Middle East Press On: Nazis, Hamas, Indonesian, Gaza, Armed: New Age Islam's Selection, 24 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
24 April 2025
Remembering All Those Taken From Us, By The Nazis And By Hamas
Holocaust Inversion: The Dangerous Rhetoric Equating Israel To Nazi Germany
Five Reasons Why It Is Right To Sanction Russia But Not Sanction Israel
The Urgent Need To Acknowledge North African Jews In Israeli Memory
What Outcome Awaits Negotiations In The US-Israel-Iran Triangle?
Neoliberal Economic Objectives In Syria: The Real War Begins Now
A Senior Indonesian Parliamentary Official Speaks For Gaza, But More Needs To Be Done
Netanyahu’s Speech On Saturday Made His Strategy Clear
The Implications Of The Trump Envoy's Return And Putin's Gratitude To Hamas
Iraq And The Effort To Control Armed Groups
-------
Remembering All Those Taken From US, By The Nazis And By Hamas
By Jpost Editorial
April 24, 2025
The sirens will sound across Israel on Thursday morning, and for two minutes, we will all stand still, our hearts heavy with memories both decades old and painfully recent.
As we observe Yom Hashoah, this year’s Holocaust Remembrance Day feels different. We carry not only the weight of our historical trauma, but also the fresh wounds from October 7, 2023, which still wake many of us in the night, tears streaming before we even realize we’re crying.
The Holocaust represents the systematic extermination of six million Jews – men, women, and children whose only crime was their identity. Today, we honor their memory and renew our sacred commitment – “Never Again” is not merely a slogan, but a national imperative that guides Israel’s very existence.
Just over a year and a half ago, this vow was brutally tested when Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israeli communities, slaughtering over 1,200 civilians in their homes, at a music festival, and on the streets.
Families were executed together, young people massacred while celebrating life, and hostages dragged across the border. The cries of mothers searching for their children still echo in our hearts.
The remaining hostages
Of those hostages and those held prior to this massacre, 59 remain in enemy hands to this day. The rest returned by foot or in coffins.
While the scales are incomparable, the parallel with our darkest history cannot be ignored. Both the Holocaust and October 7 share the same deadly logic: that Jews may be killed with impunity simply for being Jews. This ancient hatred persists despite the decades separating these atrocities, leaving us to wonder if the world has truly learned anything from our suffering.
On this Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we recite the names of those lost to Nazi genocide, we also remember the names of those taken from us – not nearly as long ago, but already far too long ago.
Their memories intertwine to strengthen our resolve, even as we struggle through tears to say their names. Israel exists precisely because history has taught us the cost of defenselessness.
Our national day of mourning reminds us why Israel must remain strong, not just for ourselves, but as guardians of a promise made to past generations and kept for future ones. “Never Again” means securing our homeland against those who still pursue the unthinkable.
This is not only in the Land of Israel, but worldwide. Following the October 7 attack, the gigantic waves of antisemitism have been a regular flow, pouring over and drowning Jewish communities worldwide, who are feeling cornered, defeated, and alone. And here, again, they are targeted simply because they are Jews.
During the Holocaust, the world was indifferent to the mass suffering of the Jewish people. While Jews were being burned by the millions and persecuted beyond all measure, the world turned a blind eye, and it was only after the release of the Jews as a victorious act of war that the world recognized that the Jewish people were victims and that justice leaned towards our people.
But now, despite surviving the worst pogrom since the Holocaust, the world is not seeing that same image. How can we, as a country, attempt to recover from old scars when the new injuries that have marred the skin above them continue to fester and bleed?
On Wednesday night, as we lit memorial candles in our own homes – we watched our children’s faces illuminated in its glow and thought of all we have lost, but also all we must protect.
This flame connects us to our past and guides us toward our future. Through our grief, we find strength. Through our memories, we find purpose. This is our covenant with history, written not in ink but in tears and determination, and we shall honor it with every breath we take.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851266
------
Holocaust Inversion: The Dangerous Rhetoric Equating Israel To Nazi Germany
By Abraham Russell Shalev
April 24, 2025
Today, the State of Israel and Jews worldwide will pause to honor the six million Jewish men, women, and children murdered by the Germans and their collaborators during the Holocaust.
In the wake of the destruction of European Jewry, the Jewish world vowed “never again.” Holocaust Remembrance Day requires us not just to remember the Jewish life that was destroyed, but to remain vigilant against modern expressions of murderous antisemitism.
Perversely, the Shoah, its memory, and imagery have become one of the most dangerous and painful tools wielded against the Jewish people and the State of Israel today.
Indeed, while outright Holocaust denial is confined mainly to the political fringes, the insidious phenomenon of Holocaust inversion has no such taboo. Such inversion accuses contemporary Jews of being the new Nazis, with the State of Israel serving as a new Third Reich committing genocide against the Palestinians.
So common is this phenomenon that it has been included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
The comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is not made innocently.
Rather, as the Nazis are the emblem of evil post-World War II, the comparison is the equivalent of medieval Catholic teachings equating Jews with the satanic and demonic. In this twisted revisionism, Palestinians and Islamist terrorist groups become “Jewish partisans,” effectively whitewashing and justifying their attacks on Israeli Jews. This sets the stage for legitimizing the murder of Israelis, who are recast as evil génocidaires. It also justifies the exclusion of Jews (rebranded as “Nazis”) from political and social groups based on supposed social justice or anti-racist principles.
Such inverse accusations of genocide were a staple of Nazi rhetoric against the Jews. Third Reich propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, in a 1941 pamphlet, claimed that Germany was acting in self-defense: “Who should die, the Germans or the Jews? ... You know what your eternal enemy and opponent intends for you. There is only one instrument against his plans for annihilation.”
During the Rwandan genocide, Hutu leaders repeatedly warned their followers that the Tutsis intended to murder them.
As scholars of antisemitism, such as Izabella Tabarovsky and Lesley Klaff, have demonstrated in their research, the canard of Jewish genocide has long been a feature of contemporary antisemitism.
