Fatwa Kiosks’ Are No Way To Teach The Essence Of Islam By Mohammed Nosseir: New Age Islam's Selection, 27 September 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
27 September 2017
• Fatwa Kiosks’ Are No Way to Teach the Essence Of Islam
By Mohammed Nosseir
• Women Driving: A Huge Leap Forward For Saudi Arabia
By Faisal J. Abbas
• Pakistanis Celebrate Saudi Arabia’s National Day
By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
• Abbas, Netanyahu and the Annual UN Dialogue of the Deaf
By Yossi Mekelberg
• Education In Pakistan Must Help Create Battlefield Of Ideas
By Waqar Mustafa
• Putin In Ankara To Forge Alliance Of Russia, Turkey And Iran
By Shehab Al-Makahleh
• Why The UAE Celebrates Saudi National Day
By Abdullah Bin Bijad Al-Otaibi
• With Friends Like Syria, Who Needs Enemies?
By Diana Moukalled
• What Happens When Qatar Stops Funding Terror
By Abdellatif El-Menawy
• What Next For Kuwaiti-North Korean Relations?
By Giorgio Cafiero
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Fatwa Kiosks’ Are No Way to Teach The Essence Of Islam
By Mohammed Nosseir
26 September 2017
We Egyptians are excessive in issuing and broadcasting fatwas; all media channels have several daily religious programs and newspapers have a religion section. But most of the fatwas contradict one another, even when they come from the same religious entity.
Regardless of the effectiveness of the messages’ content, we tend to rely on over-communicating, believing that more talk leads to better understanding. Intensive media programs notwithstanding, the entire society still lacks a fundamental understating of the true essence of religion.
Installing kiosks at Cairo underground stations from which preachers issue fatwas to passengers, as the government has done, is not only a waste of state funds, it also further confuses people’s understanding of religion. We are still struggling in Egypt to determine the best way to use state facilities, prioritize our challenges and help Egyptians to understand the essence of Islam.
In the face of any challenge, we Egyptians tend to argue for our own perspective, believing that our listeners are misunderstanding our message. We never stop to consider that the difficulty may not lie in the communication tool, but in the foundation of the problem. Our intention to impose our opinions on others results in over-promoting baseless messages. A message or policy that has a truly solid foundation will fly on its own merits, without the need for a promotional campaign.
The Egyptian government is attempting to address an extremely profound and complicated challenge — the relationship between citizens and their religion — by using a naive approach; installing a few kiosks in metro stations. The dilemma we face is that the clear majority of Egyptians tends to be religiously orientated; thus, government and political entities often try to use religion as a tool for communicating a political message. Most of these entities use verses from the Qur’an, quoted out of context, to support their viewpoints, which can polarize society and often causes people to doubt the good and rightful meaning of religious verses.
Like other community leaders, Egyptian preachers enjoy having an upper hand on the rest of society and being empowered to issue fatwas that often work on threatening people. The more fatwas they issue, the more confused people will become. The government is not able to unify the many fatwas, because the process is clearly used as a business. Additionally, religious fatwas are being used to fill the void created by the absence of true justice, helping to frame and control Egyptian society.
We need our citizens to better understand their religion and abide by our good book according to their individual pathways. This is far more effective than imposing our beliefs and eventually having people give up what we had falsely assumed they were abiding by. People will be more authentically religious when they comprehend religion correctly, without being pressurized by any entity. The high illiteracy rate among Egyptians who have been living in poverty for years is the real barrier that is preventing them from grasping the true moral essence of our religion. We simply need to provide wider access to a better education.
Since our metros are overcrowded, and are heavily subsidized, let us use the fatwa kiosk budget to teach passengers to become better-disciplined citizens, willing to pay the true metro fare price. Behaving better when using the metro and becoming more well-ordered will eventually reflect on people’s work — and on the integrity of Egyptian society as a whole.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1167976
------
Women Driving: A Huge Leap Forward For Saudi Arabia
By Faisal J. Abbas
27 September 2017
The royal decree to finally allow women to drive in Saudi Arabia will definitely be remembered as a landmark, positive moment in the Kingdom’s history. This courageous decision will single-handedly end what was regarded as a form of discrimination against females, and solve a long-lasting logistical nightmare for many Saudi women who will — from June 2018 — be able to travel the streets of their own country freely.
Much can be said in criticism of the illogical ban and the extremely long time it took to reverse it. This is however certainly a case of “better late than never”; and we should not for a single moment underestimate the significance of this bold move by Riyadh.
We should also not isolate this decision from a series of rapid reforms which have literally transformed many aspects of daily life in the Kingdom. In less than two years — and as part of the ambitious Vision 2030, which Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spearheads — we have seen the powers of the religious police curbed, an entertainment authority established, women’s sport encouraged and many Saudi females appointed to top jobs in the country. Just a few days ago, we saw women being allowed to enter football stadiums and others dancing in the street as they celebrated the Saudi National Day.
