Middle East Press on AlUla Summit, Netanyahu's Treatment of Arabs, GERD Talks and GCC: New Age Islam's Selection, 7 January 2021
By
New Age Islam Edit Desk
7 January 2021
•
Netanyahu Should Treat Arabs Better If He Wants Their Votes
By
Ray Hanania
•
Alula Summit Is A Healing Moment Of Reunification
By
Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri
•
World Must Unite To Defeat Houthis And Save Yemen
By
Maria Maalouf
•
Future Of GERD Talks Blurry As Sudan Stands Firm
By
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
•
With Sudan Signing Abraham Accords, Israel Tightens Grip In Africa, Red Sea
Basin
By
Rina Bassist
• Is
Israel Discriminating Against Palestinians With Vaccine?
By
Seth Frantzman
• Has
The GCC Crisis Been Resolved?
By
Kristian Coates Ulrichsen
•
Pardons And Iraq: A Familiar Story
By
Andrew Mitrovica
------
Netanyahu
Should Treat Arabs Better If He Wants Their Votes
By
Ray Hanania
January 07,
2021
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not my favorite Israeli leader, but he has
managed to win election after election and continues to have the greatest
influence on what happens to my relatives and friends who struggle to survive
there.
Netanyahu
is the quintessential politician and he knows better than most how to manage
and manipulate public opinion to his advantage. That is why I am not surprised
that the Israeli PM has announced plans to mount a campaign to win support from
Israel’s Palestinian voters, who represent 20 percent of the country’s
population. It is a smart strategic move to build support in the run-up to the
next election, which is expected to be held on March 23.
Netanyahu
has served a total of more than 15 years over his two spells as Israel’s prime
minister. He, more than anyone else in the Middle East, has influence over
Palestinian lives, human rights and statehood. Yet, despite all that time in
power, Netanyahu has already had to struggle through three elections in the
past two years. While facing charges of corruption, Netanyahu failed to win a
decisive victory in the most recent election last March, but he still managed
to land on top in a coalition with his chief rival, Benny Gantz.
Gantz, who
is slightly less conservative than his coalition partner, was supposed to share
the prime minister’s role, but Netanyahu orchestrated the collapse of the
governing agreement and now believes he can win outright in March.
One bump in
the road for Netanyahu was the rise of the Palestinian Arab vote in the last election.
Clearly, this community is a minority that cannot be ignored. However, until
now, that is exactly what Netanyahu has done. In the last election, he fanned
the flames of racism by warning that, if he did not win Jewish support, the
Arabs might take over.
Having
reported on US and Western elections for nearly 45 years, I know that racism is
sometimes less about race and more about politics. Smart politicians “manage”
race and racial issues to manipulate voter turnout. Oftentimes, it is not
because they are racist but because they see race as an instrument that could
help ensure an election victory. It may be an amoral strategy, but the
manipulation of race is often seen in Western elections.
Instead of
fomenting racist division in Israel, as he did last year, Netanyahu has this
time decided to pander to the Palestinian Arabs. They are a prime target for
his manipulation considering that their own leaders have never truly understood
the fundamentals of elections and always seem to rely on emotions rather than
strategy.
That
weakness in the Palestinian Arab leadership probably explains why the
community’s vote has never reached its true potential. If it did, Palestinian
Arab voters, who make up 20 percent of the electorate, should be able to elect
24 representatives to the 120-member Israeli Knesset. The most they have ever
achieved is 17. With seven more seats, the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel
could pretty much determine who will be the next prime minister and reverse the
Israeli government’s embrace of apartheid policies and its opposition to the
creation of a viable Palestinian state.
Netanyahu
sees that and, if he can’t decisively win by fomenting anti-Arab hate among
Israeli Jews, then as a politician he will try to manage at least a portion of
that vote so that he won’t have to share power once again.
He also
understands how emotional the Palestinian Arab population is. It is not
inconceivable that these victims of violence and crime will find themselves
looking toward their oppressor for answers. It would be like a variation of the
famous Stockholm syndrome, which sees hostages bond with their captors.
All
Netanyahu needs to do is show more concern and compassion for the Palestinian
Arabs, not in terms of nationalism but in terms of treating them more equally.
Israel has adopted more than 65 laws that discriminate against non-Jews.
Without losing his right-wing conservative support, which opposes Palestinian
statehood, Netanyahu could reduce the racism and increase non-Jewish rights to
almost being equal.
He just
needs to win a small portion of the Palestinian Arab vote to solidify his
leadership and maybe even wriggle out of the corruption prosecution that looms
over him. He certainly has an open road to try. The Palestinian Arab leaders in
Israel have never reached their full potential and really don’t understand the
power that strategic communications has on election results. They will respond
to his strategy by advancing a very emotion-driven campaign, as they are
already doing.
If
Netanyahu can maintain clarity in his purpose and truly make a difference to
the lives of Israel’s non-Jews, reaching out to win Arab votes would be a smart
move.
