Middle East Press On: Israel, France, Algeria, Indonesia, Syria, Netanyahu, Iraq, Egypt and Gazans: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 March 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
28 Mar. 25
· Israel should note what happened to France when it tried to subjugate Algeria by massacring its indigenous population
· Indonesia and Syria: Time to forge a new partnership under Ahmad Al Sharaa's leadership
· Netanyahu continues to undermine Israel’s security and military establishment
· Why have Gazans come out publicly now?
· Improved Syria-Iraq ties a strategic imperative
· The erosion of Israel-Egypt relations and what went wrong
· My Word: Between strikes and striking back
-----
Israel Should Note What Happened To France When It Tried To Subjugate Algeria By Massacring Its Indigenous Population
March 27, 2025
By Nabila Ramdani
Childish drawings were used to “explain” the need for indigenous Arab and Berber Muslims to bow down or die during the French occupation of Algeria. Villages facing destruction were plastered with posters containing scribbled images of a school and a Tricolour flag, juxtaposed with a widowed mother-and-child, a bloody corpse and a house on fire. The psychological choice was easy: accept the “peace and protection of France” or suffer the lethal consequences.
If such barbaric logic sounds familiar today, it is because Israel is using it to try and “legitimise” the mass slaughter of Palestinians. More than 50,000 of them — many women and children — have been killed, and tens of thousands more maimed, over the past 17 months alone. All the evidence points to a full-blown genocide, as Israel attempts to ethnically cleanse territory it covets under the guise of “self defence”.
Turning Gaza, and increasingly the West Bank, into a near-permanent field of fire was this time precipitated by the Hamas-led incursion by armed militants into what they viewed as occupied Palestine on 7 October 2023. The Israeli military reported mainly young men breaching 119 locations, including military installations and settlements.
Almost 1,200 Israelis were killed, including unarmed civilians, as well as soldiers, police, and members of the Shin Bet security agency, many at the hands of the Israeli army. In turn, 1,609 of the Palestinian raiders — at least 409 more than the Israeli victims — were killed on sight on the day itself. Many were liquidated by high-tech Israeli weaponry which was also blamed for killing Israelis. They became victims of the so-called Hannibal Directive, the controversial procedure that condones Israelis killing their own if it prevents soldiers being kidnapped.
Atrocities in communities such as Be’eri — a kibbutz founded in 1946 — included the killing of residents, but initial Israeli claims about the rape of teenagers, and the murder of babies and a pregnant woman there were made-up. In turn, Israeli politicians and their apologists continue to use the horror of 7 October to suggest that their own murderous revenge campaigns in Gaza and on the West Bank are a reasonable consequence. They even consider that the release of Israelis who were taken captive by the Palestinians, and who are being held in unknown locations across Gaza, is somehow best achieved by reducing the blighted strip of land to rubble.
Never mind the rulings of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court pointing to genocide, and the arrest warrants for the most senior Israeli politicians, the carnage is unrelenting.
The asymmetrical nature of the fighting is, of course, typical of the Israel-Palestine conflict that has raged continually since 1948, when Israel was founded with the support of western powers prepared to give it all the weapons it needed to settle on land that belonged to others.
As now, the rationale was that everybody must comply with the requirements of Israeli hegemony — including land theft and the subjugation of identity — or else collective punishment would continue. In this sense, comparisons with the Algerian struggle against French colonisers are entirely appropriate, and indeed a route to try and work out what the future might hold.
The year 1830 was Algeria’s 1948, when an invasion from Europe led to Marshal Thomas-Robert Bugeaud, France’s first governor-general of Algeria, telling the Paris parliament: “Wherever there is fresh water and fertile land, there one must locate colons, without concerning oneself to whom these lands belong.” The colons — short for colonisers — in Algeria came from all over Europe, and often from very troubled backgrounds. They aimed to impose themselves on a land populated by those they considered inferior.
Local Muslims were, at best, viewed as being useful as servants, and those that actively resisted the invaders could expect to be tortured, imprisoned without trial, and — ultimately — exterminated. Hence French forces creating the world’s first primitive gas chambers, filling caves with noxious fumes in order to asphyxiate a detested underclass, while regularly carrying out other crimes against humanity.
As in Palestine, the savagery was naturally met with resistance, as Arab and Berber Muslims formed themselves into guerrilla groups, notably the FLN, National Liberation Front. It was founded at the start of the Algerian War in 1954, prosecuting a successful struggle that resulted in independence in 1962.
France originally fought back with all its might, deploying the latest in military technology, including fighter jets to indiscriminately obliterate towns and villages. Bombers carried payloads full of Napalm — petrochemical “special barrels” according to the jargon of the time.
Again, as in Palestine, the warped rationale was that every Muslim man, woman and child in occupied Algeria was either a “human shield” or a “terrorist”. Worse still, the propaganda portrayed such Arabs and Berbers as sub-humans: sexual deviants and uneducated oafs who were not fit to play a part in civilised society, not least of all because they were brown-skinned and from the wrong monotheistic religious tradition.