Are all targets of this vision achieved? Absolutely not. Is what was achieved so far sufficient? No. However, no reasonable person can deny the significance of the changes mentioned above — particularly given the speed at which they were introduced and the challenges that surrounded them.
Indeed, with low oil prices, regional wars and political conflicts, many observers expected internal social reforms to take a back seat; clearly, they were shown to be wrong when Riyadh proved that there is no better time to reform than when your back is against the wall.
The decision to allow women to drive makes it clear that internal reforms and development are at the forefront of the national transformation plan. It also makes it clear that the Saudi government is adamant that there cannot be any reform unless it involves the whole society, i.e. women must be included.
On the other hand, the way society has accepted and absorbed the rapid and massive changes that have occurred in the past two years is a clear indicator the Kingdom is opening up on all levels. Indeed, we as a society have successfully provided the correct answer to all those who warned us about such reforms, saying that rape, corruption and sins will spread as soon as we open up. The answer was that such warnings were all unfounded.
The same fear-mongering came with calls to allow women to drive. However, as the official statement declared, the decision took time to brew and will take nine more months to implement to ensure that all the traffic safety requirements are met, driving academies are set up and the proper infrastructure is put in place.
What is also remarkable, according to the official statement, is that the majority of Saudi Arabia’s Council of Senior Scholars endorsed the decision. This definitely sends the right message, and one we knew all along: There is nothing in Islam that religiously prohibits women driving, and the driving ban was a temporary social matter which will now no longer exist.
So — with a new dynamic leadership, an ambitious vision and a more literate, open society — the stars were aligned for this historic decision to be made, and the government made it clear it didn’t want to waste the chance.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1168186/columns
-----
Pakistanis Celebrate Saudi Arabia’s National Day
By Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi
26 September 2017
The Pakistan Repatriation Council (PRC) recently organized a seminar in Jeddah to celebrate the 87th National Day of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A large number of members of the Pakistani community in Jeddah attended the function, which started with recitation of a few verses from the Holy Qur’an.
Addressing the event, leaders of the Pakistani community expressed their happiness over the strong bilateral relations between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in all fields. Some of them spoke about the history of the Kingdom from the time of its founder King Abdulaziz and his sons, who succeeded him, such as King Saud, King Faisal, King Khalid, King Fahd and King Abdullah until the present period of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman. The speakers expressed their happiness and pride in having an opportunity to live in the Kingdom and contribute to the nation-building process as well as to the massive development boom witnessed across the Kingdom. Some of the attendees recited patriotic songs in Urdu glorifying the Kingdom and commending the excellent bilateral relations.
When it came my turn to address the gathering as the guest of honor, I extended my thanks and appreciation to the organizers of the event for inviting me to address the function. I also thanked everyone for celebrating the Kingdom’s National Day, saying that this undoubtedly demonstrates the love of Pakistanis for the Kingdom.
Saudi Arabia highly values the contributions of the Pakistani community in the unprecedented growth and development witnessed by the Kingdom over the past four decades. Pakistani doctors, engineers, accountants, technicians and workers were among the first to come to the Kingdom and they have made immense contributions in implementing the nation’s development projects.
After that, I spoke about the history of Saudi Arabia and gave a brief sketch of the Kingdom’s foundation and the various phases through which it passed before its unification. These included the First Saudi State founded by Imam Muhammad Bin Saud in Al-Diriyah, near Riyadh in 1744. The expansion of this state happened after an alliance was forged between Imam Muhammad Bin Saud and Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab.
I pointed out that Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab received his education in Najd and then migrated to Makkah in pursuit of knowledge. He then moved to Iraq where he invited people to Tawheed (monotheism) and to abandon the sin of making partners with God (polytheism) and all the idolatry practices that lead to sanctification of anything other than God, such as veneration of saints and visiting their tombs as well as worshipping trees and stones. Those who engaged in such practices came out against his teachings and that forced him to leave Iraq and thus he returned from Basra to his native city of Uyayna, which was ruled by Ibn Muammar.
But the situation was not favourable for him there and under serious threats he was forced to leave Uyayna and then reached Al-Diriyah where he continued his propagation work. He made an alliance with Imam Muhammad Bin Saud, the ruler of Al-Diriyah. This alliance subsequently led to the expansion of Imam Muhammad’s rule to most parts of the Arabian Peninsula. This was the first Saudi State, which continued in power until 1818 when it suffered defeat by the army led by Ibrahim Pasha, sent by his father and the Ottoman ruler of Egypt Muhammad Ali Pasha. This army destroyed Al-Diriyah and thus the first Saudi State came to an end.
In the same year as the fall of the first Saudi Sate, Prince Turki Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Al-Saud established the Second Saudi State, and its rule continued from 1818 until 1891. Severe internal conflicts within the ruling family and wars with the Ibn Rashid led to the downfall of the dynasty and eventually the rulers took shelter in Kuwait.