-----
Ray Hanania
is an award-winning former Chicago City Hall political reporter and columnist.
He can be reached on his personal website at www.Hanania.com. Twitter:
@RayHanania
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1788656
-----
AlUla
Summit Is A Healing Moment Of Reunification
By Dr.
Hamdan Al-Shehri
January 07,
2021
His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and
Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Nawaf
al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, Omani Deputy Prime
Minister Fahd Bin Mahmud, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Bahrain's
Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa and Nayef al-Hajraf, secretary-general
of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) posing for a picture before the opening
session of the 41st Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in the northwestern
Saudi city of AlUla.
Image Credit: Dubai media office
-----
The Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit in AlUla this week will surely be remembered
as the summit of reunification. It will be recognized as the moment when the
countries of the GCC finally turned the page on a crisis in the region that had
gone on for three years. The supreme interest of the peoples of the council’s
six member nations has prevailed and the process of cooperation has been
relaunched, paving the way for a new future.
What
distinguishes this entity — formed 41 years ago to counter challenges and
threats to Gulf security and stability — has been its efforts to develop
economies and foster cooperation in various other fields. There are ties that
bind the GCC countries and link them together that are not found in other
similar entities, or even among other Arab countries.
Working as
a single system, therefore, the GCC countries can confront the urgency of the
surrounding crises and take necessary actions and steps, despite their
differences, to pursue the greater interests of all.
If we weigh
the size of the challenges facing the GCC against the scale of the differences
between its members, we find the challenges are greater. At the same time, the
awareness of all GCC leaders has led them to rise above the problems of the
past and put them aside as they work to realize the hopes and aspirations of
their people. These are mainly based on advancing the pace of development,
which is naturally tied to economic progress.
The
circumstances the GCC countries find themselves in today include threats from
Iran, including terrorism carried out by Tehran’s sectarian militias. This
makes the political and security file the most pressing and the most important
due to the potential consequences. This issue initially represented a point of
disagreement and then came full circle to form the point of agreement after GCC
members unanimously agreed to counter the challenges and threats.
These
points were clearly stated by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who
opened the summit on behalf of King Salman. The statement read out by him
emphasized the importance of “Gulf, Arab and Islamic solidarity and stability,
and strengthening the bonds of friendship and brotherhood between our countries
and peoples in order to serve their hopes and aspirations. There is a need to
unite our efforts to advance our region and confront the challenges that
surround us, especially the threats posed by the Iranian regime’s nuclear
program, its ballistic missile program, and its destructive sabotage projects
that it and its proxies adopt through terrorist and sectarian activities which
aim at destabilizing security and stability in the region.”
The GCC has
always played many roles; the liberation of Kuwait in the 1990s after Saddam
Hussein’s invasion is one example that clearly illustrates its joint work
toward a common goal.
In the same
way, the threat to Bahrain posed by militias supported by Tehran was confronted
and halted. Had no action been taken, Manama would have been thrown into a
downward spiral of chaos and devastation. Thanks however to the Peninsula
Shield, which supported Bahrain, the efforts of Tehran’s saboteurs and militias
were thwarted.
Today, too,
the Arab Coalition — the strength of which comes from the Gulf, especially
Saudi Arabia — is working to restore Yemeni legitimacy and return the country
to its citizens after Iranian-backed Houthi militias hijacked and terrorized
it.
The region
remains in conflict. Tehran is on one side with its ideology of terror that
exports malicious sectarian revolution, using terrorism and terrorist militias,
as well as anything else it can, to destroy the region’s security and
stability.
The other
side is represented by the GCC countries that export wealth and aim to build
economies that lead to prosperity. They support economic improvement and
utilize every available means of development in a quest for projects, incomes
and revenues that are not dependent only on oil, in an effort to achieve
prosperity for all the people of the region.
The two
sides — Iran and the GCC — are very different. One is linked to death,
destruction and terrorism, while the other is linked to growth, prosperity and
life. This simple fact is what made the leaders of the region realize that the
destructive Iranian plans would destroy everyone and everything if the GCC is
not united in its efforts.
The leaders
must work together to close the files on the other disputes that Tehran fosters
and benefits from. There is no doubt that after the AlUla Agreement, Tehran
will find itself isolated and alone.
The GCC has
united against Iran and acted to neutralize the danger and terror it promotes.
This new action will see the region and its people blessed, and the member
nations will enjoy security, stability and economic prosperity.
-----
Dr.
Hamdan Al-Shehri is a political analyst and international relations scholar.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1788426
-----
World
Must Unite To Defeat Houthis And Save Yemen
By
Maria Maalouf
January 07,
2021
The brutal
and vicious attack by the Houthis against the civilian airport in Aden last
month, which killed at least 26 people and injured scores of others, while
causing significant damage to that important facility and its surrounding
areas, was an act of terrorism. It was a devastating blow to every sincere
effort to end the civil war in Yemen by finding a political solution. Calls for
the punishment of the Houthis are justified. However, more important for Yemen
is the urgent need to eliminate the wicked influence of Iran in the country,
which has thrown this nation of almost 30 million into a bloody quagmire of
turmoil and instability.
