2024, Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return at the University of Washington took to Instagram to share an image of a flyer reading, “A decisive people’s victory took place on October 7, 2023, when the Palestinian people and their resistance took historic anti-colonial action for a free Palestine… from the river to the sea.”
Other similar examples abound. SJP is promulgating expressly antisemitic propaganda – the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism lists “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion” as a contemporary example of Jew-hatred.
Such pernicious views emanate from the very top. On October 12, 2023, SJP’s national umbrella organization published a “Day of Resistance Toolkit,” boasting of the “historic win” that Hamas inflicted on Israel not even one week earlier.
In other words, a prominent student network that purports to stand for “justice” and whose protest antics have rendered US campuses hostile environments for Jews and Zionists proudly supports a terrorist massacre that researchers have noted was “the deadliest per capita terrorist attack since the Global Terrorism Database started data collection in 1970.”
In addition to murdering 1,200 innocent Israelis, Hamas and other terrorists also committed sexual violence and kidnapped hundreds of innocent civilians – men, women, children, and infants alike – among other heinous crimes.
Former FBI counterterrorism intelligence analyst Matthew Levitt argued that October 7 was “one of the worst acts of international terrorism on record,” comparable to “the April 1994 attack by Hutu extremists in Rwanda, who killed 1,200 Tutsi civilians seeking shelter in a church outside Kigali, and the Islamic State’s June 2014 massacre of an estimated 1,700 unarmed Iraqi Shia military personnel fleeing Camp Speicher after the group seized control of Tikrit.”
Meanwhile, myriad SJP posts that the ARC documented glamorized Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group member and former airplane hijacker Leila Khaled, while others lionized Lebanon-based Hezbollah and the Yemen-based Houthis, both regional terror proxies of the Iranian regime.
Some chapters promoted content inciting violence against law enforcement and donning Hamas symbols to agitate against local Hillel chapters. After a man named Aaron Bushnell self-immolated in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington in February 2024, some SJP chapters glorified his actions, painting him as a righteous martyr.
What to make of these findings? First, the wider public must shed any rose-colored view of SJP and its ilk. Members of the organization may tout “liberation,” “justice,” or even a “ceasefire,” but its extremist, pro-Hamas disposition is undeniable, stemming from an ideological commitment to the destruction of Israel that dehumanizes Israeli Jews as “colonizers.”
Extremists frequently couch their insidious aims in the language of “liberation.” For example, one American neo-Nazi group calls itself the “National Socialist Liberation Front.” News consumers should keep this in mind the next time they encounter a media report that describes campus anti-Israel protesters as merely “anti-war.”
Next, Meta must take stronger action to stem the flow of SJP’s hateful propaganda. At the time of writing its report, the ARC found that Meta had only suspended, at most, 7.7% of the accounts flagged for likely violating Meta’s policies. Such a low enforcement rate is likely because Meta has not proscribed SJP, meaning chapters’ accounts can undergo multiple “strikes” before permanent suspension.
Not everyone who seeks to use Meta’s platforms enjoys this privilege. According to the company’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy, “individuals and organizations that ascribe to one or more of” the ideologies of Nazism, White Supremacy, White Nationalism, and/or White Separatism are proscribed because such views are “inherently tied to violence and attempts to organize people around calls for violence or exclusion of others based on their protected characteristics.”
By touting terrorism against Israeli Jews, SJP, too, “attempts to organize people around calls for violence” – a function of its ideological commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state. Accordingly, Meta should proscribe SJP and like-minded organizations. There is zero reason that pro-Hamas advocacy should be treated as any less contemptible than White Supremacy.
Critics might contend that in an age when social media companies exercise outsized oversight of the public square, content restrictions effectively limit free speech, even if the First Amendment only forbids governmental speech regulations.
Well-meaning individuals can engage in this debate constructively. But so long as companies like Meta take it upon themselves to moderate content, they should treat all forms of bigotry equally.