The Third Saudi State was founded by Abdulaziz Bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud. In 1902, together with 40 men, the young Abdulaziz was victorious in capturing Riyadh. Then he embarked on endless wars for a quarter of a century until the unification of present day Saudi Arabia. The period between the formation of the Third Saudi State in 1902 and the unification of the Kingdom in 1932 witnessed clashes and wars in various regions of he Arabian Peninsula, resulting in the unification of all regions under one nation called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Before the unification, King Abdulaziz was known for some time as the Sultan of Najd and the King of Hejaz. Later, he came to be known as the King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. During the period of King Faisal, the Kingdom started celebrating National Day. It is the commemoration of the day on which King Abdulaziz named the unified nation the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. During the reign of King Abdullah, National Day became an official holiday.
At the end of my speech, I said that I hoped that the situation of Muslims around the world would improve over the coming years. In the past, we lamented the plight of the Palestinians and Kashmiris whose problems are perhaps among the oldest in the modern world. At present, we are witnessing the tragedy of Muslims in other countries, including Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Myanmar. In Myanmar, Rohingya Muslims have been subjected to genocide and ethnic cleansing at the hands of not only Buddhist extremists but also the government.
Also, we must not forget the plight of stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh who have been languishing in squalid camps for 46 years. The Pakistani government has failed to discharge its responsibility of repatriating and rehabilitating these hapless people who have made great sacrifices for Pakistan. The international media pays little or no attention to the plight of the stranded Pakistanis and to that of refugees in many other parts of the world.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/article/518105/Opinion/OP-ED/National-Day
-----
Abbas, Netanyahu and the Annual UN Dialogue of the Deaf
By Yossi Mekelberg
26 September 2017
For various and rather different reasons, the annual addresses to the UN General Assembly by the Israeli and Palestinian leaders have become torture to listen to.
The hall is usually full of delegates from around the world, yearning to hear something new, something different, that might give them some sense of optimism. Most of these occasions leave little or no room for hope of any imminent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; on the contrary, they tend to leave the audience deeply worried that a new round of hostilities may be just around the corner. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas may live a short distance from one another, but their views on the current situation are light years apart.
There is a striking difference between the way Netanyahu and Abbas approach this world gathering. Netanyahu is increasingly complacent, some might say arrogant. The recurrent theme is that under his leadership his country has become a beacon of success in the world; the UN and its members are unfair in their criticism of Israel and utterly hypocritical in their attitude toward his country; and Iran poses the greatest danger to Israel and world peace. And this year all is topped with a less than convincing fawning to US president Donald Trump.
However, the most interesting topic is the one that he intentionally, insolently and insultingly ignores — relations with the Palestinians. Only once, in a rather lengthy speech, did Netanyahu refer to the Palestinians. In his “generosity” he expressed Israel’s commitment to peace with all Israel’s Arab neighbours, “including the Palestinians.” Really, Mr. Netanyahu, “including the Palestinians”? A passing remark, as if he were talking about some distant place with no impact on the country of which he is prime minister. As if the policies of his government had not been instrumental in bringing a total impasse to efforts to create a just and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Netanyahu certainly appears to be an impressive orator, especially to those who are not that familiar with the subject of his speech. Peace, including full diplomatic relations with the rest of the Arab world, can materialize only on the condition that a just peace is reached with the Palestinians. Not before, and not instead of. He chose to ignore his next-door neighbours when he was on the podium of the General Assembly in New York, but now that he is back in his official residence in Jerusalem, all he needs to do is open his window, and unless the separation wall and Jewish settlements block his view he can see millions of Palestinians, living under harsh Israeli occupation, who long to exercise their right to self-determination.
It is hard to argue against Netanyahu’s assertion that most of the international community is hypocritical in, on the one hand, condemning Israel for the occupation, while on the other hand happily having close trade relations with it, including selling and buying weapons.
Still, what was he suggesting — that they should abandon the Palestinian cause all together? Or alternatively should the world take the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement route in dealing with Israel? He also has a point about the danger stemming from Iran, but his Iron-Curtain, Churchillian-style references to this threat are a mere combination of ignorance and demagoguery. No cringe-inducing jokes about penguins or the rating of the Bible on Amazon could hide his avoidance technique on the most important single issue that will determine whether Israel remains Jewish and democratic.
Abbas is less colorful in his speeches than Netanyahu, but his low-key approach is more aligned with reality than that of his Israeli counterpart. He leaves his audience in no doubt about the dire conditions the Palestinians are experiencing and the bleak horizon in front of them. His doomsday weapon against Israel is to abandon the two-state solution in favor of the one-state solution. Abbas knows he should deploy this threat wisely, especially considering that it is not his preferred solution. Three decades ago he was one of the main driving forces in the Palestinian Liberation Organization to adopt the two-state solution as a strategic objective; now, as his leadership draws toward its inevitable close, he is reluctantly using the one-state solution as a whip to encourage Israel to restart negotiations on the two-state solution.