The details
of the Dec. 30 attack are horrific. There was an explosion as soon as a plane
carrying the war-torn country’s recently formed government from Saudi Arabia
landed at the airport. None of the Cabinet members were among the victims, but
aid workers were hurt. However, this is just one part of a series of savagely
cruel actions that the Houthis have inflicted on Yemen and its people since the
beginning of the civil war in 2014.
The Riyadh
Agreement of November 2019 carries significant political weight. It promises an
end to the fighting and prepares Yemen for a better future. It creates a
process of national reconciliation through the establishment of a power-sharing
formula, the strengthening of the state’s institutions, the return of a number
of politicians and leaders, official recognition of the forces loyal to the
Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior, and in having Saudi Arabia as
the sponsor of its implementation. Its effectiveness is manifested in an accord
between the government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and the Southern
Transitional Council. No country can care for the well-being of Yemen without
pointing to the relevance of the Riyadh Agreement, which laid the foundation
for peace in the country.
Previously,
the Houthis agitated to undermine the Stockholm Agreement that was signed in
December 2018. It instituted a mechanism to deliver humanitarian aid to
Hodeidah and its port, Taiz, and the ports of Salif and Ras Isa. The Houthis
never honored that accord.
The Houthis
have brought havoc to Yemen through their murderous acts of terrorism. Their
madness has seen them terrify the populations of the areas they control, launch
missile attacks against ships off the Yemeni coast, and bomb oil installations
in Saudi Arabia.
The
authority and wisdom of the Arab countries’ moderation stands clear regarding
the strife in Yemen. The Houthis must be beaten back to ensure a better future
for Yemen and the entire Middle East. The sanctions regimes on the Houthis have
to change. They currently hold accountable only a few officials within this
movement by freezing their financial assets and preventing transactions with
them.
But its
military capabilities remain intact. This enables the Houthis to kill innocent
people. Regrettably, there will be more attacks similar to the Aden airport
incident unless the Houthis’ weapons are confiscated.
There is a
necessity to initiate a strategic military order in Yemen to bring about conditions
unfavorable to the survival of the Houthis. This could contain them and defeat
them militarily. This should be followed by their retreat from the provinces
they have seized.
While the
Trump administration attempts to classify the Houthis as a terror group, the
Biden transition team seems hesitant in that critical pursuit. This
misrepresents who the Houthis are and denies their inhuman characteristics. The
whole world must heed the call for the decisive defeat of the Houthis. Any
other alternative would only deepen the agony of the millions of innocent
people in Yemen.
----
Maria
Maalouf is a Lebanese journalist, broadcaster, publisher, and writer. She holds
an MA in Political Sociology from the University of Lyon.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1788401
-----
Future
Of GERD Talks Blurry As Sudan Stands Firm
By
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy
January 06,
2021
The Grand
Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) negotiations between Egypt, Ethiopia and
Sudan, under the auspices of the South Africa-chaired African Union (AU), are
proceeding with great difficulty. The disputing parties agreed in their last
meeting on Monday to hold another meeting on Jan. 10, but the difficulty lies
in the pitfalls they face at almost every meeting.
The latest
meeting witnessed the withdrawal of the Sudanese side. It refused to
participate after receiving an invitation to continue with the direct
tripartite negotiations instead of a bilateral meeting with AU experts, which
it had requested. Sudan based its position on the outcomes of the tripartite
ministerial meeting on the filling and operation of the GERD, which was held on
Sunday.
The
Sudanese government announced that the decision to withdraw was confirmation of
its firm position on the necessity of giving a role to AU experts in the
efforts to facilitate the negotiations and bridge the gaps between the three
parties. Khartoum also affirmed its adherence to the negotiating process under
the auspices of the AU based on the principle of African solutions to African
problems, provided that experts play a more effective role in facilitating the
negotiations.
The
Sudanese position embarrassed the other parties, as Egypt is extraordinarily
keen on the interests of the Sudanese people and Ethiopia considers Khartoum a
great strategic ally in these negotiations. Addis Ababa does not want to lose a
fierce fighter from its side, but on the ground it seems that Sudan is playing
solo.
It was
agreed to raise the matter with the minister of international relations and cooperation
in South Africa in her capacity as the current president of the AU. It is hoped
that future steps will be discussed during the six-party ministerial meeting
scheduled for Jan. 10, especially since the course of negotiations requires the
participation of all three countries when reaching a binding agreement on the
rules of filling and operation of the GERD.