The historic deceit of Africa being populated by dangerous savages also extended to the colons’ view of the Middle East. Hence Israeli officials using terms such as “human animals”, as they pulverise mosques, hospitals, schools and apartment blocks in Gaza, along with everyone in them.
“There was no such thing as Palestinians,” said the late Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, to try and legitimise the never-ending persecution of unwanted Palestinians. As now, billions of dollars-worth of arms and aid poured into a land that Ukraine-born and American-educated Meir considered her own.
Such a mindset still dominates the thinking of Israeli leaders, as evidenced by Benjamin Netanyahu, the current prime minister and alleged war criminal. Beyond revelling in the destruction of Gaza, Netanyahu has expressed his support for American president Donald Trump’s demonic scheme to force two million Palestinians out of Gaza so that it can be turned into a Florida-style beach resort.
What men like Trump and Netanyahu need to do is note the position of a seemingly invincible France just before its capitulation to the FLN in 1962. Despite civilian kill counts mounting, and the western military-industrial complex putting weapons into the French armoury, the international community was becoming more and more disgusted.
France knew it could never integrate an Arab and Berber population it had treated abominably for decades, and it no longer had the stomach to uphold its rule through permanent conflict. Telling Algerians that they could choose between “peace and protection” or non-stop horror simply exacerbated the situation, and made the colons want to flee. They did in their hundreds of thousands — so ending 132 years of ruthless occupation.
If, as currently seems certain, the Israelis have given up on the two-state solution, and simply want Palestinian communities they abhor to be killed or disappear, they may well find that similar pressure becomes too much to bear.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250327-israel-should-note-what-happened-to-france-when-it-tried-to-subjugate-algeria-by-massacring-its-indigenous-population/
------
Indonesia And Syria: Time To Forge A New Partnership Under Ahmad Al Sharaa's Leadership
March 27, 2025
By Dr. Muhammad Zulfikar
Indonesia has remained relatively quiet on Syria’s new leadership, but it must now take a clear stance. With Syria under the new leadership of President Ahmad Al Sharaa, Indonesia has an opportunity to strengthen bilateral relations, while navigating the complexities of this political transition.
On 8 December, Bashar Al-Assad’s long-standing rule came to an abrupt end as Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) forces took control of Damascus without resistance. Assad fled to Russia, leaving behind a nation in flux. With Ahmad Al Sharaa—better known as Abu Muhammad Al-Julani—now in power, Syria faces an uncertain future. The world is watching closely, and so should Indonesia.
The international response to Al Sharaa’s rise has been mixed. Initially expected to align with Turkiye and Qatar, Syria has, instead, prioritised Saudi Arabia, shifting regional alliances. Al Sharaa’s first visit to Riyadh led to Saudi-backed diplomatic summits, aid and lobbying to lift sanctions. Turkiye, once hostile, now sees Damascus as a strategic partner in its Kurdish policy and seeks a role in Syria’s reconstruction. Meanwhile, Qatar, once a key supporter of the opposition, has been sidelined. The UAE and Iran, former Assad allies, are also recalibrating their approach.
Western governments, despite still designating HTS as a terrorist group, have cautiously begun engaging with Syria’s new leadership. German, French and British officials have initiated diplomatic contact with Damascus, reflecting a gradual shift. Syria, facing economic distress, is pressing for sanctions relief, a demand gaining traction in diplomatic circles.
The United States has taken a more cautious and critical approach. While Washington has not formally recognised Al Sharaa’s government, it has signalled a willingness to engage under strict conditions, primarily focused on counter-terrorism assurances and commitments to political reforms. US officials have emphasised that any normalisation of relations would depend on Syria’s adherence to human rights standards and efforts to break ties with extremist elements. Additionally, the US has continued to enforce sanctions under the Caesar Act, aiming to pressure Damascus into political concessions, while monitoring the evolving situation closely.
Israel views a fragmented Syria as an opportunity to counter Iran, advocating for cantonisation to curb Tehran’s influence. Iran and Iraq, on the other hand, face setbacks, with Assad’s departure weakening the Axis of Resistance. Iraq, deeply tied to Syria, must engage with Al Sharaa’s government despite uncertainties.
Globally, Russia and China are also adjusting. Russia, having propped up Assad, now faces a strategic void, while China, once supportive of Damascus as part of an anti-Western bloc, is reassessing its long-term role in Syria’s reconstruction.
Indonesia’s position
During the Extraordinary Ministerial Conference of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Jeddah, Indonesia’s Foreign Minister, Sugiono, reaffirmed Indonesia’s full support for Syria’s new government and its people in building a more democratic and inclusive nation. This statement sends a strong signal that Indonesia is ready to engage more deeply in political, economic and humanitarian cooperation with Syria.
Additionally, Indonesia welcomed Syria’s reinstatement into the OIC after more than a decade of suspension due to prolonged conflict. This reinstatement is a crucial step in restoring Syria’s position on the international stage and indicates that stability in the country is improving.