Deep down he knows that he has no partner in these negotiations on the Israeli side. Moreover he witnesses the daily expansion of Jewish settlements, the entrenched occupation and the divisions among his own people that make the dream of two independent Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side a fast disappearing one. As a veteran of peace negotiations, despite his own unconvincing attempt to flatter President Donald Trump, he knows that the current American administration is the most unlikely saviour of peace.
He most probably agrees with Netanyahu that there is a huge discrepancy between the verbal support that the Palestinian cause receives from members of the UN and their reluctance to match words with deeds. Hence, what is left for him is to warn Israel and the world that both are heading to either another prolonged violent conflict, or a bi-national state.
The chasm between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders’ perceptions of the current state of the conflict is extremely wide. Both stand on the edge of it with no sign of any assertive international guide to help them bridge it. Yet if this chasm cannot be bridged, both peoples may find themselves at the bottom of the abyss.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1167971
-----
Education In Pakistan Must Help Create Battlefield Of Ideas
By Waqar Mustafa
September 26, 2017
Graduates should be empowered with ethics and empathy to build a better world
Three years ago it was during the same month - September - that I was writing Shakil Auj's obituary for BBC. Auj, Dean of Islamic Studies at the University of Karachi, had been killed in Pakistan's port city earlier in the day. Whoever I spoke to for background interviews mentioned him as a person who neither had any political, ethnic or sectarian enthusiasms nor any business entanglements that might have invited hostility. I, however, was told that in his lectures, Auj would lament that modern people, too, often refuse to debate and discuss matters. "Today people want to impose their will at gunpoint."
Auj might have had an inkling of whatever was happening at his university then. Police say a bunch of people associated with a proscribed militant organisation, Ansar-ul-Sharia Pakistan, arrested for carrying out an assassination attempt recently on Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) leader Khawaja Izhar-ul-Hasan come from the same university. But this phenomenon is not limited to one educational institution. Until recently fingers would have been pointed at students of madrasas (religious seminaries) where lack of access to quality education limiting economic opportunity made young people targets for extremist groups.
Now Pakistan is seeing a rise in the number of educated young people being lured into extremism and terrorism. A recent newspaper report showed that out of 500 militants held in Sindh province's jails, 64 hold a master's degree and 70 have a bachelor's. Saad Aziz, considered the mastermind of the Safoora Goth carnage in 2015 which left 46 people dead, and the murder of social activist Sabeen Mahmud, was also an MBA student at an elite business school in Karachi. Another suspect in the murder named Ishrat had a degree from the Sir Syed University of Engineering. Noreen Laghari, a final year medical student at the Liaquat Medical College in Jamshoro, Sindh, who went missing to join the Daesh, was arrested before executing a terror attack in Lahore.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has recognised education as a tool to help prevent violent extremism and the radicalisation that leads to it. But the tool is not working for Pakistan as education seems to have failed to be an antidote to intolerance and conflict. Pakistan's National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA), which monitors and proposes counter-extremism strategies, has devised a policy, called National Counter Extremism Policy (NCEP), to curb extremism and militancy by introducing social and education reforms and facilitating good governance. The proposed policy defines the word 'extremism' as "having absolute belief in one's truth with an ingrained sense of self-righteousness".
"NCEP is a set of programmes in the six fields with an objective to build strong bond between state and citizenry, reforming educational streams including religious education and instilling an environment of openness and co-existence," NACTA chief officer, Ihsan Ghani said in a statement.
According to Anthony Jackson, vice-president for education at Asia Society, the willingness of one group to harm another often stems from a lack of accurate information about the other's history, culture, motivations, and behavior. Teaching students to investigate the world equips them to find information, weigh the credibility of the information they glean from sources worldwide, and frame issues in the context of global trends. Teaching students to recognise, analyse, and articulate diverse perspectives -including those with which they personally disagree - gives them the skills they need to understand controversial issues. As much crucial is the ability to communicate ideas, with the understanding that diverse audience groups and individuals might interpret the same messages quite differently. The expectation is that our graduates will be the leaders empowered with ethics and empathy to take action in ways that enhance our collective humanity and build a better world.
Pakistan has had many impressive initiatives - including the National Action Plan - in recent years that aim to rub out extremism. The success of the new counter-extremism policy hinges on an effective implementation. Empowering students to think critically teaches them to challenge ideas, construct rational thoughts, and engage in meaningful debate. Cultural learning enhances their self-awareness and identity, opening their minds to different customs, practices, and traditions, and promotes comparative analysis. With such a well-rounded educational experience, educational institutions, particularly universities, would represent a battleground of ideas and opinions, and not of guns and bullets.