Sudan
considers that progress was made in the last round, with the parties agreeing
to discuss a compromise draft prepared by the AU committee of experts related
to bridging the gaps between the three drafts submitted by Sudan, Egypt and
Ethiopia last August. This step, in Sudan’s view, means a transformation of the
African committee of experts from a mere mediator to a facilitator, which will
push the negotiation process forward and end the stalemate that has lasted for
several years.
But there
is a fundamental disagreement between Egypt and Sudan regarding the extent of
the reliance on experts. Cairo believes that reliance could go beyond the AU,
especially if Sudan’s technical priorities continue to be limited to water
retention, periodic flow and other issues that Egypt deems important, rather
than the most important and most demanding issues that need to be resolved.
The two
countries also differ on periods of drought and prolonged drought, as Egypt
proposes passing 37 billion cubic meters as a median figure between what
Ethiopia was demanding (32 billion) and what Egypt was demanding (40 billion).
But Sudan considers that adhering to the new number proposed by Egypt does not
fit with Ethiopia’s efforts to fill the GERD reservoir in earnest. There is
also a dispute over Ethiopia’s water-use plan: Whether it is for energy
production, agriculture or other purposes.
Nevertheless,
there is agreement between Egypt and Sudan on most of the legal issues facing
Ethiopia, as well as on the binding nature of the deal that will be signed.
There are also common ideas about establishing a dispute settlement mechanism
regarding the operation of the dam and the filling of the reservoir. That will
see a mediator chosen by each of the three countries and negotiations conducted
between the mediators under a legal arbitration system until a decision is
reached.
Egypt and
Sudan also agree on opposing Ethiopia’s desire to convert the agreement into a
deal on Nile waters quotas, thereby canceling the 1959 agreement between Cairo
and Khartoum. They also oppose Ethiopia’s wish to demand prior approval for the
establishment of other water projects on the course of the Blue Nile and to
apply the GERD’s guiding rules on them.
On the
technical level, Egypt pays great attention to the idea of linking the dams,
the annual amount of flow, the quality of water, and the actions that will be
carried out on them, while the Sudanese are primarily concerned with the need
to develop a clear program for the continuous and permanent filling of the
reservoir and the daily flow volume from the dam.
The future
of the negotiations is now blurry. The Egyptian government stressed, before the
latest round of negotiations, the need to reach an agreement at the earliest
possible opportunity, and particularly before the start of the second phase of
filling the dam’s reservoir. It wants any deal to satisfy the common interests
of the three countries and secure the rights and water interests of Egypt.
Strangely,
this matter comes after hostile statements made by former Ethiopian diplomats,
which amounted to accusations against Egypt. The source of these statements was
a former Ethiopian ambassador to Cairo, who was a supporter of repairing the
rift and was careful not to make statements that might provoke Cairo in any way
while he was stationed there. Egypt did well by not responding to these hostile
statements — it refused to be distracted from the main issue, which is the
GERD.
One
positive view on the future of the negotiations comes from the EU, which is
optimistic a solution that satisfies all parties will be reached. It issued a
statement welcoming the negotiations and expecting the talks to reach an
acceptable basis for filling and operation. It added that the talks provide an
important opportunity for the countries to move forward and agree on clear
rules. Meanwhile, South Africa is working hard to reach a solution, as a deal
would strengthen the AU in the long term.
Between the
various positive and negative views on the issue of the GERD, there remain
disputed points between the parties, which make us wonder who can solve them,
given that the US, AU, EU and the UN Security Council — in their capacity as
sponsoring the negotiations at several times — have all previously failed. So
who can solve them? I think that the answer in this regard is one that does not
change: Only the three countries that are parties to this crisis can solve it.
-----
Dr. Abdellatif
El-Menawy is a critically acclaimed multimedia journalist, writer and columnist
who has covered war zones and conflicts worldwide. Twitter: @ALMenawy
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1788376
------
With
Sudan Signing Abraham Accords, Israel Tightens Grip In Africa, Red Sea Basin
By
Rina Bassist
Jan 6, 2021
Sudanese
Justice Minister Nasredeen Abdulbari signed on to the Abraham Accords today in
Khartoum, officially agreeing to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel. The
signature took place in the presence of US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin,
who is currently visiting the country.
Foreign
Minister Gabi Ashkenazi tweeted after the news, “Sudan’s signing of the Abraham
Accords is an important step in advancing regional normalization agreements in
the Middle East. I want to thank the US administration for its constant efforts
to promote peace and stability throughout the Middle East. I hope that this
agreement will soon bring progress in the dialogue and normalization between
Israel and Sudan and promote the development of relations between our two
countries.’’
The signing
in Khartoum ended weeks of speculations in Israel over the commitment of Sudan
to the move, first announced Oct. 23 by President Donald Trump. After the
festive announcement in October, it became clear to Jerusalem that Khartoum was
conditioning normalization on the United States erasing it off the blacklist of
countries supporting terror. This was not an easy task for the administration
in Washington, but on Dec. 14, Khartoum got what it wanted. Still, even then,
Khartoum took its time. Parts of the Sudanese leadership were apparently
uncomfortable with the idea.