Already in the 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union promoted the charge of Jewish genocide against the Palestinians. Following the Six Day War, the Soviet Union and its “Zionologists” churned out hundreds of books and articles accusing the Zionists of collaborating with the Nazis and even surpassing them in cruelty.
In 1977 for example, the Soviet Weekly, an English-language Soviet newspaper published in the United Kingdom, proclaimed the Israelis “worthy heirs to Hitler’s National-Socialism.” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas famously wrote his doctoral thesis under Soviet tutelage on “The secret relationship between Nazism and Zionism”.
HOLOCAUST INVERSION has gained the most significant public legitimacy, ironically, in the aftermath of Hamas’ genocidal October 7 massacre. Despite Hamas’ eliminationist antisemitism and its clear orders to “Kill as many people as possible” on October 7, the charge of genocide was quickly reversed and leveled against Israel.
Within weeks of the massacre, South Africa had filed an application at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging Israeli genocide in Gaza. This was not merely coincidental timing.
As the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) revealed in a recent report, in December 2023, a Hamas delegation visited Cape Town and held discussions with officials from South Africa’s ruling party. The report also tracks allegations that Iran and Qatar, Hamas’ main backers, are financing the ICJ case.
World leaders' comments
Holocaust and genocide inversion serve as a rhetorical shield for genocidal antisemites and a weapon against Jewish communities and the Jewish state. In July 2024, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, “Netanyahu has reached a level that would make Hitler jealous with his genocidal methods.”
Tunisian President Kais Saied rejected claims of antisemitism in his country and accused Jews of repaying Tunisian help in protecting them from the Nazis with genocide against Palestinians.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said, “What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people hasn’t happened at any other moment in history’ except one, when Hitler decided to kill the Jews.”
The “genocide” slur endangers Jewish lives around the world.
In Toronto, Jewish community institutions and synagogues have repeatedly been defaced with “genocide” graffiti. In Pittsburgh – within walking distance of the site of the Tree of Life synagogue attacked by a neo-Nazi in 2018 – vandals scrawled accusations against Chabad of “funding genocide.” Similar desecrations are routine in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Barcelona, and Amsterdam. Jews who raise the alarm are brushed aside as genocide supporters.
Eight decades after the Holocaust, there is a global campaign to identify Jews with the Nazi perpetrators, rather than victims.
The writer, an advocate, is an international law researcher at Kohelet Policy Forum.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851245
------
Five Reasons Why It Is Right To Sanction Russia But Not Sanction Israel
By Michael Freilich
April 24, 2025
Why is Russia the target of sweeping international sanctions – across trade, finance, diplomacy, and global cooperation—while similar measures are not applied to Israel? Why is Russia banned from international sports competitions and the Eurovision Song Contest, yet Israel is not?
These questions are occasionally raised in certain corners of the political Left, but they often stem from emotional reactions rather than a grounded, analytical approach. When we examine the facts and moral foundations, the answer becomes clear. There are five fundamental distinctions between the two conflicts.
Who started the war?
On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine – a sovereign nation that had not attacked Russia, posed no immediate threat, and had every right to its independence. The invasion was a deliberate move by the Kremlin, driven by goals of subjugation, control, and territorial expansion.
The Israel-Hamas War also had a definitive trigger. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an unprecedented terror attack on Israel, murdering over 1,200 civilians in their homes, on the streets, and at a music festival. Hundreds were taken hostage into Gaza. Israel responded only after it was attacked.
Russia is the aggressor. Hamas is the aggressor. Ukraine is the victim. Israel is the victim. A war of self-defense must be judged differently from a war of conquest and terror.
What is the goal of the war?
If Hamas were to lay down its arms, release the hostages, and stop the violence, the war would end. Israel would have no reason to remain in Gaza. There is no desire to reoccupy or permanently control the territory. Conversely, if Ukraine were to lay down its arms, it would cease to exist. Russia’s objective is to eliminate Ukraine as an independent state. Russia seeks destruction. Israel seeks protection.
How is the war being waged?
Russia’s warfare is indiscriminate as it systematically targets hospitals, residential buildings, power plants, and schools.
Hamas employs identical tactics. Civilians are kidnapped, rockets are launched at civilian areas, tunnels run under hospitals, and weapons are stored in schools. Civilians are not collateral, they are targets.
Israel, on the other hand, seeks to eliminate military threats while minimizing harm to civilians. It employs unprecedented warning methods: leaflets, text messages, and “roof knocking” techniques. Yet casualties still occur because Hamas hides among civilians. The human tragedy is undeniable, but the moral distinction is essential.
A just war
Hamas is recognized by the European Union, the United States, and many others as a terrorist organization with a genocidal ideology. Confronting such a threat is not just legitimate, it is necessary for the safety of civilians in Israel and the broader region. Israel’s actions are comparable to Western campaigns against terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Russia is not fighting a just war. Ukraine is not a terrorist state. Russia’s attack is based on power politics, not self-defense.
Democracy vs dictatorship
Israel is a liberal democracy with free elections, an independent judiciary, a critical press, and active protest movements, even during wartime. Judges block legislation, the media scrutinizes military actions, and parliamentary oversight continues unabated. This is a country that deserves support.
Russia is an authoritarian regime. The press is muzzled, opposition silenced, and dissidents imprisoned, poisoned, or killed. The war is being waged by a dictatorship, using repression at home and lies abroad.
Comparing Israel to Russia fails the test of logic and morality. Russia wages a war of aggression. Israel defends itself. Russia aims to conquer. Israel’s aim is survival. Russia oppresses its citizens. Israel, against all odds, remains a democracy.
Sanctions are not symbolic gestures. They are tools to confront threats to the international legal order. This is why sanctions against Russia are justified – and those against Israel are not.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851243
-----
The Urgent Need To Acknowledge North African Jews In Israeli Memory
By Haim Saadon
April 24, 2025
Israeli society became aware of the events of World War II in North Africa far too late. North African Jews themselves only gradually came to realize that their wartime experiences bore significant similarities to those endured by European Jews.