Waqar Mustafa is a print, broadcast and online journalist and commentator based in Pakistan
Source: khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/education-in-pakistan-must-help-create-battlefield-of-ideas
-----
Putin in Ankara to Forge Alliance of Russia, Turkey and Iran
By Shehab Al-Makahleh
26 September 2017
Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to meet Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara on September 28, 2017. The two leaders are expected to dovetail their positions over regional issues before Turkish Special Forces get the nod to intervene in Idlib, the last stronghold of militant opposition forces in Syria.
Putin’s visit to Ankara comes a few days prior to the scheduled visit of Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud’s to Moscow on October 5-7, 2017. After patching up an acrimonious row between the countries over the downing of a Russian jetfighter in November 2015 over Syria, both leaders have pledged to restore their political and economic relations to pre-crisis levels.
The recent Turkey-Russia rapprochement has come about as a result of both countries’ tense relations with the West, particularly with the United States, mainly after the failed July 2016 coup attempt in Turkey.
Since then, the two countries have forged an informal agreement wherein Turkey has stopped giving support to opposition groups that threatened Russian interests in Syria, while Russia refrained from supporting Kurdish groups operating near the Turkish border with Syria (in Al Bab, Idlib and Aleppo), suspected of fomenting Kurdish secessionism inside Turkey. In contrast, Russia did not seek to block Turkish forces from taking control of the Syrian border regions which were under the control of Kurds and ISIS.
External Interventions
Over the years, Russia has accused Turkey of backing Islamist anti-Assad groups, including ‘terror’ outfits operating inside Russia while Turkey has been at war with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the PKK’s Syrian allies. Ankara now seeks Russian support to secure its borders from external intervention in Turkish internal affairs.
Turkish leadership is seeking strategic relationship with Russia to replace the loss of its Western alliance. In other words, Ankara is effecting a shift toward a more “Eurasian-ist” orientation due to the proximity of the region, the overlapping of interests, common cultural values and language.
After winning the war in Syria, Russia is now seeking to ensure its peace – a mission no less difficult than going to war. Initially, Russia used Turkey as a key partner to make the Syrian opposition accept a truce and join peace talks for reaching a political settlement.
Later, Moscow called for a peace conference in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, which involved Turkey and Iran. The countries formed a diplomatic triad for setting up de-escalation zones in Syria in order to end the war and stop the division of the country. Russia chose Astana as a venue for the talks to send a message to the US that it should not get close to Russian borders through former republics of the Soviet Union.
Both Putin and Erdogan share a similar stance towards leadership and both have witnessed a revival in conservative, nationalist domestic politics, overseeing awkward ties with Europe. Putin’s visit to Turkey raises eyebrows in the West as it comes at a time when Turkey has strained its relations with the EU and the West in general.
Nowadays, Moscow seeks to be in the position of a mediator to maintain good relations with various parties concerned. Differences between the parties can be dealt with in accordance with conditions that the Kremlin sees fit, as happened in the dispute with Erdogan.
Russian-Turkish bilateral relations have several common traits: pragmatism, multi-faceted approach, commonalities, reliance on energy resources, geopolitical power, military performance, circumspection toward the West. All of this has fueled the Russian and Turkish pursuit to play a pivotal role at the Eurasian and Middle Eastern landscapes.
The Economic Factor
In 2014, Putin and Erdogan signed several agreements on bilateral trade with the two countries hoping that their annual trade volume would reach $100 billion by 2020. However, the most important achievement of the meeting was the agreement to expand cooperation in natural gas trade. Russia aimed through these agreements to also increase its gas exports to Turkey by more than 3 billion cubic meters because of the latter’s increasing need for energy.
Turkey imports 93 percent of its energy needs, 97 percent of which is natural gas. Ankara buy 60 percent of its gas from Russia, which makes it the second largest importer of Russian natural gas after Germany. The value of Turkish exports to Russia does not exceed $6 billion.
Putin and Erdogan have officially met each other more than 30 times, even when both countries were not having harmonious relations. However, both sides know very well that political visions are kept aside when it comes to investments and economy including natural gas. From a purely economic perspective, Turkey cannot keep up with the United States and the EU on the issue of sanctions against Russia.
In the wake of instability in Iraq and Syria, Ankara does not have many alternative energy options, except from taking its energy from Russia as Turkey is incapable of indulging in any political adventurism that might endanger its energy sources that are necessary for its industry. Trade exchange between both countries reached $40 billion by the end of 2016 and is slated to increase this year.
The Military and Security Factor
The main factor for Russia behind improving its ties with Turkey has been its overriding security and military interests. Putin is deeply concerned about the security situation in Syria, especially those Russian fighters who fight with ISIS and other terrorist groups.
Russian president is seeking Turkish assistance in this regard to make sure that none of the Russian extremists in Iraq and Syria return home. As for the Turkish president, his chief concern is the comatose Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Turkish international relations have undergone such sharp twists and turns since 2014 that its unpredictability appears to be the only safe prediction for the future. Both leaders believe that should work together to serve their own countries regardless of what other leaders believe about them.