That being
said, Israel’s Foreign Ministry sees ties with Sudan as extremely important
strategically. The African-Muslim country is located in the Horn of Africa, on
the shores of the Red Sea. More so, in past years, Sudan enabled Iran and its
proxies to transfer arms though its land. And while Iranian-Sudanese ties have
known more downs than ups in recent years, Israel considers Sudan a strategic,
key country in the region.
With Sudan
on board and excluding Djibouti and Somalia, Israel now maintains diplomatic
relations with most of the Red Sea basin countries on the African side. Going
from north to south, Israel has cold yet solid peace with Egypt; it has fresh,
new diplomatic ties with Sudan; it has full though somewhat complicated
diplomatic relations with Eritrea; it has especially warm ties with Kenya; and
it maintains regular diplomatic ties with Tanzania and Mozambique. Ethiopia
does not have an opening to the sea, but one could also include it in the Red
Sea basin region. Jerusalem has privileged relations with Addis Ababa on many
levels and for many years already, including security cooperation.
Considering
this long list of friends, Israel would now like to establish diplomatic
relations also with Muslim Djibouti. Over the past few years, this tiny African
country located on the Bab al-Mandeb straits has become a major sea military
hub for world powers. France has maintained a military base in Djibouti for
decades. In 2002, the United States leased Camp Lemonnier, situated outside of
Djibouti city, and established there a naval base, which is the only permanent
American military base in Africa. In 2016, China began constructing its own
naval base in Djibouti — its first and only Chinese military installation
overseas. Italy, Japan, Russia, India and Singapore also have a military
presence there. Having its own opening to the Red Sea, Israel is particularly
interested in joining this club.
On Nov. 25,
Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh addressed this issue in an interview
with Africa Report, stating that Djibouti will not establish official ties with
Israel without progress toward peace with the Palestinians. “We take issue with
the Israeli government because they’re denying Palestinians their inalienable
rights. All we ask that the government do is make one gesture of peace, and we
will make 10 in return,” said Guelleh.
Still, the
interesting part of the interview came later on when Guelleh said that his
country does not have an issue with Jews or with Israelis. He also said that
Israelis have been coming for years to his country to do business, and citizens
of Djibouti have been permitted to travel to Israel for the past 25 years.
Indeed,
reports over the years claimed that both countries have secret understandings
on Israeli boats anchoring in the Djibouti port when necessary and for Israeli
aircraft to pass through Djibouti air space if needed. Other reports claimed
that following the Abraham Accords for normalization between Israel and the
Emirates and Bahrain, Israel also held some contacts with Djibouti. No official
sources confirmed these later reports.
Last on
this list of Red Sea basin countries in which Israel would like a foothold is
Muslim Somalia. The government in Mogadishu is clearly not interested in
establishing ties with Israel, but leaders in self-proclaimed Somaliland, which
is part of Somalia, might have a different opinion. Already in 2010, then-spokesperson
of the Israeli Foreign Ministry Yigal Palmor was quoted by Haaretz Daily saying
his government was ready to recognize Somaliland.
The recent
Abraham Accords might push further in that direction, as the Emirates are
Somaliland’s biggest development and strategic partner. On the other hand, the
Emirates chose to invest in Somaliland after rupturing ties with Djibouti.
Saudi Arabia also has its share of interests across the African continent. With
its new friends in the Gulf, Israel might now have to recalculate its next
steps in Africa.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2021/01/israel-africa-sudan-djibouti-somaliland-somalia-ethiopia.html
-----
Is
Israel Discriminating against Palestinians with Vaccine?
By
Seth Frantzman
January 4,
2021
An Arab
Israeli woman leaves after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine at Clalit Health
Services, in the northern Arab Israeli city of Umm al Fahm , on January 4,
2021. (Getty Images)
In recent
weeks, I've been to Israel's mass vaccination centres in Jerusalem. I've interviewed
Israelis, Palestinian Arabs, citizens and foreign nationals about their
experiences of getting immunised. My conclusion is clear. Israel is not
'excluding' Palestinians from the vaccination programme, or discriminating
between its own Jewish and Arab citizens – whatever the Observer may say.
On January
3, the paper asserted that Palestinians were 'excluded from the Israeli Covid
vaccine', juxtaposing them with 'settlers', which it claimed received
vaccinations.
The
article, and further assertions that Israel was denying vaccinations to
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip or West Bank, was misleading. In fact, by the
definition used by the Observer's sister paper the Guardian, Israel is actually
providing vaccinations to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem.
To
understand how Israel is conducting its mass vaccination campaign, and why
there has been so much misreporting, it's important to understand how Israel's
health system works and how the country has approached the Covid crisis.