Ensuring that SJP cannot exploit some of the world’s largest social media platforms to spread antisemitic propaganda would go a long way toward restoring Jewish safety worldwide.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-850500
----
Saudi Arabia And Abraham Accords: Normalization With Israel Is In Riyadh's Best Interests
By Neville Berman
April 18, 2025
French president Charles de Gaulle famously stated that “Countries don’t have friends, countries have interests.” It now seems plausible that Saudi Arabia and Israel have mutually beneficial interests that were unimaginable in the past. Let’s look at the recent history and the current situation regarding Saudi Arabia.
Starting in 1902, Abdul Aziz bin Saud, known as Abdulaziz, and his followers captured Riyadh, and then began conquering clans and tribes across Arabia. His modus operandi was to marry a young woman from each tribe that he conquered. In this way, he united the conquered tribes into the House of Saud. He ended up marrying 22 women and fathered 45 sons and an unknown number of daughters. In keeping with the laws of the Quran, he never had more than four wives at any one time.
In September 1932, Abdulaziz officially renamed Arabia as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and declared himself king. The kingdom is officially a Sunni Islamic State with the Quran as its constitution. It remains an absolute monarchy with no elections.
In 1932, the country had a population of approximately 2.8 million and was one of the poorest countries on Earth. Most of the country was a barren desert. Life expectancy was in the 40’s, and the majority of the population were illiterate. The country was facing a dire financial crisis, exacerbated by the Great Depression that started in 1929 and resulted in less than 10% of the normal number of Muslims undertaking the Hajj in the following years. By 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was basically broke. Jack Philby came up with a solution.
How Saudi Arabia was transformed to a wealthy nation
Philby was born in 1885. He was brilliant in languages and studied Oriental languages at Cambridge University. In November 1917, he was sent to Riyadh as the head of a four-man British delegation to meet with Abdulaziz. He arrived in Riyadh by crossing the Arabian desert by camel. Philby met Abdulaziz and was greatly impressed with him. He returned to England and felt disillusioned with Christianity and his life. He divorced his wife, converted to Islam, and went to live in Arabia. He was fluent in Arabic and changed his name to Sheik Abdullah. He married a Saudi woman and became an adviser to Abdulaziz.
In 1932, he advised Abdulaziz that the best way to solve Saudi Arabia’s financial problem was to sell the rights to prospect for oil in Saudi Arabia to the Americans, provided that payments would be made in advance to sustain the kingdom. He advised Abdulaziz to offer Standard Oil of California, known as SOCAL, the rights to prospect for oil in Saudi Arabia. The deal appealed to Abdulaziz and was duly signed.
What Sheik Abdullah failed to reveal was that he was in the employ of SOCAL and had been promised a bonus if he could seal the deal. It turned out to be an epic deal for both the kingdom and SOCAL. In 1938, the largest oil reserves in the world were discovered beneath the vast desert in Saudi Arabia. It was the start of huge American investments in the Middle East. Several decades later, the massive income from the sale of oil would transform Saudi Arabia into one of the richest countries in the world.
In 1953, Abdulaziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, died. In his will, he stipulated that the oldest surviving son at the time of his death would succeed him and become king, and that would continue until all his sons were deceased. King Salman, the current king of Saudi Arabia, is the last surviving son of Abdulaziz. He is 89 years old. Five years ago, he appointed his seventh son, Mohammed bin Salman, as the de facto ruler of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He is known as MBS and is now 39 years old.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, MBS will most likely be the next king of Saudi Arabia and will remain so for decades. He has indicated that he wants to chart a different future for Saudi Arabia than his predecessors. He understands that the world is rapidly changing and that relying solely on oil to maintain a prosperous future for Saudi Arabia is neither wise nor sustainable in the long term.
Saudi citizens pay no income taxes, receive free medical services, free primary and university education, and receive monthly allowances from the government.
What could go wrong? Let’s take a closer look at the situation.
Climate change and green energy: Why Saudi Arabia's continued prosperity is uncertain
The world has become aware of the devastating effect of climate change, and it is promoting alternative forms of energy to reduce carbon emissions. Britain has banned the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, and the EU has done likewise from 2035. In Norway, 88.9% of new cars sold in 2024 were electric cars. It is clear that the movement away from fossil fuels is gaining momentum worldwide.