Moreover, Indonesian Foreign Minister, M. Sugiono, met with Syria’s new Foreign Minister, Assad Asy-Syabaini. This meeting marks an important step toward strengthening bilateral ties. It is hoped that this will pave the way for an official meeting between Syrian President, Ahmad Al Sharaa, and Indonesian President Prabowo, reinforcing Indonesia’s recognition of Syria’s sovereignty and its new government. Now is the time for Indonesia to extend a hand of diplomatic recognition to Syria, acknowledging its newly gained independence and fostering deeper cooperation between the two nations.
Future engagement between Indonesia and Syria
As Syria moves forward under Al Sharaa’s leadership, Indonesia must carefully navigate its engagement, balancing support with the need for transparency and accountability. Given the uncertainties surrounding Syria’s political transition, Indonesia should adopt a strategy that encompasses diplomatic dialogue, humanitarian assistance, institutional stability, economic cooperation, security sector reform, transitional justice, inclusive governance and adherence to international diplomatic frameworks.
Indonesia should facilitate dialogue between Syria and international partners to encourage a balanced transitional process. This includes supporting Al Sharaa’s plans for a National Dialogue Conference, ensuring broader political participation beyond the current governance model. Through diplomatic mediation, Indonesia can help bridge differences among key stakeholders to promote a more inclusive and stable transition.
Humanitarian and reconstruction assistance is another crucial area where Indonesia can contribute. By focusing on non-political humanitarian aid and infrastructure development, Indonesia can play a role in Syria’s rebuilding efforts, while aligning with its broader commitment to international peace and security. Assistance in healthcare, education and public services will be essential in restoring normalcy for the Syrian people.
Institutional stability is vital during this transition period. Al Sharaa has emphasized maintaining Syria’s institutions to prevent state collapse. With its experience in democratic transitions, Indonesia can provide technical assistance on governance, legal reforms and administrative restructuring. Sharing lessons from Indonesia’s own political reforms can help Syria develop stronger and more resilient institutions.
Economic cooperation between Indonesia and Syria can also be strengthened. Engaging in trade agreements, investments and economic partnerships that align with Syria’s reconstruction needs will be mutually beneficial. Sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure and education present significant opportunities for collaboration, fostering long-term economic growth and development.
Supporting security sector reform is another critical component of ensuring Syria’s stability. Encouraging a structured demobilisation process for armed factions and promoting a unified national army will help create a sustainable security framework. Indonesia can share best practices from its own experiences in integrating armed groups into a cohesive national structure.
A well-defined transitional justice framework is necessary to prevent cycles of revenge and instability. Indonesia should support efforts to hold individuals accountable for major crimes, while ensuring a reconciliation process that fosters long-term peace and stability. Balancing justice with reconciliation will be key to Syria’s social healing.
Promoting inclusive governance and human rights should be central to Indonesia’s engagement. Legal guarantees for political participation, civil liberties and minority rights must be upheld to ensure Syria’s transition leads to a more democratic and inclusive state. Encouraging policies that protect vulnerable groups will be crucial in maintaining social cohesion.
Indonesia must also engage with international diplomatic frameworks, particularly UN Resolution 2254. Balancing its support for Syria’s sovereignty with international consensus ensures its engagement remains legitimate and aligned with global diplomatic efforts.
Additionally, restricting the possession of weapons to the State is essential for long-term security. Indonesia should support efforts to integrate armed factions into the national army and ensure all military power remains under centralised state control, preventing future conflicts and fragmentation.
Finally, developing a clear strategy for refugee return is crucial to Syria’s recovery. Ensuring the safe and sustainable reintegration of refugees requires concrete policies on housing, employment and community reconciliation. Indonesia can offer expertise in managing displaced populations and post-conflict resettlement strategies.
As Syria undergoes economic transition, Indonesia can provide valuable insights on balancing state intervention with free-market principles. Ensuring economic recovery fosters sustainable growth, while protecting vulnerable populations will be essential in shaping Syria’s post-conflict development. By adopting a comprehensive and strategic approach, Indonesia can contribute meaningfully to Syria’s stability and reconstruction while safeguarding its own diplomatic and economic interests.
Indonesia has an opportunity to foster closer ties with Syria under Ahmad Al Sharaa’s leadership, but this must be done with caution. While Indonesia supports Syria’s sovereignty and reintegration, it must also recognise the complexities and concerns surrounding the new government. By embracing a strategic and principled approach, Indonesia can play a pivotal role in ensuring its engagement with Syria contributes to peace, stability and genuine democratic progress in the region.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250327-indonesia-and-syria-time-to-forge-a-new-partnership-under-ahmad-al-sharaas-leadership/
--------
Netanyahu Continues To Undermine Israel’s Security And Military Establishment
March 27, 2025
By Aziz Mustafa
Ever since the Israeli government and military failed to intercept the Hamas attack on 7 October, 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has focused on shifting the blame onto senior security and military officials. This deliberate effort appears aimed at deflecting public scrutiny from his own share of responsibility for the unprecedented breakdown.