Since
February, Israel has viewed the Covid outbreak as a national security issue,
stockpiling personal protective equipment and using its security services,
including Mossad, to acquire masks, ventilators and other necessities. Israel
also sought out about eight million doses from Pfizer in a November deal, and
ordered more than six million Moderna vaccine doses. Since receiving the first
deliveries of the new drugs, Israel has conducted an unprecedented campaign of
immunisation, providing the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to a
million people in two weeks. This put the country in the spotlight as a world
leader in vaccinating its citizens.
Israel
provides the jabs through its state-mandated, semi-private health providers
like Clalit, Maccabi and Meuhedet. Its campaign began by targeting people over
60-years-old. Despite some initial confusion, health professionals also treated
younger people who showed up at vaccination centres. This was because once
Pfizer vaccines are removed from cold storage they need to be used, and Israel
doesn't want to waste them.
What about
the Palestinians? First of all, Israel is providing vaccines to everyone in its
health network, including Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem who have
Israeli health care. Second, there are cases of non-citizens in Israel getting
vaccinated by showing up at one of the mass vaccination points. This is because
the mission of health professionals is to vaccinate anyone who shows up. The
virus doesn't distinguish between populations, and neither does medical care.
The Guardian refers to Arab residents of east Jerusalem as Palestinians:
therefore, by its own definition Israel has not excluded Palestinians.
The
Palestinian Authority, a semi-autonomous government that is recognised as the
state of Palestine by 139 countries administers health care to millions of its
own citizens. The Guardian's article on Israel 'excluding' Palestinians notes
that the 'cash-strapped Palestinian Authority, which maintains limited
self-rule in the territories, is rushing to get vaccines. One official
suggested, perhaps optimistically, that shots could arrive within the next two
weeks... Despite the delay, the authority has not officially asked for help
from Israel.'
In other
words, the Guardian that asserts Palestinians were excluded goes on to admit
that they were not excluded. Put it this way. The Palestinian Authority has not
asked Israel to vaccinate its public. Hamas, the terror group that has run the
Gaza Strip since 2006 after throwing the Palestinian Authority out, has not
asked Israel for vaccinations. Ali Abed Rabbo, director-general of the
Palestinian health ministry, did not tell the Guardian he wants Israel to
procure vaccinations. There is a glaring inconsistency here.
Around two
million Israelis will be vaccinated by the end of January, according to
estimates. Israel may need to pause some of the initial dose vaccinations in
order to give the first million patients their second dose. This is a complex
learning process. Israel is ahead of most countries in terms of per capita
provision of vaccines, but with some fifteen percent vaccinated by January 4,
it is still a long road to get the adult population protected.
Overall in
the region, Israel is not only a leader in vaccinations, but also in
vaccinating Palestinians who are residents of Jerusalem. Israel has given the
jab to more Palestinians than neighbouring countries where Palestinians reside.
There are no reported plans to vaccinate local citizens or Palestinians in
places like Lebanon for months.
Israel has
done all it can to get people of all religions and ethnicities vaccinated.
In truth,
Israel has done all it can to get people of all religions and ethnicities
vaccinated. Palestinians who I interviewed said that locals were suspicious of
the vaccine. In late December, Israeli health providers emphasised that they
were seeking to convince Palestinians in East Jerusalem to attend vaccination
stations. Ian Miskin, head of Coronavirus care and vaccination for Clalit in
Jerusalem, said he was concerned about a 'subdued response', saying that it was
a 'real priority' to get Palestinians from East Jerusalem vaccinated at a
specialised clinic, like the one in the Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah.
Overall, it
appears that Palestinian-governed areas of the West Bank will receive vaccines
around the same time as neighbouring Jordan, where many millions of
Palestinians also live. Palestinians I spoke to told me that the authorities in
Ramallah had drawn up lists of priority populations to vaccinate. This will
include the elderly, security forces and journalists. In other words, the
Palestinian Authority is working on it, and will likely provide vaccines at the
same pace as neighbouring Arab states.
The
fundamental point is that Israel is not responsible for the health care of the
residents of the Palestinian Authority. Could Israel be doing more for citizens
of neighbouring territories? That is an open question. Most countries in the
world are unable to provide vaccinations to their own citizens. The nature of
Israel's dispute with the Palestinians creates complex questions about this
issue, but it is not due to discrimination that Israel isn't vaccinating
residents of the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
The 139
countries that recognise the state of Palestine cannot also demand that Israel
vaccinates citizens of a foreign state. Should Austria be blamed for not
vaccinating the population of Slovakia?
---
Seth
Frantzman is a Ginsburg-Milstein Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and
senior Middle East correspondent at The Jerusalem Post.
https://www.meforum.org/61916/israel-is-not-discriminating-with-vaccine?goal=0_086cfd423c-844087b355-34060581&mc_cid=844087b355&mc_eid=28f0e7b6ce
----
Has The
GCC Crisis Been Resolved?
By
Kristian Coates Ulrichsen
6 Jan 2021
Exactly 43
months to the day since Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and
Egypt severed political and economic ties with Qatar on June 5, 2017, the
Al-Ula declaration signed at the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in Saudi
Arabia brought the blockade of Qatar to a formal end.