Yet within the historical memory of Jews from this region, no period was more difficult. It was marked by hardship in its duration, the nature of its events, and their long-term consequences.
On the eve of the war, approximately half a million Jews lived in North Africa: around 230,000 in Morocco, 125,000 in Algeria, 90,000 in Tunisia, and 32,000 in Libya. Except for the Jews of Libya, who had been under Italian rule since 1911, the Jews of Morocco (since 1912), Algeria (since 1830), and Tunisia (since 1881) were under French colonial control.
Under this colonial regime, the Jews experienced significant improvements in personal security, social status, and economic conditions, and became integrated into much of the region’s political and cultural life.
Differences in the development of these communities during the colonial era, coupled with the progression of the war, also influenced their wartime circumstances.
Jews were subjected to harsh antisemitic legislation, which included exclusion from the army, employment in the colonial administration, and the educational system. Such exclusion began in November 1938 in Italy, was applied in Libya, and from October 1940 onward, extended to North Africa following the establishment of the Vichy regime.
In Algeria, where Jews had held French citizenship since 1870, they were almost entirely excluded from French public life. In contrast, the impact of the antisemitic laws in Morocco was more limited. Jews with French citizenship were drafted into the French army but later dismissed when their citizenship was revoked.
The situation of Libyan Jews was more severe. Those holding British citizenship were deported to camps in Europe, while those with French citizenship were expelled to Tunisia.
Additional groups, mainly from the Cyrenaica region, were deported to the Giado camp and other smaller camps. Algerian Jews suspected of anti-French activity or defined by the Vichy regime as “undesirable” were interned in detention or labor camps across Algeria.
Tunisian Jews were initially subjected to Vichy laws, but when the country was occupied by the Germans in November 1942, they suffered even more severe measures. Approximately 5,000 Jews were forced into labor in 24 camps, mostly under German control, with a few under Italian administration.
In certain areas, Jews were required to wear a yellow badge; community leadership was dismantled and reorganized. Jews in Libya and Tunisia were also subjected to relentless Allied bombings targeting German and Italian forces.
During Operation Lapid (“torch,” in Hebrew), a local underground movement – with a substantial Jewish presence – assisted the Allied landing forces. A similar Jewish resistance network operated in Tunisia, supporting the struggle against Italian naval forces in the Mediterranean.
Increasing efforts to counter sense of exclusion
IN CONTRAST to other historical periods, Jews found ways to express their wartime experiences through diaries and poems. Over the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to counter the sense of exclusion many North African Jews have felt from Israel’s founding narratives.
Israeli collective memory has long been shaped by formative ethoses such as the Holocaust, Zionism, immigration, clandestine immigration, and self-defense. While Jews from North Africa actively contributed to each of these, a lingering sense of marginalization persists.
For more than 25 years, I have studied these dimensions: the wartime experiences and the participation of North African Jews in immigration movements and the struggle for self-defense. This research is driven by the hope that exposing these facets of history will gradually diminish the sense of exclusion – especially among second- and third-generation descendants of immigrants from North Africa.
Beyond that, there is an essential need to study and internalize these events as an integral part of Jewish and Israeli history. It is neither just nor accurate to explore the history of the Jewish people solely through the lens of one geographic region, while ignoring or minimizing what occurred elsewhere.
The historical journey of the Jewish people must be examined comprehensively, across all regions, with attention to the differences and nuances between them. Only in this way can we complete the broader historical puzzle that constitutes the full scope of World War II and the Holocaust.
A thorough study of the North African Jewish experience will help fill a critical gap in our collective memory. It will incorporate this chapter into the overarching narrative of the war and allow Jews from North Africa to find their rightful place within Israel’s foundational ethos.
Especially today, as Israeli society faces deep social and cultural divisions, it is more vital than ever to give voice and space to these stories – not only as a matter of historical justice, but as a means of forging a shared present. This is how we ensure that everyone feels part of the collective memory and that these experiences do not remain confined to the margins of history.
This writer is a professor emeritus in the Department of History of the Open University of Israel. This article is published as part of a joint project by Zikaron Basalon and Yad Vashem, aimed at expanding the discourse around the Holocaust, shedding light on lesser-known chapters of Jewish history, and amplifying the voices of victims, survivors, and their descendants.
As part of this initiative, an earlier text by the writer on the Holocaust in North Africa was included in the booklet “Conversation, Reflection, Thought – Texts for Inspiration and Salon Dialogue,” which compiles personal and historical passages intended to spark meaningful conversations in Zikaron Basalon gatherings.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-851240
------
What Outcome Awaits Negotiations In The US-Israel-Iran Triangle?
By Oral Toğa
Apr 24, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement, made alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that he would engage in talks with Iran sparked global attention. Many analysts viewed this as a pragmatic move, noting that Trump, “as a businessman,” preferred negotiations over military action. The fact that the announcement came immediately after a meeting with Netanyahu added significance.
Meanwhile, Iran, aware of shifting post-Oct. 7 dynamics, recalibrated its policies, anticipating an Israeli strike. The stark contrast between late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s rhetoric clearly reflects this shift. Pezeshkian’s rise, despite having been previously vetoed by the Guardian Council in the last parliamentary elections, and Mohammad Javad Zarif’s brief reentry into politics, as a key figure during the 2015 nuclear deal, underline Tehran’s strategic repositioning in the face of mounting threats.
Even when Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas, was killed in the middle of Tehran, Iran avoided reacting. Pezeshkian specifically emphasized in his U.N. statements that they do not want war or conflict. Indeed, Iran did not make any significant move until Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's death. They were forced to act with the complete elimination of Hezbollah's A-team and Nasrallah's death, but they gave a highly controlled response. Although Iran sent a message to Israel through these attacks that their missiles could reach Israel and could "inflict pain" if tensions escalated, it appears to be an insufficient response from Israel's perspective. Throughout the process, regardless of what happened, Israel responded to all steps taken by Iran to de-escalate tensions with another attack; Israel did not allow Iran's flexible policies to yield results.