Despite a wave of resignations among senior military and security officials — including Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi — Netanyahu has refused consistently to heed widespread Israeli demands to establish an official commission of inquiry into the events of 7 October. He is fully aware that the commission’s primary recommendation would likely be his own dismissal and that it would hold him chiefly accountable for this historic failure.
In recent weeks, Netanyahu has embarked on a coordinated effort to restructure the leadership of the military and intelligence communities. This initiative appears intended to sideline figures he perceives as adversarial and install individuals more amenable to his agenda, facilitating the implementation of his domestic and foreign policy objectives. The most recent example of this effort is the dismissal of the Director of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Ronen Bar.
Netanyahu has been accused by Israelis of exhibiting a profound detachment from reality, particularly in his handling of prisoner exchange negotiations with Hamas. He has blamed others repeatedly for obstructing progress and has attempted to discredit senior security officials, accusing them of orchestrating targeted leaks against him. These alleged leaks, he claims, have emboldened Hamas and hardened its negotiating position, setting the stage, in the eyes of the Israeli public, for justifying the removal of these officials.
The prime minister’s behaviour follows a familiar pattern: strategic leaks, evasion of accountability and gauging public response. However, the public has grown increasingly sceptical of his narrative. Following the removal of Halevi, Netanyahu appointed his preferred general, Ayal Zamir, whose views align closely with his own political and strategic outlook.
Zamir will now face a critical test: whether to comply with the expectations of the prime minister who appointed him over other candidates mainly for political reasons, or to adhere to the professional assessments of the military’s strategic planning divisions, which remain at odds with Netanyahu’s political leadership. This tension may prompt Zamir to carry out broad organisational changes, replacing key personnel with a leadership team more aligned with his vision.
In the aftermath of the Hamas attack, Bar accepted responsibility and acknowledged the agency’s failure. He became a target for Netanyahu and his political allies, who subjected him to intense public and political pressure culminating in his recent dismissal. He must now wait until the Supreme Court considers a number of petitions submitted in opposition to his dismissal.
Critics often refer to Netanyahu’s propaganda apparatus as a “poison machine”, accusing it of smearing senior security and military officials to obscure facts and rewrite the narrative. Seventeen months have passed since the attack, yet no official commission of inquiry has been established to examine the systemic failures that led to the events of 7 October.
It is important to recognise that Israel’s military, government and leadership all share responsibility for the catastrophic failures of that day. However, Netanyahu has placed personal blame for the stalled negotiations squarely on Bar. His campaign against the Shin Bet head reflects Netanyahu’s long-standing strategy to manipulate public perception, and deflecting blame from his direct responsibility, while hiding behind his position as prime minister and attempting to distance himself from failure.
As Netanyahu continues to portray himself as the only leader capable of withstanding international pressure, he concurrently casts figures within the military and security establishments as obstacles to Israel’s goals in the hostage negotiations with Hamas, blaming their “flawed” decisions for leading the country towards negative outcomes.
It was for this reason that he removed Mossad Director David Barnea as the lead in the ceasefire and hostage release negotiation team. This move sparked deep concern among the families of the hostages, prompted a backlash from the security establishment and — once again — fuelled the ongoing political conflict between Netanyahu’s supporters and his opponents.
Many observers believe that the new head of the negotiation team, Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, will serve merely as a proxy for Netanyahu, a conduit for messages and an uncritical implementer of the prime minister’s decisions.
He leads an organisation that has played a central role in safeguarding Israel’s security with operations spanning all six continents. His replacement in the negotiations, by contrast, has never served in uniform, and his primary qualifications appear to be his American background and fluent English, free of any Israeli accent, raising concerns about his fluency in Hebrew. He remains largely unknown to the Israeli public, who question his fitness for such a critical role.
Moving Barnea from the negotiations team came at a time when, according to Netanyahu’s critics within Israel, the state is undergoing a profound collapse. A large segment of the population is burdened by war and finds itself powerless in the face of a predatory government concerned solely with its own survival, even at the cost of endangering the lives of the hostages. This reality has prompted urgent questions and public outcry over the silence of the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet regarding decisions that directly affect the country’s security and future.
These security officials have a duty to speak the truth and help steer the country away from further deterioration. They are aware of realities unknown to most Israelis about Netanyahu’s conduct, the failures of his government, and the lethargy of a political opposition whose silence and inaction have enabled the government to continue dragging the country towards the point of no return. Barnea and Bar need to speak out, but almost certainly won’t.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250327-netanyahu-continues-to-undermine-israels-security-and-military-establishment/
--------
Why Have Gazans Come Out Publicly Now?
Daoud Kuttab
March 27, 2025
This week’s public demonstrations in the north and south of Gaza caught many by surprise. After all, the Palestinians of Gaza have become an icon of resistance and sacrifice over 16 months of heavy-handed, brutal and largely indiscriminate Israeli attacks that spared no civilians, journalists, kitchen staff or even medical workers.
Credit must be given to this heroic population, but one must never forget that they are human beings and not superhumans. They ache when they are hurt, mourn when loved ones die and become angry when they are faced with continuous injustice to which the world is apathetic.