The growth of solar power, wind power, and other forms of energy are now ubiquitous in the world. The largest source of electricity in France comes from 18 nuclear power stations. Mini nuclear power stations that are considered safer are in the planning stages. President Donald Trump is promoting an increase in local oil production by drilling and fracking. This has the potential to turn America from an oil importer into an oil exporter. New oil and gas deposits have been discovered in several areas of the world. If the demand for oil decreases and the supply increases, it is clear that the price of oil will decrease.
MBS has realized that Saudi Arabia, with 38 million people, cannot continue to rely solely on oil production for a prosperous future. He is promoting what is called Vision 2030 for Saudi Arabia. Vision 2030 is aimed at diversifying Saudi Arabia economically, socially, and culturally in order to have a better long-term future for the country. Israel can play an important role in fulfilling that vision.
How Israel can help Saudi Arabia achieve a brighter future
Israel is known as the Start-Up Nation. Thinking out of the box is in the DNA of Israelis and has been at the heart of Israel’s exceptional growth and success. Israel is a powerhouse of innovation, intellectual property, and ideas. It has made the desert bloom. It has revolutionized agricultural production with drip irrigation and recycled wastewater. It has expertise in providing drinking water through desalination and even providing drinking water from air. In addition, Israel is a leading innovator in cybersecurity, hi-tech, the medical field, and many other areas.
Israel is ideally suited from a geographical point of view to provide Saudi Arabia with an alternative route to export oil by the use of a pipeline from Eilat to an Israeli port on the Mediterranean Sea. From there, the oil can be shipped to its final destination. This would bypass Iranian control of the current sea routes used by Saudi Arabia. Israel has produced innovative solutions to problems that are similar to those facing Saudi Arabia.
Israel is also a formidable military power with battle-tested military capabilities that extend far beyond its borders. One important factor is that Israel has no border dispute with Saudi Arabia. Israel can be an excellent partner for Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia can be a game-changing partner for Israel. In short, the two countries can benefit enormously from each other.
The big question is whether MBS is willing to chart a future that includes joining the Abraham Accords. He has indicated that the formation of a Palestinian state is a prerequisite for this to happen. Israel is unlikely to agree to this. However, politics is the art of agreeing to compromises. Anything is possible when people with foresight and courage are involved. Saudi Arabia is the keeper of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina and needs to be seen as worthy of that position. Joining the Abraham Accords would have to be skilfully negotiated in order to be accepted by the Muslim world.
It is time for Saudi Arabia to inform the Palestinians that they cannot be an impediment to progress forever, and that they need to internalize that the Arab League resolution passed in 1967 in Khartoum, known as the Three No’s Resolution – “No peace with Israel. No negotiation with Israel. No recognition of Israel” – ended when Egyptian president Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and is no longer applicable.
If Saudi Arabia does join the Abraham Accords, it would signal a brave new Middle East, where peace and prosperity between Jews and Arabs can become the new norm. It would be a remarkable milestone in the history and advancement of mankind, and a better future for the entire Middle East. ■
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-850210
----
Egypt’s Three Options In The Sudan Civil War
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
April 18, 2025
Sudan’s civil war reached a turning point in March when the Sudanese regular army regained control of the presidential palace in the heart of Khartoum after months of fierce battles with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. It was not only a milestone in Sudan but also a pivotal moment for Egypt, the Sudanese army’s closest historical ally and a major regional stakeholder in Sudanese affairs.
Since the conflict broke out in April 2023, the paramilitaries had maintained a significant military presence across the capital, having leveraged their previous role as a security partner in state institutions. They seized control of key sites including the palace, state media headquarters, and strategic areas such as Al-Muqran, Al-Riyadh, and Khartoum airport. They positioned snipers in high-rise buildings including Al-Fateh Tower and the Friendship Hall.
However, by September 2024 the Sudanese army had launched a coordinated ground offensive on three fronts — East Nile, Jabal Awliya, and Al-Baqir — and reclaimed important cities such as Jebel Moya, Sennar, and Wad Madani. This enabled the army to encircle Khartoum from the south and east while advancing slowly from Omdurman in the west.