Israel gains upper hand
Before the Oct. 7 attacks, Iranians were very confident that they had surrounded Israel. There was a belief that if Israel made the slightest move, the structure they conceptualized as the "Axis of Resistance" would respond to Israel in a unified manner. Indeed, Israel appeared to be surrounded by Hamas from the south, Lebanon's Hezbollah and Syria's Assad regime from the north, the Houthis from Yemen and other militia groups in Iraq.
Using the Oct. 7 attacks as leverage, the Israeli government first destroyed Hamas' strike capacity at the cost of genocide and ignored all internal vulnerabilities within Israel. Subsequently, moves were made to leave Iran struggling with its internal problems, and incidents occurred that made the Iranian leadership doubt the strength of Mossad networks within Iran. Thus, Iran was prevented from taking bold steps.
Throughout 2024, many middle and lower-ranking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members died suspiciously in Iran, a terrorist attack occurred in Kerman, several facilities experienced sabotage and explosions, the country's president and foreign ministers died under suspicious circumstances and a VIP guest who had come for a one-night stay was assassinated while under special protection in Tehran. After the Mahsa Amini protests, objections in Parliament regarding the de facto reality that people were no longer wearing headscarves and a related bill were blocked by the Supreme National Security Council.
After Oct. 7, there was concern that Hezbollah would join from the north and attack Israel. Villages had been evacuated due to intense missile attacks, and Israel conducted operations against Lebanon through these evacuated villages and incoming missile attacks, largely destroying Hezbollah's strike capacity within two months. Throughout all this, there had been tension between the Assad regime and Iran in Syria for some time, and Damascus fell at a pace that surprised even the opposition. Thus, Iran lost the logistical lines to Lebanese Hezbollah along with Syria.
In Iraq, significant steps are being taken to rebuild the central government. Groups close to Iran in Iraq, particularly due to Iran's indifference following Hezbollah's fate, appear reluctant to jump into the fire for Iran. Iraq's internal dynamics and threats from Israel also constrain the politics these groups pursue. In summary, only the Houthi groups in Yemen remained. Since the distance of the Houthis from Israel is similar to Tehran's distance from Israel, operations conducted there provide important information about operations that might be conducted against Iran. Indeed, following the U.S. military deployments to the region in recent weeks, Houthi targets have been largely destroyed, and the Houthis have largely ceased to be a threat.
Expectations of each side
In short, Iran was forced to the table, and both the Israeli and U.S. sides know this. At the beginning of the process, Iran was not the party seeking an agreement; on the contrary, those in the country who wanted an agreement had been pushed out of the political arena. They were not allowed to say anything. At the point reached today, Iranians are saying that the U.S. could invest in Iran as long as they do not engage in espionage activities. However, it remains a fact that any concessions Iran makes from this point forward will be contingent.
The Israelis, on the other hand, interpret any agreement as "tying Israel's security to the conjuncture." In other words, they don't want to leave it to chance whether a new Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might come to power in Iran 15 years from now, after Iran has made significant advances in both missile technologies and nuclear technology. Therefore, intervention in Iran is the only option on the table for Israel. The Iranians, on the other hand, are considering the possibility that Israel might be restrained by Trump through reaching an agreement with him. However, looking at what happened to the Oslo process and its actors, what happened to the JCPOA, and the outcomes of many other issues in recent history, this doesn't seem very likely.
Israel cannot give up ‘Begin Doctrine’
For Israel, preventing countries in its surroundings (especially hostile countries) from possessing nuclear technology is of vital importance. The approach of Menachem Begin, one of the iconic figures of the Israeli right and founder of the Likud Party, which has entered the literature as the "Begin Doctrine," is based on a security understanding that aims to eliminate the possibility of a state that Israel considers an enemy obtaining nuclear weapons before it materializes. The 1981 airstrike on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq was the first clear application of this understanding. In his statement after the operation, Begin argued that when Israel's security is at stake, action should be taken without hesitation. Similarly, the 2007 attack on Syria's Al-Kibar nuclear reactor is also a product of this understanding.
Three fundamental assumptions underlie this doctrine. The first is Israel's geographical smallness and vulnerability. Israel is a state that is both limited in terms of area and fragile in terms of population density; this situation makes the country extremely sensitive to a possible nuclear attack. Secondly, Israel's security approach does not include a "second strike" option; in other words, it does not have the strategic luxury of retaliating after a threat has materialized. Therefore, the preemptive strike approach is seen not as a choice but as a necessity for Israel. Finally, the doctrine aims to prevent nuclear proliferation on a regional scale.
Any enemy country in the Middle East possessing nuclear weapons weakens Israel's strategic deterrence and dramatically disrupts regional power balances against Israel. The Begin Doctrine has been shaped as a proactive security paradigm aimed at stopping such developments while they are still in their initial stages. Therefore, as long as Iran does not completely end its nuclear activities and accept the Libyan model, Israel will continue to view Iran's work as an existential threat.
What is on horizon?
Iran is aware of the approaching threat. It doesn't want what happened to Baghdad in 1991 to happen to it. Saddam Hussein's Iraq lost all its infrastructure within a week and existed in isolation in a severe crisis until 2003. The Iranians, from their experience in the Iran-Iraq War, know well what it means to lose infrastructure and how long it takes to replace it; therefore, they understand what the threat means. Today, Iran already faces numerous problems, ranging from water issues to energy crises. Such an issue would shake the foundations in Iran. For this reason, the Iranians are looking for an honorable exit and a basis for agreement. However, 45 years of rhetoric, approach, and the boundaries drawn by ideology significantly limit this flexibility.
For now, Iran can give up the nuclear bomb and open its facilities for inspection as transparently as possible, but since every promise it gives will be read as "conjunctural," it doesn't seem likely to establish trust. Similarly, it's not possible for the regime to completely give up nuclear technology. Because at this point, all the people who were killed would have died in vain, all the hardships endured would have been for nothing, and all the sanctions resisted would have been in vain. In other words, this would mean defeat. It is precisely for this reason that Iranians expect a "fair agreement" from the other side.