It took way too long for a ceasefire agreement to be signed and to come into force. Finally, in January, Gazans who had been forcibly relocated to tents in the south were able to return north. Many found their homes partially or fully demolished. They began, as much as they could, to clean up and fix their homes while waiting for the promised heavy equipment to arrive so that the heavy rubble could be removed and some of the still-buried bodies taken out and given a proper burial.
But just as they began restoring some form of life, the ceasefire abruptly and unexpectedly ended with a huge airstrike that killed 400 Palestinians, most of them children and women. Israel claimed that the goal of this strike was to assassinate “mid-level” Hamas leaders.
Still, many waited in the hope that the US sponsors of the ceasefire — which the newly elected president claimed credit for — would act against such a clear violation by Israel. The unilateral violation of the ceasefire and relaunch of the war was not lost on many Israelis, including the families of the hostages, who felt that this was a stab in the back of their loved ones. The attack was followed by the war crime of a blockade of food and humanitarian aid. Even the symbolic Jordanian airdrops also failed.
Hamas leaders did apparently try to make a small compromise by agreeing to release five Americans, including one who had not been killed by Israeli airstrikes. But that seemed to further anger the Israelis, who felt that the Americans might abandon them if they got their dual US-Israeli citizens back.
American negotiators failed to even admit that their beloved Israeli ally was the party that broke the ceasefire deal, instead blaming Hamas for refusing a suggestion by US mediator Steve Witkoff for the release of five live hostages, including the American. Speaking to the media, Witkoff put all the blame on Hamas and fully supported the Israeli brutality.
Hamas fighters symbolically responded to the continued Israeli ceasefire violations by firing a rocket from the north of Gaza. The Israelis responded in a harsh way, ordering the people of Beit Lahia to leave their homes yet again.
This produced an angry response, both against the Israelis, whose brutality and inhuman collective punishment was being ignored by the world, but also against the Hamas leaders for not realizing that they need to partially bend when a storm of this magnitude is hitting the region.
Attempts to claim the protests were not genuine or that they were brokered by Mohammed Dahlan’s team or by the Ramallah leadership were quickly debunked by the communal leaders in Beit Lahia, who insisted that the protests against both Israel and Hamas were genuine.
While the protests, including those critical of Hamas, were indeed genuine, it is important that the Israelis and the world do not take this as a sign that the Palestinian resistance is weakening or that everyone has become anti-Hamas.
Naturally, the Hamas leadership must understand that it needs to weigh up its decisions and be cognizant of the current balance of power after the most recent changes in Washington, Beirut and other regional and world capitals.
The ceasefire must be immediately and properly reinstated, bringing an end to the war, along with the release of prisoners and restoration of food supplies, followed by a robust move for reconstruction and a political peace process.
Many around the world continue to demand an end of the Israeli war crimes. Arab countries need to do more and the world community needs to insist on the application of the laws of war, which at their minimum require avoiding attacks on civilians and the refusal of collective starvation policies. Will anyone listen to the cries coming out of Gaza and remember that Palestinians in Gaza are human beings with human traits, pains, feelings and hopes? The end of this war must not be delayed any longer.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2595052
---------
Improved Syria-Iraq Ties A Strategic Imperative
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
March 27, 2025
The relationship between Syria and Iraq plays a significant role in influencing the political and economic landscape of the Middle East. As two neighboring countries with deeply intertwined histories, their cooperation has the potential to bring economic prosperity and enhance regional security, while tackling pressing challenges such as drug smuggling and terrorism.
With the Syrian Arab Republic under new leadership, there is a renewed opportunity to redefine and strengthen bilateral relations. Iraq, with its growing regional influence and economic potential, can play a crucial role in Syria’s postwar reconstruction. Strengthening these ties would not only be beneficial for Syria and Iraq, but also for the broader stability of the region.
One of the most urgent challenges facing Syria is the reconstruction of its war-torn economy. Years of civil war have devastated Syria’s infrastructure, depleted its resources and severely weakened its economic output. The new government, seeking to rebuild the nation, must look to regional partnerships — and Iraq stands out as a natural ally in this endeavour.
Before the Syrian conflict began in 2011, Iraq was one of Syria’s most important trading partners. Trade between the two nations was vibrant, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, food processing, textiles and energy. In 2010, Iraq was the largest importer of Syrian goods, providing a vital economic lifeline to its neighbour. However, the war disrupted these economic ties, leaving Syria’s industries struggling to recover.
Today, with the new government in Damascus eager to revive the country’s economy, restoring trade with Iraq ought to be a priority. By reopening trade routes, removing bureaucratic obstacles and fostering investment opportunities, both nations stand to gain. Iraqi businesses can benefit from access to Syrian markets, while Syrian industries can regain their footing by exporting goods to Iraq.
However, some analysts argue that political hesitancy in Baghdad has slowed this process, as Iraq’s government has been more cautious than other regional states, citing concerns over security, international sanctions and political stability in Syria. Overcoming these hurdles requires diplomatic engagement, economic incentives and a clear framework for cooperation.