The recent military rapprochement between Ankara and Moscow with the S-400 deal has upset NATO officials because the Russian system, an anti-air defense system, is incompatible with NATO’s. With this deal, Russia will be the third biggest arms exporter to Turkey after Germany and the US.
Erdogan, who plans to visit Iran in October to bolster military cooperation, will also be discussing the repercussions of any independent Kurdish state that might inflame separatist tensions in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/26/Putin-in-Ankara-to-forge-alliance-of-Russia-Turkey-and-Iran.html
-----
Why the UAE Celebrates Saudi National Day
By Abdullah bin Bijad Al-Otaibi
26 September 2017
The UAE joined Saudi Arabia in celebrating the 87th Saudi national day this year. It has done so for years amid a celebratory atmosphere that includes official and popular events.
The UAE celebrates the national day of several countries, particularly brotherly Gulf countries but its celebrations of Saudi Arabia’s national day are special and unique. So why does the UAE celebrate it?
The bonds of history, close ties, common language, culture, habits and traditions and the nature of mutual interests are important considering they grant depth to our relations. This is in addition to the special relationship between al-Nahyan family and al-Saud and the families of rulers.
These relations have been strong since the establishment of the modern state and they were later strengthened by Sheikh Zayed and Saudi king Faisal, Khalid and Fahed as well as with Abdullah before he became king.
I think another reason is the advanced awareness of the political command in the UAE. A decade ago, and due to different circumstances, some Gulf States adopted different stances toward certain matters. Some chose to be hostile to Saudi Arabia and conspired against it as much as they could, like Qatar is doing, while some chose to be neutral.
Strategic Alliance
The UAE, however, made a decision that reflects its awareness, and it chose the option of entering into a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia. This was of great importance to both countries’ leadership and it made the difference in the region and the world.
Both leaderships adopted a coherent path while leading the Arab world toward surviving this great challenge known as the Arab Spring and its crises. They had a clear vision to play a role in which they bear a historic role toward it.
They wisely confronted the project of one of the biggest international allies, i.e. the US, and its allies, at the time and bet that the interests of their countries and their people are above everything else.
This strong and influential alliance rose to save Bahrain from the uprising in 2011. It saved Egypt in 2013 and the Muslim Brotherhood was listed as a terror group. They also wisely confronted the schemes of the biggest enemy in the region and the world, i.e. the Iranian regime.
False Campaign
Rivals, Iran, Qatar and the Brotherhood, bet on weakening this Saudi-UAE alliance and launched false campaigns after King Salman was crowned king in Saudi Arabia. However, the alliance only deepened and the ties only became stronger. They thus added amazing and more influential successes to their record.
Under King Salman’s leadership, the Operation Decisive Storm was launched to save Yemen. The UAE is the second country in the Arab alliance. They had to harmonize between the fighting and supporting legitimacy and providing humanitarian aid so they worked hand in hand. Confronting Iran was a significant strategy and the UAE was ready for that. Combating terrorism was a priority after the Riyadh summit and after boycotting Qatar, and the UAE was also ready for that.
There are three rival projects in the region: the Iranian sectarian project, the Turkish fundamental-Brotherhood project and the Arab, i.e. Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian, project. It seem victory will be in favour for the Arab project.
The UAE celebrated the Saudi national day on September 23 and Saudi Arabia will celebrate the UAE national day on December 2. It is a model of the success and power that alliances can create.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/26/Why-the-UAE-celebrates-Saudi-national-day.html
----
With Friends Like Syria, Who Needs Enemies?
By Diana Moukalled
26 September 2017
After three years of absence due to a political standoff that left its presidential post vacant for two years, Lebanon finally took part in the UN General Assembly. But what Lebanon are we talking about when we say that it was present this year? This is not a sarcastic question, but any observer of the meetings and positions of President Michel Aoun and his delegation in New York, away from the Lebanese media clamour surrounding them, would realize how flimsy the their presence was. To put it simply, it was a gloomy picture of deep internal and regional schism.
Lebanon experienced semi-international isolation at the UN. No extensive official meetings were held for Aoun and his accompanying delegation. The Lebanese president’s meetings were limited to a small number of presidents, and the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The same goes for the Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, who did not meet his counterparts, especially from the influential countries. The culmination of his activities came with meeting the Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Muallem. The trip of the Lebanese delegation to New York was marked by that obnoxious picture which shows the Lebanese Foreign Minister with the Foreign Minister of a criminal regime.
A few weeks earlier, Lebanon had avoided the prospect of a government collapse after some political parties suggested sending an official delegation to Syria following the border battles in which Hezbollah and the Lebanese army fought against armed militias. Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement suggested at the time that it was necessary to visit and thank Syria.