Since the 1980s, Iranians have claimed that the "proxies" are independent resistance forces that have nothing to do with them. A similar rhetoric was developed for Hezbollah's activities. However, on the other side of the coin, Iranian IRGC officer Qasem Soleimani was indicating that they were "governing capitals." For nuclear technology, the Iranian side states that they consider nuclear weapons "haram" as per Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's decree. They say they produce ballistic missiles for defensive, not offensive, purposes. But still, each of these is an existential threat to Israel. The word “existential” plays a pivotal role here.
For Israel, rather than dealing with these threats separately, initiating a process that would lead to regime change in Iran would mean solving all these problems at their root. Because having lost all critical infrastructure and being unable to supply electricity, water, and energy, the Iranians will have neither the time nor the capacity to organize their proxy forces, rebuild nuclear facilities, or enhance their missile capabilities. So, whether Iran agrees with Trump or not, from Israel's perspective, there is only one solution to the issue. However, at this point, Pandora's box will have been opened.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/what-outcome-awaits-negotiations-in-the-us-israel-iran-triangle
-----
Neoliberal Economic Objectives In Syria: The Real War Begins Now
By Makbule Yalin
Apr 24, 2025
The Syrian interim government has adopted neoliberal policies to rebuild the country after the war. The developments raise the question: Will Syria's potential to become a competitive market player be realized through a combination of strategic effort and determination, or will the neoliberal efforts exacerbate existing poverty and inequalities, potentially leading to further economic collapse?
Trade Minister Ömer Bolat engaged in high-level discussions in Damascus recently. The Turkish government is endeavouring to assist the new Syrian government, following the support they have requested. During the meetings, Bolat expressed their expectations for Türkiye's guidance and support.
Türkiye's approach and capacity for this support are evident. Ankara continues to pursue development-oriented cooperation on a global scale. In contrast, it is widely acknowledged that the situation in Syria is highly sensitive and susceptible to external influence. Therefore, it is an important step that Syrian authorities have expressed their expectations for Türkiye's guidance and support. The developments since Dec. 8, 2024, and the Syrian interim government's discourses and developments regarding economic policies are particularly significant in this respect.
Integration into global system
It is clear that immediately after Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took power in Damascus under Ahmed al-Sharaa's leadership, there were signs of a transition to a free market economy in Syria. In the context of free markets, economic activities are typically characterized by conditions of full competition, and the price mechanism is generally considered effective in addressing economic challenges. In this market, it has been suggested that a large public sector and state intervention are both undesirable. It may be interesting to consider the elimination of subsidies for bread (which resulted in a price increase of more than 10 times) and layoffs in the public sector from this perspective.
Syria must urgently address its chronic budget deficits, foreign debt and high inflation. These issues frequently emerge in contexts where state intervention in the economy is excessive. Consequently, governments are increasingly turning to neoliberal policies such as austerity measures, privatization and market liberalization as potential solutions. The cause-and-effect relationship is different in Syria, so the solution method must differ.
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani, who is endeavouring to cultivate trust and legitimacy in the eyes of the Western countries that imposed sanctions on Syria, was present at the World Economic Forum in Davos. This forum is a key platform for the promotion of neoliberal policies. Just ahead of the Davos summit, al-Shaibani shared with the Financial Times that the new administration will privatize state-owned ports and factories, including oil, cotton and furniture production. It will also invite foreign investment and increase international trade. He confirmed that the government will "explore public-private partnerships to encourage investment in airports, railways and roads."
Timing not right
The neoliberalist policies targeted by the Syrian interim government and their success rate are significant aspects of the current process.
While the domestic economic situation in Syria is sound, it is important to acknowledge that achieving its neoliberal goals may present significant challenges in the current global context, which is characterized by a resurgence of mercantilist protectionism, as evidenced by the U.S.' trade policies.
Secondly, after 14 years of destruction, it is important to consider whether the potential of the Syrian economy is sufficient for this liberalization objective. Even if there are no obstacles to integrating into global markets, there is also the issue of the impact of forcing the Syrian economy to compete with its current (insufficient) potential without addressing its problems, as this may further compound the existing challenges.
However, the global order has its own imperfections. To compete at the global level, it would be advisable for Damascus to take protective measures.
Cost of war, reconstruction
The report "Syria at the Crossroads: Towards a Stable Transition," a joint publication of the Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) and the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), provides a comprehensive overview of the war's economic impact over the past 14 years.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by a third between 2011 and 2024. Half of the physical infrastructure serving production is now completely out of service. Prices have increased (200 times) exponentially. It is an indisputable fact that 90% of the population is in poverty and 66% in extreme poverty. Food insecurity is at critical levels. Another hard-to-recover loss in this process is qualified human capital. Likewise, Syria's reconstruction will cost between $250 billion and $400 billion.
The report also highlights the importance of the humanitarian situation in Syria. It is unequivocal in its assessment of Syria: two-thirds of the population need assistance, governance problems are deep-rooted, the environment is degraded, and widespread poverty is rife. This is reflected in Syria's ranking of 158th out of 160 countries in the 2024 ESCWA Global Development Challenges Index.
Failures of Bashar Assad
Attempting to liberalize without the necessary infrastructure is inevitably destructive. When Bashar Assad came to power in 2000, he introduced neoliberal policies. Between 2001 and 2010, the Assad regime used macroeconomic indicators such as an average annual GDP growth rate of 4.5% and a relatively low unemployment rate of 8%. However, the period was marked by a decline in the labor force participation rate from 52% to 43% and stagnation in real wages.
The consequences of these policies were clear: Wealth was concentrated in the hands of a select few, while the welfare of the broad masses declined drastically. Social inequality has deepened. This situation was undoubtedly an important factor in the impact of the Arab Spring on Syria.
To-do list
The market must be opened to foreign competition in a way that protects domestic interests; otherwise, Syria's economic collapse will be accelerated. For this reason, it is vital to eliminate the fragility of the Syrian economy and reduce social inequalities. In addition to physical infrastructure investments, efforts to increase productivity and institutionalize best practices should be given priority. These measures will provide confidence to international investors. One of the most important steps to be taken to increase human capital is to prioritize social equality and justice.