In the climactic battle for the palace on March 21, the Rapid Support Forces suffered significant losses, an estimated 600 fighters and over 100 military vehicles destroyed. As their defenses collapsed, the group withdrew from their command centers in Al-Riyadh, the Sports City, and Africa University, effectively ending their presence in the capital.
Since the outbreak of war, Egypt has supported the Sudanese army, guided by strategic concerns about southern stability, Nile water security, and the threat posed by irregular armed groups near its southern border. However, Egypt’s support remained unofficial and behind the scenes, until Hemedti began accusing Cairo of direct involvement.
Last October he publicly accused the Egyptian military of air attacks on paramilitary positions in Jebel Moya, and of supplying drones and US-made bombs to the army. He claimed his forces were “betrayed and killed by Egyptian airstrikes.”
Later, the Rapid Support Forces escalated its rhetoric, threatening to expose “Egyptian prisoners of war,” labelling them “mercenaries,” and warning of retaliation. One of Hemedti’s advisers even suggested targeting Egypt’s High Dam, an ominous threat interpreted by many as a message crafted by hostile regional actors, particularly Ethiopia.
Despite official denials from Egypt’s Foreign Ministry and armed forces, numerous diplomatic and Western media sources indicated that Egypt had indeed provided limited military support to the Sudanese army, especially during critical phases of the conflict, although not to the extent of full-scale intervention.
In March 2025, the Rapid Support Forces took the unprecedented step of imposing a ban on all Sudanese exports to Egypt from paramilitary-controlled areas. The banned goods included peanuts, gum Arabic, livestock, gold and minerals, oils, grains, tobacco, sorghum, and hibiscus: The RSF warned traders under its jurisdiction that even exporting eben “a single cup of gum Arabic” to Egypt would be considered treason and any vehicle heading north to the Egyptian border would be declared “an enemy,” the paramilitaries warned traders.
This ban was not merely economic, it was a political message. The Rapid Support Forces now view Egypt as not just a supporter of the army but as a direct adversary. Although the main trade routes to Egypt remain under paramilitary control, the army’s hold over the agricultural heartlands of Darfur and Kordofan gives it leverage over key exports traditionally destined for the Egyptian market.
However, this raises crucial economic questions: does Hemedti have alternative markets for these goods? Who will buy them amid territorial isolation and diplomatic constraints? Do the Rapid Support Forces have the logistical capacity to run a regional wartime economy?
Cairo now faces an extremely complex scenario. On the battlefield, the army is gaining ground, with Egyptian backing, but the war continues to drain all sides. The paramilitaries still maintain a strong presence in western Sudan, making a total military victory far from imminent.
Politically, Hemedti has formed a parallel “government of peace and unity” in partnership with the National Umma Party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, and various civil and tribal forces. Headquartered in Nairobi, the new government has a secular federal constitution that separates religion from the state. This creates a parallel claim to legitimacy that may appeal to some regional and international powers as an alternative to the army-led administration in Port Sudan, strongly backed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Regionally, even indirect involvement by the UAE or Ethiopia gives the paramilitaries maneuvering room, while Egypt treads a fine line, neither fully intervening nor maintaining a purely neutral stance.
Egypt must now choose between three main strategies. First, support a full military victory for the army. This option is appealing in securing a strategic ally in control of Sudan, but it risks dragging Egypt into a broader regional conflict if the war spreads toward Darfur, Libya, or Ethiopia.
Second, push for a re-engineered political settlement. Leveraging the army’s recent victories, Egypt could advocate a settlement that sidelines the Rapid Support Forces militarily but allows for limited political representation of their allies, preventing total marginalization and international backlash.
Third, adopt a phased withdrawal. Egypt could scale back its involvement to intelligence and humanitarian assistance, opting to wait out the conflict. But this carries the risk of losing influence to other regional players and forfeiting its leadership role.
The Sudanese army’s triumph in Khartoum was not achieved without Egyptian support. However, it has also triggered an open confrontation with the Rapid Support Forces, who now explicitly view Cairo as an enemy. With frontlines shifting, internal Sudanese divisions deepening, and regional interference mounting, Egypt finds itself at a crossroads.