The internal division was so severe that it nearly caused the collapse of the government, so the idea of visiting Syria was set aside. Yet suddenly, Gebran Bassil appeared with the Syrian delegation in New York. No doubt this meeting raises many questions. Do the President and his team think that the answer to their international isolation comes through meeting the foreign minister of a criminal and isolated regime? The justification of coordinating with the Syrian regime to solve the refugee problem is unconvincing here; for what conditions for the return of refugees and what havens are we talking about if we ask the refugees to go back to the regime that forced them to flee their homes in the first place — and given that this regime does not want them back.
Whatever the reasons for the failure of Lebanon in New York, it is bound to cause more political tension back home in the days to come if the team that refuses the normalization of relations with Syria chooses to escalate its position. The Bassil-Mouallem meeting can only be taken as part of the political and moral push which Aoun gave to this axis when he said that Lebanon could not ask Hezbollah to give up its weapons as long as Israel provokes Lebanon, and that any solution for the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons should come within a comprehensive regional settlement.
Moreover, Aoun was described as the only one who dared to say “No” to the US in the most important international forum, and a media campaign surfaced highlighting the issue of the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Lebanon based on remarks by President Donald Trump in his speech to the General Assembly. The Lebanese approach to the issue was surprising because it appeared as a distortion of Trump’s stance on Hezbollah and Iran, who he accused of terrorism, and threatened to respond to and face their growing influence.
The outcome of these paradoxes has been more fragmentation and weakness. Surely, pressurizing Lebanon to return to the Syrian fold will only result in more regression and division.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1167951
-----
What Happens When Qatar Stops Funding Terror
By Abdellatif El-Menawy
26 September 2017
There has been a marked decline in the activities of terrorist organizations on several fronts in recent months. Legitimate forces have begun to advance in some countries experiencing conflicts, terrorist operations and civil war, such as Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Bahrain. Hard-line Islamist militias in Syria are collapsing at the hands of the Syrian army. Is this a coincidence? Or is it confirmation of Qatari involvement in supporting rebel movements and terrorist organizations in these countries by financing and arming them? It could be said that today, these organizations are suffering from a lack of funding after Qatar came under scrutiny, and after the Anti-Terror Quartet began to confront it and boycott it.
This observation was confirmed after Hamas announced the acceptance of Egypt’s mediation efforts to achieve Palestinian reconciliation, and decided last Sunday on the dissolution of the administrative committee in the Gaza Strip.
They also invited the Government of Reconciliation (Al-Wefaq) to come to the Gaza Strip to exercise their functions and carry out their duties immediately. They are ready to meet the Egyptian call for dialogue with Fatah on how to implement the 2011 Cairo agreement and form a national unity government. The dramatic shift in Hamas’s position is not a development in their vision, but a reflection of the difficult situation the movement is facing after the withdrawal of Qatari support, not only for Hamas but also and mainly for the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a big part.
It may be appropriate to recall what US President Donald Trump said in his first reaction to the decision to isolate Qatar: “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!”
Trump did not show much sympathy for Qatar at the time, although it is a center of US military operations in the region. The US president hoped this would be “the beginning of the end of the horror of terrorism.”
The map of the export of terrorism from Doha to the Gulf and the world includes a large number of Arab, African and European countries. Among them are Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Libya. In each of these countries, which are supposed to be Qatar’s brothers, Doha supports death, chaos and civil war and fuels sectarian and ethnic strife.
It is clear that the position taken by the Anti-Terror Quartet of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain was already the beginning of the end. Libya is currently looking optimistic and has had an unprecedented improvement in security, political and social conditions after it paralyzed the capabilities of terrorist militias who were receiving money, weapons and direct orders from Qatar. This was in part due to the meeting in Paris between Fayez Al-Sarraj and Khalifa Haftar, and the signing of an agreement to commit to a conditional cease-fire and prepare for presidential elections. The agreement is a positive step to achieve security and stability after the absence of Qatari influence, which has been an obstacle to this rapprochement.
According to Libyan sources, there is more evidence of this in the final clearance of Benghazi. Extremist terrorist organizations, who have controlled the region for more than three years as a result of the financial support and information provided by the Qatari regime, are either defeated or dissolving themselves. Calm has returned to Tripoli after the expulsion of fighting groups outside the city by the battalion of the revolutionaries of Tripoli.
Several weeks ago, Palestinian political circles confirmed that the withdrawal of Qatar from the Palestinian scene will increase the chances of Palestinian reconciliation, especially as Hamas has consulted with regional forces closer to Palestinian Authority and the Egyptian side to resolve the situation in the Gaza Strip.
A number of political observers and analysts predicted that Qatar’s preoccupation with the Arab boycott crisis would reduce its ability to support movements it used to back. Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood faces a funding crisis as well as increased pressure from around the world, as its relationship with terrorism is exposed. This will push Hamas to deny that they are linked in any way with the Muslim Brotherhood movement and Qatar, which makes the current response of the Egyptian leadership more effective and influential; this will help to end Palestinian division and achieve reconciliation.