To achieve this, the vision and plan for sustainable development should be designed and implemented in a way that encompasses the entire society. Therefore, the Syrian authorities' expectation for Türkiye's guidance and support is significant. From this, it can be deduced that the economic policies in Syria are undergoing a measured and positive shift.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/neoliberal-economic-objectives-in-syria-the-real-war-begins-now
-----
A Senior Indonesian Parliamentary Official Speaks For Gaza, But More Needs To Be Done
By Dr. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat
April 23, 2025
The Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) Puan Maharani spoke at the inter-parliamentary forum in Istanbul recently and delivered a powerful message about Indonesia’s unwavering support for the Palestinian cause. The forum, organised by the Group of Parliaments in Support of Palestine, gathered lawmakers from around the world to address the escalating crisis in Gaza. Maharani’s words were impassioned, drawing on Indonesia’s historical commitment to Palestinian sovereignty and condemning Israel’s military aggression, which has resulted in countless civilian casualties.
Her statement was delivered in the presence of influential leaders such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and expressed a heartfelt condemnation of Israel’s indiscriminate attacks in Gaza. She pointed to the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the region, particularly the devastating toll on Palestinian children. Her call for an end to Israeli aggression, including the urgent need for humanitarian aid, was both timely and necessary. Moreover, her plea that the international community take stronger, coordinated action was well-received in the room, as lawmakers nodded in agreement.
However, as much as her words were stirring, they prompted an important question: How much longer can speeches alone be “enough” in the face of such urgent human suffering? As the Speaker of Indonesia’s legislature, one of the most influential political positions in the country, Puan Maharani’s words carry significant weight. Yet, as the death toll in Gaza continues to rise and the humanitarian crisis deepens, the time for mere statements and resolutions has surely run out.
Maharani’s speech was undeniably rooted in a long-standing Indonesian tradition of support for Palestine, going back to the era of President Sukarno, who famously declared that Indonesia would stand firm against Israeli occupation until Palestine regained its independence. The Speaker’s invocation of these words was powerful, signalling that Indonesia’s position has not changed. The country has been a consistent vocal supporter of Palestinian rights on the international stage. Indeed, her remarks underscored Indonesia’s moral commitment to the cause, which has been a cornerstone of Jakarta’s foreign policy for decades.
It demands action beyond the confines of speeches and international forums. Diplomatic pressure and public statements have not brought about the end of Israeli aggression, and as Israel continues its military operations, there is little indication that the situation is poised to improve through mere declarations of solidarity.
At the forum, Maharani called specifically for a stronger stance from parliaments worldwide, urging them to push their governments for a renewed and enforceable ceasefire agreement. Yet, the failure of the ceasefire agreement reached earlier this year highlights the limitations of diplomatic negotiations when there is no real leverage behind the words. If anything, the collapse of the January ceasefire suggests that without tangible consequences for Israel, the violence will continue unabated.
As a prominent member of the international community, Indonesia has the political capital and moral authority to do more than merely express discontent. While there is no doubt that international diplomacy remains critical to finding a lasting solution, it is time to move beyond empty resolutions and symbolic gestures. Indonesia could leverage its position to advocate for real, enforceable measures aimed at holding Israel accountable. This could include working with like-minded nations to push for economic sanctions or targeting specific individuals and entities responsible for the violence in Gaza.
Maharani’s call to increase humanitarian aid is also an important one. However, the difficulty of delivering aid to Gaza, due to the Israeli blockade and ongoing violence, means that the international community’s response has been woefully inadequate. Indonesia, with its diplomatic reach and regional influence, could take a leadership role in facilitating the delivery of aid, ensuring it reaches those most in need. Moreover, Indonesia could use its status within the United Nations to advocate for peacekeeping forces in Gaza to help secure safe zones for humanitarian relief.
The Speaker made clear that no proposal to relocate Palestinians outside of Gaza should be accepted. She is absolutely right; such measures would only deepen the injustice. It is critical that Indonesia, and others, stand firm in rejecting any efforts to expel Palestinians from their homeland under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”.
In this regard, Maharani should also take a more active role in addressing concerns about Indonesia’s own internal policy. President Prabowo Subianto’s recent announcement that Indonesia may temporarily evacuate a thousand wounded Palestinians and orphans from Gaza has sparked both praise and controversy. While framed as a humanitarian gesture, the plan has raised alarm over whether it might unintentionally support broader, more problematic efforts to depopulate Gaza. Maharani, as a national leader and defender of Palestinian rights, should urge President Prabowo to reconsider this evacuation initiative. Even temporary evacuations must not undermine Palestinians’ right to remain on their land.
Finally, Maharani’s emphasis on inter-parliamentary cooperation is necessary, but such cooperation must yield results. Effective diplomacy requires real follow-through in national legislatures, where lawmakers can push for binding resolutions, aid initiatives and concrete international legal actions. It’s no longer enough to speak of solidarity. That solidarity must be embodied in policies that carry consequences for those who continue the violence and illegal occupation.
The Speaker’s commitment to Palestinian rights is unquestionable, but the world cannot afford for this commitment to remain at the level of speeches and declarations. The people of Gaza need more than words; they need real, decisive action. If Indonesia, along with other countries, is serious about supporting Palestine, it must move beyond rhetoric and into the realm of meaningful political, diplomatic and legal action. Only then will we see a real, lasting change that brings us closer to justice, freedom and peace.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250423-a-senior-indonesian-parliamentary-official-speaks-for-gaza-but-more-needs-to-be-done/
-------
Netanyahu’s Speech On Saturday Made His Strategy Clear
By Suhail Kewan
April 23, 2025
In an unusual move, Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Israeli people on Saturday evening, at the end of the Sabbath. This suggested that he was about to talk about a very serious matter. What did he say?
He denied any possibility of a prisoner exchange deal and announced that he would continue the war with greater force until Hamas is eliminated, and complete victory is achieved, in order to prevent a repeat of what happened on 7 October, 2023. He claimed that Hamas did not want a deal, and that it was the one creating obstacles by requiring the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. He said that this wouldn’t happen because if they were to withdraw, what would’ve been the point of going in?