The
“solidarity and stability” agreement, the text of which has not been made
public, is a significant advance in the efforts to overcome the deepest rift in
the 40-year history of the GCC, ahead of Joe Biden taking over the presidency of
the United States from Donald Trump on January 20.
However,
while a crisis that began with Trump coming into office is ending just before
he leaves the White House, the longer-term impacts of the regional rift are
likely to take considerable time to heal and cannot be merely signed away with
the stroke of a pen.
It is hard
to disentangle the blockade of Qatar from the trajectory of Trump’s highly
unconventional and transactional approach to foreign policy. Differences on
regional issues between Qatar and some of its neighbours, especially the UAE,
long predated the 2017 blockade and were manifested in the nine-month
withdrawal of the Saudi, Emirati, and Bahraini ambassadors from Doha in 2014.
That
earlier rift was resolved by patient Kuwaiti mediation that resulted in the
signing of the Riyadh Agreement in November 2014. Over the next two and half
years, Qatar sent forces to join the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, hosted King
Salman on a state visit to Doha in December 2016 and ratified GCC-wide security
cooperation agreements.
After all
this, the outbreak of the 2017 blockade, two weeks after Trump visited Riyadh
on his first foreign trip as US president, took many observers of regional
politics completely by surprise. This includes the emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah
Al Ahmad Al Sabah, who later commented that “suddenly, this dispute came into
existence” after “we met in Riyadh, in the presence of President Trump, and
there was no one to say that there was a dispute between us”.
The feeling
that something had transpired in Riyadh that contributed to the blockade was
subsequently given credence by Trump himself, as he tweeted: “During my recent
trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical
Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!”
Although
Sheikh Sabah of Kuwait was instrumental in preventing the situation from
escalating further, going so far as to declare in September 2017 that “what is
important is that we have stopped any military action”, he died in September
2020 with the crisis still unresolved.
In recent
months, it was Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who pushed
most strongly for a deal that would assist the administration in its attempts
to further isolate Iran through a campaign of “maximum pressure”. Kushner and
his aides visited Saudi Arabia and Qatar in early December to flesh out the
outlines of a deal and are said to have smoothed over issues that reportedly
arose at the last minute.
Kushner’s
role and his presence at the signing ceremony in the Saudi heritage site of
Al-Ula upended assertions by the blockading quartet that the crisis would be
“resolved in Riyadh” rather than by the US.
The
communique of the GCC summit, which was named in honour of the two great
balancers of regional politics – Sheikh Sabah and Sultan Qaboos bin Said of
Oman, who also passed away last year – contained little detail about specific
commitments made by the parties to end the blockade or move forward. Therefore,
there is a risk that the Al-Ula declaration may suffer the same fate as the
2014 Riyadh Agreement, which lacked safeguards to monitor and verify compliance
by all signatories, and itself became an issue of contestation and mutual
recrimination after the 2017 crisis began.
There is an
opportunity for the GCC to ensure that its own settlement dispute mechanism is
utilised to manage any future disputes that may arise among member states, and
that regional power plays, like that of 2017, cannot be repeated.
There have
been suggestions that the UAE was more resistant to an agreement than Saudi
Arabia and it was noticeable that neither King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of
Bahrain, nor President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt chose to attend the summit
or sign in person the agreement.
At the very
least, there was an acknowledgement by the Emirati minister of state for
foreign affairs, Anwar Gargash, that the maximalist 13 demands made by the
blockading quartet of Qatar in June 2017 had given way to “general outlines
that govern relations” between the GCC states. Gargash added that “we [the UAE]
are very satisfied with this outcome”.
But it
remains to be seen whether the lifting of the blockade fully equates to an
ending of the rift in the Gulf or corresponds more to a bilateral
reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is unclear how much the UAE,
especially Abu Dhabi, and Bahrain will buy into the new era in regional
relations. Ties of trust and people-to-people connections between these states
and Qatar may well take more time to recover.
What has
made this crisis different from previous disagreements is that it went far
beyond the confines of a political dispute among elites to hit directly on
families and individuals who endured years of separation and often vituperative
finger-pointing and name-calling on social media. The social legacy of the
Qatar blockade is likely to be the hardest issue to resolve, even after the
disruptive effects of the pandemic dissipate and people are able to travel
throughout the Gulf again. At the political level, an agreement made with an
eye on Washington and on positioning vis-à-vis the upcoming Biden
administration may at most only paper over the deeper cracks that the Gulf
crisis has exposed.
-----
Kristian
Coates Ulrichsen is Fellow for the Middle East at Rice University's Baker Institute
for Public Policy.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/6/the-gcc-after-al-ula
------
Pardons
And Iraq: A Familiar Story
By
Andrew Mitrovica
6 Jan 2021
The posh
enablers of America’s empire have always required that the grunts do the
maiming and murdering in pursuit of their disastrous geopolitical adventures.