The Arab position on Qatar has led to the weakening of the strongest supporters of Hamas, which caused the movement to lose its position in the Palestinian arena, and that has resulted in Hamas having to make more concessions. The options facing Hamas are limited. Either the crisis faces more rigidity and a new battle with Israel, which Hamas is neither seeking nor able to take part in, or move forward on reconciliation with Fatah.
But will Qatar surrender easily? Given its history of intransigence, it is likely that Qatar will exert pressure on Hamas to try to thwart the reconciliation agreement. Qatar’s leaders do not seem to realize that the elements of the equation have changed.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1167946
-----
What Next For Kuwaiti-North Korean Relations?
By Giorgio Cafiero
26 September 2017
Amid the United States and North Korea’s intensifying standoff, Washington is pressuring its Middle Eastern allies to help Washington further isolate Pyongyang. Along with Egypt, Kuwait is doing so. Despite Kuwait’s close alignment with the United States and North Korea’s support for Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War of 1990/91, Kuwait and Pyongyang established diplomatic relations in 2001.
There have been thousands of North Korean labourers in Kuwait for years with the regime in Pyongyang seeing the Arabian Gulf country and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries as destinations for obtaining hard currency quite easily by confiscating up to half of their workers’ earnings.
Kuwait's government, however, has recently signalled its support for the United States in response to North Korea's nuclear tests and testing ballistic missiles over Japan, which the GCC’s top Northeast Asian trade partners – China, Japan, and South Korea – have also denounced very strongly. Earlier this month, authorities in Kuwait told So Chang Sik, Pyongyang’s ambassador to Kuwait, that he must leave the country within one month.
Officials in Kuwait also ended loans to the Hermit Kingdom, banned North Korean imports, cut off loans to the Asian country, and committed to no longer issuing works visas to North Korean labourers. The Kuwaiti authorities also decided to downgrade Pyongyang's diplomatic representation to the chargé d'affaires level by expelling not only the ambassador but also fourth other North Korean diplomats.
The Only Embassy
Unquestionably, these recent developments undermine Pyongyang’s diplomatic relationship with the rest of the GCC as Kuwait has been the only member of the Council to host a North Korean embassy. It is also the only one from where the Northeast Asian country’s ambassador has also represented the Kingdom to Doha, Manama, and Abu Dhabi (Muscat is the only Arabian Gulf capital that maintains diplomatic relations with Pyongyang which are conducted via China and Egypt instead of through Kuwait).
To be sure, Kuwait still maintains official – albeit downgraded – relations with Pyongyang. Whether its actions, that will cost North Korea economically and diplomatically, burned a bridge with the North Korean regime is not clear. Kuwait has not, at least not yet, fully severed relations with Pyongyang, which would represent a further display of support for the Trump administration and might be the Arabian Gulf state’s next step.
Under such terms it is not clear if Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE would follow suit to showcase how they take seriously the grave concerns that Western governments, plus Japan and South Korea, harbor with regard to North Korea.
It appears that other GCC states are showing their support for the Trump administration vis-à-vis North Korea. The UAE called on Pyongyang to stop its “provocations” in August and this month the Emirati leadership condemned North Korea’s second missile launch over Japan.
On September 19, Qatar’s Government Communications Office stated that the country has been complying fully with UN sanctions against North Korea and that officials in Doha have completely stopped issuing issues to North Korean citizens while denying that any laborers from North Korea have “never” worked on any construction projects in preparation for the 2022 World Cup.
North Koreans in Qatar
In this statement, Doha acknowledged that roughly 1,000 North Korean workers remain in Qatar, yet the number “will decline rapidly as their employment contracts expire” and that “visas to North Korean nationals will not be renewed.”
Should Washington step up pressure on countries to take action against Pyongyang, the leadership in North Korea may be forced to accept that the price for having nuclear weapons and conducting missile tests will include the loss of diplomatic and economic relations with GCC members.
Yet throughout the Qatar crisis, as well as during other times of conflict and dispute between different countries, Kuwait has proven to be an invaluable mediator for Middle Eastern states as well as Washington.
Thus, perhaps an unfortunate dimension to the downgrading of Kuwaiti-North Korean relations would be Kuwait losing its ability to serve as a “neutral state” in potential off-the-record talks between officials in Washington and their counterparts in Pyongyang.
After all, the Iranian nuclear deal, which six global powers and Iran signed in 2015, was a product of talks in Oman. Kuwait maintaining ties with North Korea could leave options open for the Arabian Gulf emirate to help the Trump administration and the North Korean regime enter talks given that no military action can constitute a reasonable approach to dealing with Pyongyang.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/26/What-Next-for-Kuwaiti-North-Korean-Relations-.html
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/fatwa-kiosks-no-way-teach/d/112671