Furthermore, Iraq can play a vital role in Syria’s reconstruction efforts by investing in infrastructure projects, energy development and industrial revitalization. Syrian cities that were destroyed by war need rebuilding and Iraq, with its economic resources, can contribute to these efforts. Joint ventures in construction, transportation and energy production can create jobs, boost economic activity and pave the way for long-term prosperity in both nations. For this economic collaboration to succeed, both governments must work together to establish clear policies that facilitate trade, encourage investment and address logistical challenges such as border controls and customs regulations.
Secondly, security remains a major concern for both Syria and Iraq. The long, porous border between the two countries has historically served as a conduit for armed groups, facilitating the movement of terrorists, weapons and illicit goods. Strengthening security cooperation is essential for both nations to protect their sovereignty and ensure regional stability.
With the fall of the Assad regime, the security landscape in Syria is shifting. The new government must maintain stability and prevent extremist groups from exploiting the country’s fragile state. Iraq, which has battled terrorist threats for decades, understands the importance of strong security measures and can play a key role in helping Syria establish order.
One of the most pressing security threats is the resurgence of terrorist organizations, including Daesh. While Daesh no longer controls large swaths of territory, it remains active in both Syria and Iraq, launching attacks and maintaining sleeper cells.
The Iraqi military, in cooperation with US-led coalition forces, has been engaged in ongoing counterterrorism operations to eliminate high-profile Daesh figures. A recent example of such cooperation was this month’s elimination of Abdallah Maki Mosleh Al-Rifai, the head of Daesh in Iraq and Syria. This joint operation, conducted by Iraqi intelligence and coalition forces, underscored the importance of coordinated security efforts. By sharing intelligence, conducting joint operations and strengthening border controls, Syria and Iraq can more effectively combat the persistent threat of terrorism.
Moreover, securing the Syria-Iraq border is crucial for preventing the infiltration of armed groups and ensuring that neither country becomes a staging ground for terrorist activities. Enhanced border patrols, intelligence sharing and coordinated military operations can significantly improve security for both nations. By reforming security institutions and fostering cooperation with Iraq’s security forces, Syria can take meaningful steps toward ensuring long-term stability.
A stable and secure Syria is in Iraq’s best interest, as instability over the border directly affects its security. Strengthening military and intelligence collaboration will not only help neutralize terrorist threats but also lay the groundwork for broader regional security cooperation.
Beyond economic and security concerns, Syria and Iraq share deep cultural, historical and social ties. Strengthening these connections can foster mutual understanding, encourage people-to-people exchanges and contribute to a more cohesive regional identity. Cultural initiatives such as joint archaeological projects, academic collaborations and artistic exchanges can reinforce the shared heritage of both nations. Restoring historical sites, many of which have been damaged by war, can serve as a symbol of resilience and cooperation.
Additionally, fostering educational partnerships between Syrian and Iraqi universities can help build a new generation of leaders committed to regional unity and development. Diplomatic engagement is also crucial. By strengthening political ties, Syria and Iraq can coordinate their positions on regional issues and advocate for mutual interests.
In conclusion, strengthening the ties between Syria and Iraq is not just a bilateral necessity — it is a strategic imperative. By enhancing economic cooperation, bolstering security efforts and fostering cultural and diplomatic engagement, these two nations can pave the way for long-term stability and prosperity. A strong partnership between Syria and Iraq will benefit their citizens.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2595023
--------
The Erosion Of Israel-Egypt Relations And What Went Wrong
By Yaakov Katz
March 28, 2025
There were no ceremonies this year: none in Jerusalem, none in Cairo, and none in Washington. There were no commemorations, no speeches, and not even a symbolic gesture to mark the 46th anniversary of the Camp David Accords, signed at the White House this week in 1979.
What was once hailed as a historic breakthrough in Middle East diplomacy – a peace agreement that changed the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict – passed without notice, buried under political tension and indifference.
The question is: How did we get here? How did a peace deal that once demonstrated that reconciliation between Israel and its neighbors was possible become so irrelevant that not even a phone call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or President Isaac Herzog and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was reported? There were no public acknowledgments in Israel and certainly nothing in Egypt.
Instead of celebrations, what we have is tension. The IDF has been on heightened alert along the Egyptian border ever since relations began to sour in May when Israel launched a ground offensive into southern Gaza.
As part of the operation, Israeli forces took control of the Philadelphi Corridor, the eight-mile strip of land that separates the Gaza Strip from Egypt. The move sparked alarm in Cairo, prompting Egypt to reinforce its own military presence in the Sinai Peninsula.
Since then, the relationship has continued to deteriorate. On Thursday, the Qatari news outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed reported that Egypt was refusing to accredit Israel’s newly appointed ambassador, Ori Rotman.
Egyptian officials cited Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza and the Netanyahu government’s support for displacement plans of Palestinians as justification for postponing Rotman’s presentation of credentials.
This diplomatic freeze isn’t occurring in a vacuum. A recent study by the Glazer Foundation Information and Consulting Centre at the Jewish People Policy Institute sheds light on a deeper shift in public sentiment.