The
corollary to this, of course, is the same posh enablers rush for the exits
when, occasionally, the grunts end up in the dock for all the maiming and
murdering done to enforce America’s dominion over nations the posh enablers
have insisted – with obdurate certainty – require emancipation.
For more
prima facie evidence of this axiom, you need only digest the reaction among the
posh enablers of the US destruction (sorry, emancipation) of Iraq to news of
Donald Trump’s pardon of four mercenaries (aka grunts) convicted in connection
with the murder of 17 Iraqis, including two children, in Baghdad’s Nisour
Square in 2007.
One
mortified New York Times columnist wrote that the pardons, while predictable,
were conspicuous not only because of their “depravity” and “grotesqueness”, but
are also proof that “the last days of Trump’s reign have been an orgy of
impunity”.
That a
Times scribe invoked the notion of “impunity” in a lengthy column denouncing
the pardons of four killers liable for the massacre, while failing to
acknowledge the newspaper’s irrefutable role in championing a “pre-emptive war”
that ultimately facilitated the “orgy of violence” in Nisour Square and beyond
is as predictable as it is a grotesque example of moral expediency and amnesia.
But the
appalling revisionism did not end there. The pardons, the outraged Times
columnist added: “exemplify a core tenet of Trumpism: absolute license for some
and absolute submission for others”.
This is
exculpatory nonsense. What the writer describes is not Trumpism, but US
exceptionalism – the defining and abiding doctrine of American foreign policy
established long before Trump occupied the Oval Office.
Indeed, on
the eve of the invasion in March 2003, William Safire, another Times columnist,
declared the US had a “duty” to wage war unapologetically in Iraq.
“But we
should by no means feel guilty about doing our duty. War cannot be waged
apologetically. Rather than wring our hands, Americans and our allies are
required to gird our loins – that is, to fight to win with the conviction that
our cause is just. We have ample reason to believe that Saddam’s gangster
government is an evil to be destroyed before it gains the power to destroy us,”
Safire, who died in 2009, wrote.
Safire
averred that the US has the licence to impose its “convictions” on other peoples
at will and maim and kill them without “guilt”.
This is the
mirror reasoning that the Times is now excoriating Trump for employing as the
rationale to pardon four killers. The hypocrisy is near nauseating.
Beyond
Safire and the Times, the list of the Iraq war’s keyboard cavalry is deep and
notorious. The marquee names include the late Christopher Hitchens, David Frum,
Max Boot, Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol and New Yorker editor, David Remnick.
For his
part, Remnick offered up the, by then, standard jingoistic gruel in a February
2003 column, arguing that “a return to a hollow pursuit of containment will be
the most dangerous option of all”.
Still, at
the time, Remnick shared the following admonition that resonates today.
“History,” he wrote, “will not easily excuse us if, by deciding not to decide,
we defer a reckoning with an aggressive totalitarian leader who intends not
only to develop weapons of mass destruction but also to use them.”
So, how has
history judged Remnick and his posh company who got the “reckoning” in Iraq
they yearned for?
First, they
were wrong on every score. There were no weapons of mass destruction – nuclear
or otherwise. Despite cocky assurances that the invasion would be quick and
tractable, the war, murders and mayhem continue, as does the incessant
suffering of Iraqis.
And while a
few of the Iraq war’s keyboard cavalry have issued belated and qualified mea
culpas, they have also been largely pardoned for promoting a disastrous
invasion that led, in part, to the dispatch of four guns-for-hire who
slaughtered innocents in Nisour Square.
The
lucrative careers of Frum, Boot, Kristol and Friedman have, if anything,
flourished despite their complicity in providing – again and again – the
imprimatur of authority to lies that helped launch a war that has claimed the
lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to date.
Their
ubiquitous presence on Western cable news networks as members of the Trump
“resistance” is grating testimony to the fact their giddy war-mongering days
quickly and comfortably receded in the rear-view mirror.
My
goodness, even the queen of WMD disinformation, former Times’ reporter, Judith
Miller, now appears on Fox News as a commentator on “national security issues
and American foreign policy” after a brief stint in the sin bin.
The rogue’s
line-up of rich politicians and bureaucrats – Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice,
Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz – who conspired to destroy Iraq
to liberate it have, in effect, been pardoned too.
So has
George W Bush – who has been rehabilitated beyond recognition. The image of
Bush, the dauphin warrior, standing on an aircraft carrier declaring “mission
accomplished” has faded, replaced by the more agreeable picture of a happy,
doddering recluse who prefers these days to tend to brush on his Texas ranch.
Justice
demanded that the four grunts responsible for the murder of 17 Iraqis be held
to account.
Justice
demands that the powerful men and women responsible for the premeditated horror
Iraqis have endured for more than 17 years be held to account as well.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/6/pardons-and-iraq-a-familiar-story
-----
URL:
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