It must now decide: will it manage the Sudanese conflict as a temporary border crisis, or as a long-term struggle over Sudan’s identity, sovereignty, and its role in Egypt’s national security doctrine? The answer may shape the future of both countries for years to come.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2597630
-----
Last Chance For Lebanon, A Country At War With Itself
Mohamed Chebaro
April 18, 2025
For years I have been arguing that Lebanon has been at war since 1975, and maybe before then. The hyped idea that peace has prevailed since 1990 is a myth: the Taif agreement led to a long ceasefire and paved the way for a coexistence formula that at times has proved short of accommodating the many national, regional, and international divides.
Unlike what many Lebanese people tell you, the war is mainly Lebanon vs. Lebanon: a country that is not at peace with itself, with its national identity, with its minorities’ many identities, religious and sectarian, even communitarian and ethnic. All that before even addressing Lebanon’s relationships with long-term Palestinian and more recent Syrian refugees within its borders, or its relationship with its immediate neighbors Syria and Israel, or with the wider Arab world, or with countries such as France and Britian that for centuries were involved in protecting some of its minorities.
More than a century since the establishment of greater Lebanon and nearly 80 years since its independence, Lebanon is again at a crossroads — with an opportunity to find its feet, and for the new government to usher in a new era of healing and push toward a balanced and stable future. Last weekend’s commemoration of the start of the civil war 50 years ago should be the catalyst to realize that Lebanon is finally free of Assad regime diktats, and that its government is free of the pro-Iran Hezbollah militia, weakened and nearly eclipsed after the war with Israel.
The government marked last Sunday’s anniversary with a small ceremony and a minute’s silence. It was a rare official acknowledgement of the legacy of Lebanon’s civil war. Citizens remembered the strife that killed more than 150,000 people and left 17,000 missing, with trench warfare in towns and cities, massacres, snipers, assassinations and car bombs.
There have been many efforts to define the root causes of the civil war and why Lebanese failed to avert it, but consensus remain elusive. Some reduce the problem to a Christian-Muslim divide over the need to defend Palestine at the expense of Lebanese sovereignty. Others blame the Cairo Arab summit in 1969, permitting the Palestinians to arm and resist Israel from inside Lebanon.
Many even believe that the war began in 1973, when the Lebanese armed forces backed down from taking control of Palestinian refugees camps. Some argue that was the brief civil strife of 1958, when Lebanon was split along pro-Nasser and anti-Nasser lines, and people skirmished in street battles while the army tried to hold the peace.
After April 13, 1975, the war unfolded and alliances shifted, with new factions formed. Israel and Syria occupied parts of the country. The US intervened, and the US Embassy and Marine barracks were bombed. Beirut was divided between Christian and Muslim sectors. Later Syria dominated the country only to cede its control to Hezbollah. That was followed by waves of assassinations of politicians, journalists and activists.
Fast forward to today, and Lebanon is still grappling with that legacy, as every community has a different set of memories. But while people may disagree about history, they all ought to focus on the current opportunity and try to determine the country’s future.
The election of a president and appointment of a prime minister free of Syrian or Iranian influence should be grasped, despite unfair accusations of undue French and American influence. The new government needs to be judged on how it tackles urgent and sensitive issues. Among those is the course of Lebanese-Syrian ties since the overthrow of the Assad regime, which exercised decades-long hegemony over Lebanon and is accused of assassinating numerous Lebanese officials who opposed Syrian rule.
A new draft banking law seem a step in the right direction to unlock international aid to emerge from an economic crisis it has suffered since 2019. New banking laws could return lost trust, refloat the economy, and release all or part of depositors’ savings that the previous government used to prop up ruling elites and their cronies.
Finally, one must not belittle the news that most Hezbollah military sites in south Lebanon have ceded to the army. The Nov. 27 ceasefire that ended more than a year of conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, including two months of full-blown war, required that only UN peacekeepers and Lebanon’s army should be deployed south of the Litani River, about 30 kilometres from the Israeli border.