The analysis reviewed thousands of opinion pieces published in two of Egypt’s most influential newspapers: Al-Ahram, the country’s most widely read paper, and Al-Gomhuria, a state-owned publication once edited by none other than Anwar Sadat, the late president and signatory of the Camp David peace deal.
What are the findings?
The findings are sobering. Of the articles that mentioned Israel, over 85% were negative, with many veering into outright antisemitism. These weren’t simply political critiques; some employed classic antisemitic tropes: claims about Jews loving money, being disloyal, or Judaism being a “fake” religion founded on myths.
It’s hard to imagine a greater departure from the spirit of Sadat and Menachem Begin, who stood side-by-side with then-president Jimmy Carter in 1979 to declare that peace was not only necessary but achievable.
That declaration of peace was anything but inevitable. When Sadat made his historic visit to Jerusalem, there were Israeli military officers, including the IDF chief of staff, who genuinely feared it was a trap.
Some believed that when the airplane door opened, armed men would emerge firing into the crowd. The level of suspicion and trauma from previous wars was that deep. And yet, despite it all, the visit took place. A handshake was exchanged. And peace, however imperfect, was established.
THE AGREEMENT changed the trajectory of the region. It proved that diplomacy could replace war, that Israel could have formal relations with an Arab state – the biggest one, in fact – and that coexistence, while not always warm, was possible.
But today, that peace feels like a relic. Mistakes were made on both sides. While political leaders signed treaties and security officials built a framework of cooperation against mutual threats, the peace never trickled down to the people. Public diplomacy was neglected.
Educational initiatives to foster mutual understanding never took place. The result is a peace that has long been cold on the Egyptian street – and increasingly so within the Egyptian government itself.
This stands in stark contrast to the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements Israel signed with the United Arab Emirates and other Arab states in 2020. Despite differences over the ongoing war in Gaza, those relationships remain surprisingly resilient.
Emirati airlines, for example, have continued flying to Israel throughout the conflict, while most Western carriers only recently resumed limited service. People-to-people ties, business partnerships, and intergovernmental cooperation are warm and alive.
Can Israel and Egypt rebuild what was lost?
The question now is whether Israel and Egypt can rebuild what has eroded. The task will not be easy. Trust has been frayed, and the war in Gaza continues to cast a long shadow. But it is vital for both nations to recognize the strategic, economic, and regional benefits of sustaining their relationship. The alternative – a return to hostility – is far worse.
Critically missing in this equation is strong American involvement. At the time of Camp David, the US played an instrumental role in facilitating dialogue and brokering the agreement.
Today, that level of engagement is absent. Sisi has refused to travel to Washington to meet with US President Donald Trump, and special envoy Steve Witkoff recently warned of a potential “bad event” in Egypt that “could take us back,” only further irritating Cairo.
This is a moment that demands high-level diplomacy. The US secretary of state, national security advisor, or Witkoff himself should be shuttling between Cairo, Jerusalem, and Washington, working to prevent a further unraveling of one of the most important peace treaties in modern Middle East history.
The Camp David Accords once proved that even the bitterest of enemies could sit at the same table. Let’s not allow that lesson to be forgotten.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-847913
-------
My Word: Between Strikes And Striking Back
By Liat Collins
March 28, 2025
There’s not much to envy in the US political system except for the fact that when a president is elected, it is for four years. Not so Israeli politicians. The Israeli prime minister has no guarantee of even a hundred days of grace, and the coalition has no promises of continuation. Destabilization is built in.
Efforts to oust the premier and bring about new elections commence before the government has been sworn in and are relentless. Hence, the parties in power aim to rush legislation as soon as possible – the judicial reform being an obvious example – while the opposition does everything possible to trip the government up and bring it down.
The Hamas invasion and mega-atrocity on October 7, 2023, was so horrendous that it brought the country back together with slogans like “Together we will win.” But it should not be forgotten that the massive divide caused by the reform proposals – and the response to it – were a major cause of the Iranian-sponsored attack.
Israel’s enemies watched pilots and members of elite forces refusing to serve; hi-tech entrepreneurs threatening to relocate; talk of mass emigration of doctors; and wildcat strikes, and they detected weakness.
The discord pre-October 7 was marked by mass demonstrations – some of them creative to the point of being almost an art form – egged on by the mainstream media.
One wave of protests swept the country in March 2023 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fired Yoav Gallant as defence minister.
The uproar was so great that Netanyahu rescinded the dismissal. Hence, Gallant was defence minister on October 7. It was on his watch no less than Netanyahu’s that the Hamas mega-atrocity took place.
I was reminded of Gallant’s dismissal this month when a similar outbreak of demonstrations surrounded Netanyahu’s decision to fire the head of the Shin Bet (Israel’s Security Agency). Ronen Bar had already admitted he played a role in the failure to prevent October 7.
If that wasn’t enough, it should be recalled that it was luck rather than Bar’s skills that prevented mega-bus bombing casualties last month.