This is his response to the recordings released by the resistance movement from time to time, which aim to mobilise the Israeli public to put pressure on the occupation government and Trump to reach a deal to end the war. It is also a response to the families of the captives and prisoners who are demanding a deal and claim that increased military pressure will force Hamas to accept Netanyahu’s conditions, which are the release of the captives, the disarming of Hamas and unconditional surrender.
“Disarmament” has become a pretext for continuing the war on several fronts. In Lebanon, the Israeli prime minister is demanding that Hezbollah’s heavy weapons be handed over and that the Lebanese state does the same. He wants to see a Lebanese civil war allowing him to remain in strategic positions in the south. He is also demanding that southern Syria be disarmed to justify Israel’s aggression and expansion.
Moreover, Israel is demanding that Egypt withdraw military equipment from Sinai that it no longer needs, given that the Egyptian army has finished fighting “terrorists” in Sinai, and after the regime in Cairo intensified its siege on the Gaza Strip and expanded the border wall to prevent smuggling to and from the enclave. Since Egypt has rejected displacement, there is no need for more forces than those agreed upon at Camp David to remain there. The occupation state may even turn a blind eye if Egypt joins the US in fighting the Houthis under the pretext of restoring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea.
Except, of course, in those states that cooperate with the occupation and with the larger declared project of Palestinian displacement.
The latter requires more chaos in the region. Egypt proposes disarming the resistance, which basically means the annihilation of the resistance groups or their withdrawal as they raise white flags in surrender, under Egyptian, Arab and American sponsorship. This will be seen as a lesson to anyone considering resistance against military occupation.
Officially, Egypt claims to reject displacement, despite its support for eliminating the resistance. This is what its officials mean when, in every statement and meeting with any foreign or Arab official, they mention “combatting terrorism”. The Egyptian leadership can evade its complicity in the genocidal war with the absurd assertion that “Egypt will not fight the wars of others” and that “Egypt will not drink Hamas’s Kool-Aid”, but at the same time, it cannot accept displacement.
It can also participate in confronting Houthi attacks, but it cannot accept the displacement of Palestinians to its territory, because this poses a threat to the Hashemite Kingdom.
Forced displacement requires committing war crimes and massacres even greater than those currently taking place. This requires even greater chaos than what is currently prevailing. Netanyahu seeks to achieve this by continuing the horrific massacres in the Gaza Strip, giving settlers free rein in the West Bank, marginalising the role of the Ramallah Authority to zero, continuing his aggression against Lebanon and Syria, and threatening Iran. In his speech, he threatened that he would not allow Iran to continue its nuclear programme.
He hopes that this threat will push the Trump administration not to sign an agreement with Iran, because Tehran will refuse to halt its nuclear programme completely and may only accept to do so partially. It is negotiating to reduce its programme in exchange for lifting sanctions, not to completely stop it.
Netanyahu is urging Trump to launch a powerful military strike against Iran, dismantling its conventional missile capabilities, not just its nuclear programme. He is hinting that he might take the risk and ignite a war, thus involving America and the region in an uncertain war, the outcome of which is unpredictable, as are the military and economic consequences.
The Israeli leader’s strategy is clear: anything to continue the genocidal war leading to displacement and expanding the scope of the war as much as possible, to fulfil the biblical prophecies of “Greater Israel” and the building of the Temple. He has come to see himself as the historical leader who will realise this Zionist dream, given the presence of a vast number of petty rulers acting as his accomplices across the region.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250423-netanyahus-speech-on-saturday-made-his-strategy-clear/
-----
The Implications Of The Trump Envoy's Return And Putin's Gratitude To Hamas
By Hazem Ayyad
April 23, 2025
It appears that the time given by US President Donald Trump to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “finish the job” in the Gaza Strip is running out, after Adam Boehler, the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs (SPEHA), returned to his duties having pulled back following his meeting with Hamas leaders in Doha in March. Boehler praised Hamas’s flexibility in dealing with the captives’ issue, especially the American captive Edan Alexander.
Boehler’s return was linked to the revelation from Hamas that it had lost contact with those holding Alexander after being targeted in an Israeli air strike last Tuesday. This prompted Boehler to declare on Wednesday that he was certain that the hostage was in a safe place: “I hope no hair on his head is hurt, or we’re going to come for them, and it’s not going to be pretty. So, I believe Edan is fine.” This was an attempt to reassure the family of the American captive, who was expected to be released along with the bodies of four other captives last month.
This is not the only reason for Boehler’s return. His involvement in the captive issue, from which he was side-lined after his Hamas meeting, calling the movement’s officials “nice guys”, is taking place due to Trump’s latent desire to de-escalate tensions in preparation for his visit to the Middle East in early May. He is expected to sign several trade deals with regional countries during the visit, most notably Saudi Arabia, including an agreement to transfer civilian nuclear technology to the Kingdom as promised by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright. This is in addition to a number of other multibillion-dollar agreements, which the US president needs in order to address his country’s high debt and alarming deficits in the federal budget and balance of trade. This is a huge crack in his defences in the trade war that he is waging against China.
Moreover, he wants to make a real breakthrough and reach a new nuclear agreement with Iran; Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has offered a $4 trillion investment if a nuclear agreement acceptable to Tehran is reached. Such an agreement would move beyond the relationship with Iran to Russia, with which Trump wants to be partners in the efforts to get a nuclear agreement, ensuring that Tehran and Moscow are both distancing themselves from China, or at least limiting their military and economic relations with Beijing.
The partnership could extend to Russia contributing to a Palestinian agreement with Israel to stop the war and aggression against the Gaza Strip, a point that Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted at when he received the Russian captive held by the resistance movement, Sasha Troufanov, on Wednesday. He said that Troufanov’s release was possible thanks to Russia’s stable and long-standing relations with the Palestinian people, their representatives and various organisations. He thanked Hamas, which agreed on a degree of middle ground with Russia in order to fulfil this humanitarian act.