All this looks like a promising departure from Lebanon’s recent history, critical and timely steps in the right direction. Policy making in Lebanon has always been challenging as the limited resources of a small nation have often left out a player, as in musical chairs, when the music stops. In his speech marking the anniversary of the outbreak of the civil war, President Joseph Aoun renewed his appeal for Hezbollah to lay down its weapons. Heeding the president’s call will be crucial if Lebanese people hope to abandon the state of perpetual war and embrace a peaceful future.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2597629
--------
Fractures In Political Life In Türkiye And AK Party
By Mahmut Özer
Apr 19, 2025
In his book "Debates on Türkiye: From Westernization to Modernization," Vedat Bilgin offers detailed and comprehensive evaluations of Türkiye’s social structure, political transformations – particularly from the Tanzimat era to the present – and, naturally, the positions of political parties within these processes as well as their capacities to sustain and carry them forward. In his book, Bilgin highlights three major ruptures in Turkish political life. He identifies the first rupture as the disruption of the traditional state-society relationship, which evolved into a system of bureaucratic domination. The second rupture, according to him, is the mainstream adoption of Westernization policies within the cultural structure. The third rupture consists of attempts to overcome the structure reinforced by the first and second ruptures through democratization processes, particularly following the transition to a multi-party system and continuing to the present day.
The structure built through the first and second ruptures sustained a comfortable existence in Türkiye for an extended period, thanks to the resources and opportunities it possessed along with all its actors. Individuals who shared the political outlook represented by this structure occupied central positions in all areas of life. Their social networks were continually reinforced in fields such as education, culture, art, governance, economy and politics. However, the vast majority of the public was excluded from this network. Moreover, those outside the echo chamber were regarded as passive segments that needed to be transformed into their own language. Just as it would not be considered winter in the country unless it snowed in Istanbul, a problem was not acknowledged unless it affected the echo chamber.
When a new political language began to emerge outside the echo chamber and sought a place in politics, the echo chamber initially responded with a condescending attitude, resorting to ridicule and labeling it under various categories. “Reactionism” and “backwardness” became the key terms of this period. For instance, in the field of education, restrictions such as the headscarf ban and the university entrance coefficient system were gradually implemented. Unfortunately, enhancing the quality of our country’s most valuable human capital through education and increasing our competitiveness with developed nations was not prioritized. After all, those within the echo chamber were already benefiting from these opportunities. Therefore, instead of ensuring that all children had access to education, the focus was on allowing only those who accepted the predefined conditions to benefit from it. Similar exclusionary practices were also applied in other domains. By their very nature, echo chambers could never be inclusive.
Following the sustained efforts to construct a new political language since the 1950s – efforts marked by significant struggles and the tragedies caused by the resistance of the echo chamber – the process entered a new phase with the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party), particularly over the past two decades. This marked the full realization of the third rupture. Profound changes and transformations took place across all sectors, from education to healthcare, from transportation to infrastructure, and from foreign policy to the defense industry. During this period, all segments of society could easily access public services without any form of discrimination. Furthermore, stable economic growth led to a rise in prosperity and the middle classes became significantly stronger.
A new language in politics
The main characteristic of the transformation experienced across all sectors is that it draws upon a shared political language. Looking at this new language – which has become mainstream in recent years – it can be observed that, despite its shortcomings, it is characterized by an approach that seeks, on the one hand, to build upon our significant historical experience and heritage, and on the other, to remain open to the achievements of the West and the contemporary world, aiming to synthesize both. In other words, it is an initiative that takes into account our past, our social fabric and especially our experiences over the past two centuries, while also striving to respond to the challenges of today’s world. Importantly, it seeks to be inclusive of society as a whole.
The fundamental shortcoming of the approach represented by those who oppose this new political language lies in their initial rejection of the "both-and" perspective and their insistence on adopting a "only this" stance. When one adopts a strictly Western-centric framework and attempts to reshape one’s surroundings and society accordingly, the society and the country are viewed merely as a field for implementing this project. Yet there is no genuine effort to understand the dynamics of this field. In such a case, what occurs is the centralization of resources at the core and a one-way indoctrination that flows outward.
In this context, Bilgin emphasizes that the impact of AK Party politics has been most deeply felt in three key areas: First, the democratization of the state – liberating it from the domination of military-bureaucratic elites and intellectuals, opening it up to the public, and placing the national will at the center. Second, the transformation of the structural relationship between Türkiye and the international system, from one of dependency to one based on reciprocity. Third, implementing a dynamic growth model in the economy that is open to global competition.