I had plenty of time to mull over the issue as I sat on a bus in Jerusalem, stuck in traffic caused by demonstrations nominally against Bar’s dismissal. Demonstrations are, of course, an essential right in a democracy. Deliberately blocking main roads and intersections is not.
Bar had promised to step down but added last-minute demands: That he remain in place until the return of all the 59 hostages still being held in Gaza (only 24 of whom are believed to be alive); that he choose who replaces him; and that he stay in the job to investigate the Qatargate affair implicating members of the prime minister’s circle in receiving funds to promote the image of the Gulf state.
It is legitimate for him to recommend his replacement, but not to turn the appointment into a demand. As for the Qatargate inquiry, it should be asked why Bar doesn’t believe his successor can lead the investigation.
A lack of trust
The lack of trust between Netanyahu and the head of the security agency that operates under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Office is no trifling matter. Keep in mind that the Shin Bet is responsible for protecting Israeli officials, as well as safeguarding the country.
Bar’s predecessor, Nadav Argaman, did not help. Argaman is one of a series of former Shin Bet heads who have openly come out against the prime minister and actively participated in the mass protests, but his recent comments were the most brazen. In an interview with Yonit Levy on Channel 12, Argaman issued a thinly veiled threat.
“There is great importance to the intimacy between the head of the Shin Bet and the prime minister, and I don’t think it is right to undermine that intimacy,” Argaman said. “... It is absolutely clear that I have a great deal of knowledge. I could use it, but I choose not to for the reasons I mentioned.”
If Argaman has knowledge of some serious misdeed by the prime minister, why has he been sitting on this information? Where is the democracy in a secret service head who gives the impression of building up incriminating evidence against the country’s leaders to be used when he decides the time is right?
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara jumped in and declared that Netanyahu could not fire Bar. (The High Court ruled that he could not be fired before April 8, two days before his slated last day in office, and on Tuesday the court rejected her request that would prevent interviewing candidates for the job.)
Baharav-Miara has also been targeted by the current government for dismissal – and vice versa. The attorney-general has repeatedly rejected the government’s positions and is ultimately the prosecutor of the prime minister himself in his corruption trials. Conflicts of interest go both ways: The judges and the politicians all have vested interests in maintaining power. The difference is that the politicians are elected, while the judges are not.
Bar basically accused the prime minister of wanting him out of the way to block the Qatargate investigation, while Netanyahu and his supporters claim that Bar launched the investigation in order to stay in his job. Netanyahu this week went as far as to claim there is a “Deep State” conspiracy against him.
Even without a written constitution, the result is a constitutional crisis. And the demonstrations aren’t helping. The protesters have gathered under multiple banners with disparate messages – some demand the draft of the ultra-Orthodox, others focus on ending the war in Gaza; some seek financial help to reservists and those displaced in the war, others are protesting the decision to fire Bar.
The fate of the hostages has been thrown into this powerful emotional cocktail. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum fears that continued war will harm those captives still in Gaza, while the less publicized Tikva and Gvura forums, also representing families of hostages and fallen soldiers, say that only military pressure on Hamas can bring about the release of the captives and the end of the terrorist threat.
Politicizing the hostages
That the hostage issue has been politicized is one of the greatest tragedies of October 7.
At a rally in Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square last Saturday night, leader of the opposition Yair Lapid yelled that if the government ignores the court that overrules it, there should be mass strikes and a tax revolt.
Lapid’s voice has been heard loud, but not clear, at many of the major protests before and after October 7, 2023. He has screamed against the government until he is hoarse. But he hasn’t offered an alternative.
At the end of his few months as prime minister in 2022, he pushed through a deal giving Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon part of Israel’s economic waters and potential natural gas assets.
It didn’t prevent Hezbollah’s aggression any more than allowing Qatar to fund Hamas bought quiet in Gaza.Israelis are good in crisis situations. They are also prone to creating crises. We don’t need more threats either external or domestic. As the editorial in this paper on Sunday put it: “... Israelis should do whatever we can to make sure that the divisiveness and hate from within Israeli society don’t overtake the silent majority – who are looking for stability, safety, and peace.”
I believe some version of the so-called “French law” would be a good idea – limiting the number of consecutive terms the prime minister could serve but providing immunity from police investigations and charges while in office.
Some measure of judicial reform is also essential. The Hebrew title of the attorney-general translates as “legal adviser to the government”; but following Supreme Court president Aharon Barak’s judicial overhaul in the 1990s, the job became less that of an adviser and more that of the ultimate power, able to veto decisions of the executive at will.
Barak’s philosophy could be summed up in two words: “judicial activism”; or, in Hebrew, hakol shafit – “everything can be tried in court.” Not surprisingly, this has led to a feeling among many that the courts have become politicized and overly interventionist. And it underscores the need to separate the roles of the state prosecutor and the attorney-general, today absurdly combined.
When the dominant narrative in Israel becomes the threats of “Deep State” vs mass demonstrations, nobody wins – except the ayatollahs in Tehran and their murderous proxies enjoying the show. Better the French law than the French Revolution.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-847936
---------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/israel-france-algeria-indonesia-gazans/d/135000
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