Putin’s statements coincided with the visit to Moscow by the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad, where he confirmed Israel’s failure to adhere to the January ceasefire agreement.
Time is running out for Netanyahu, who is facing mounting domestic pressures heading towards undeclared civil disobedience within the occupation state, led by military reservists and academics, doctors and businessmen. This disobedience is exacerbated by the repeated failure of the prime minister’s strategy, and his last-ditch attempt to impose more conditions in the form of disarming the resistance, as well as his criminal bombings and weaponisation of starvation.
Netanyahu must be able to hear alarm bells from Moscow to Washington, where Boehler has perhaps sounded the final warning with his return to the negotiating scene and his call on the parties to reach a major deal in which all prisoners are released in one batch in exchange for a personal guarantee to stop the war. He also hinted at agreeing with the Hamas call for a permanent, rather than temporary or partial deal, voiced by Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi last Thursday. Such an agreement would be possible if the Russians joined and provided their own guarantees, as was the case with Iran in the nuclear agreement.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250423-the-implications-of-the-trump-envoys-return-and-putins-gratitude-to-hamas/
-----
Iraq And The Effort To Control Armed Groups
Hassan Al-Mustafa
April 23, 2025
At the Sulaymaniyah International Forum last week, National Wisdom Movement leader Ammar Al-Hakim addressed the issue of weapons in Iraq. He emphasized that “military power undoubtedly resides with the state and the possession of arms should be exclusively in its hands. This is a matter that is beyond dispute and requires no further discussion.”
Al-Hakim, who is part of the Coordination Framework alliance that has strong ties to the Iranian government, understands that the issue of consolidating weapons solely in the hands of the Iraqi state is not a straightforward task. It involves navigating complex political, security and legal challenges that may require considerable time to resolve.
However, the longer the process of centralizing arms within the Iraqi government is delayed, the weaker the authority of the central state becomes, leading to an increase in the influence of armed factions. This situation also heightens the likelihood of security disturbances or confrontations among various militias.
Additionally, there is a genuine risk of Iraq facing military strikes from Israel, particularly due to the past involvement of some of these factions in the support war in solidarity with Hamas and Hezbollah following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on Oct. 7, 2023, before the Iraqi armed factions ceased their military activities.
Iraqi factions, which have launched a series of drones and missiles targeting Israel at various times since the Oct. 7 attack, are now facing significant pressure from Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani. The PM has received credible messages and information indicating that Israel plans to target camps and facilities within Iraq in retaliation for military actions that Tel Aviv deems “hostile.” Meanwhile, the Iraqi “resistance” views these actions as part of its “religious and moral duty to support Palestine.”
Al-Sudani took a firm stance and sought cooperation with other Iraqi leaders, particularly within the Coordination Framework, to urge groups such as the Hezbollah Brigades and Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba to cease their operations. This is especially crucial as any Israeli strike could impose significant burdens on Iraq and potentially lead to an undesirable escalation of conflict in the Middle East.
Iraqi sources that I spoke with indicated that Al-Sudani, along with Al-Hakim and figures such as Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq leader Qais Al-Khazali and Badr Organization Secretary-General Hadi Al-Amiri, among other religious, political and security personalities, have worked toward calming tensions and preventing any imminent US or Israeli strikes on Iraq.
The concern regarding potential retaliatory military actions by Israel is not what prompted the Iraqi factions to halt their support for the Palestinians. Rather, it is their awareness of the extensive destruction inflicted upon the Gaza Strip, southern Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut, along with the significant material losses in terms of buildings and the tragic loss of innocent civilian lives.
Iraqis have also observed that the theory of “unity of the arenas” did not yield the intended results. The two main allies, Hamas and Hezbollah, suffered significant losses and lost key leaders such as Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh, Hassan Nasrallah and Hashem Safieddine, along with numerous high-ranking security officials. This was attributed to Israel’s superior intelligence capabilities, its devastating missile power and the support that Tel Aviv received from Washington.
There is also a socio-religious factor that has stopped the ball of fire in Iraq. This factor is linked to the sectarian rhetoric that has proliferated in the Middle East. Various factions found themselves confronted with a torrent of anti-Shiite discourse, prompting their leaders and a significant portion of their supporters to question: why should we fight on behalf of those who insult us?
The significant and pivotal changes observed in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, along with the diminishing influence of the so-called Axis of Resistance, have served as a wake-up call for these factions, which fundamentally adhere to a religious ideological perspective. This situation has instilled a fear of losing the gains they have accumulated over the years. Consequently, they have opted, at least tactically, to weather the storm by suspending armed activities.
It was reported this month that a group of senior leaders and officials in Iraq had confirmed that several Iran-backed armed groups were preparing to disarm in order to prevent tensions with the Trump administration from escalating. This claim was denied by the Hezbollah Brigades.
People I contacted who were familiar with the situation confirmed that there have indeed been serious discussions with the factions about the need to restrict the possession of weapons to the state alone. They indicated that the first step would be to integrate factions outside the Popular Mobilization Units into the umbrella group, while simultaneously restricting political and military decision-making to the state. They also said that the PMU would not conduct any operations outside the political will of the Iraqi government, with future organizational steps to follow.
These steps are being carried out away from media and public discussion, as there is a desire for them to be successful. This is particularly important given the great sensitivity among armed militias regarding public discourse about their weapons.
In his address at the Sulaymaniyah International Forum, Al-Hakim highlighted a significant issue concerning the arms of various factions. He stated: “We are engaging in a measured and systematic approach to address, adapt and coordinate matters with state institutions.” He underscored that “solutions are not achieved through defeat, particularly as we strive for stability in our nation,” and noted that “we have made considerable progress in this regard.”
These efforts to consolidate weaponry under the control of the state will contribute to the stability of Iraq. They will receive support from the Gulf nations and Baghdad will find that the capitals of moderate Arab countries are among the foremost advocates for this significant transformation. The aim is to achieve this without plunging Iraq into chaos or experiencing any violent confrontations between the government and various factions.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2598148
-------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/nazis-hamas-indonesian-gaza-armed/d/135286
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