Alienation from one’s own society
Society has always issued a warning to those who, instead of trying to understand it, have attempted to shape it against its will. In particular, when political parties fail to ground their approaches in this new language, it is society that ultimately bears the cost. Since the transition to a multi-party political system, the public's preferences have become more comprehensible when viewed through this lens.
As our renowned literary figure Kemal Tahir pointed out back in 1969, this linguistic dislocation has been ongoing since the Tanzimat era: “Since the Tanzimat, we have been preoccupied with imitating the West. It cannot be said that this has led us to a path out of our difficulties. No society can remain unaware of what is happening in the world of ideas and art. The issue is not to be content with foreign cultures, but to transform and transcend them through our own realities. Mere imitation is as dangerous as ignorance itself.” For this reason, Tahir describes the approaches developed without knowing – or even seeing the need to know – “who the people are, where they live, how they live and make a living, and under what conditions they are divided into classes” as reckless and evasive.
Therefore, this form of evasion, which neither belongs to us nor offers a real path forward, has led to a deepening alienation. From past to present, those who have relied on this language and engaged in politics through it have seen their ability to represent society steadily diminish. Especially in today’s world, marked by fragility on all fronts, even the West has run out of narrative fuel, leaving little benefit for those who continue to emulate it here. Yet, the strength of the echo chamber has been such that the tragedy has gone largely unnoticed. This is partly because, when at the center of power, it was disregarded, and when that position was lost in recent years, the same behavioral patterns persisted. For political parties, the most significant risk of all is alienation from society.
In such a case, all that remains are the policies and reflexes of the past – you confine yourself to the politics and instincts of more comfortable times. Eventually, you lose the ability to represent not only the broader public but even the very echo chamber you once spoke for. As time moves forward, it rewards those who move with it. As Bilgin also emphasizes, “Thus, we can conclude that the strength of the AK Party lies in its ability to transform the country’s dynamic of social change into political action.”
Challenges of sustainability
Naturally, becoming part of the political mainstream in Türkiye has not been an easy feat, especially when one considers the struggles endured and the costs paid since the 1950s. Just as the path to becoming mainstream was difficult, maintaining that position once achieved is equally challenging. In this context, Bilgin also highlights the risks currently facing the AK Party, which has become a central force in Turkish politics. Emphasizing the importance of formulating policies in line with the dynamics of the middle class, Bilgin notes that the AK Party has, up to this point, effectively utilized this capacity. However, he warns: “...Of course, such policies must be redefined and reproduced in each new conjuncture. While doing so brings political success, failure to do so will lead to a weakening of politics.”
On the other hand, the significant change and transformation that Türkiye has experienced, particularly over the past 20 years, have naturally led to the emergence of new problems. Therefore, to maintain the fluidity of social life, it is necessary to develop solutions to these new challenges. Bilgin defines this as the "paradox of change" and emphasizes that, to move the country beyond the point reached through earlier transformations, it is essential to confront these new problems. He reiterates this warning by stating: “... it is obliged to respond to the demands of the new social conditions created by the very developments it has brought about.”
In summary, at this point – albeit after a significant delay – a new linguistic approach that centers society and its historical experience while also engaging with global developments has become the mainstream, and its construction is still ongoing. In this regard, the door has always been open to those who can articulate a narrative that includes, represents, and carries society forward as a whole. The fact that this new language became mainstream just before a period of major global upheavals is highly significant, as it has strengthened the country’s position. The third rupture, as highlighted by Bilgin, is not a mere shift but a profound transformation. Naturally, such a deep transformation will bring with it its own pains, crises, and new challenges. It is therefore critical that this transformation be supported in a multidimensional way, with a strong focus on producing solution-oriented content. At this stage, the dismantling of echo chambers and the reinforcement of a collective “we” is of vital importance, as it would enhance the potential for all segments of society to contribute meaningfully to this ongoing process.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/fractures-in-political-life-in-turkiye-and-ak-party
---
URl: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/iran-us-genocide-gaza-extremism/d/135223
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