Why Arabs in the US Are Their Own Worst Enemy By Ray Hanania: New Age Islam's Selection, 29 September 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
29 September 2017
• Why Arabs in the US Are Their Own Worst Enemy
By Ray Hanania
• Kurdish 'Yes' Vote Puts Iraq's Security in Peril
By Sajad Jiyad
• Much More Than Just Allowing Women to Drive
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Moral Paralysis in American Academia
By Hamid Dabashi
• It's Official: Defending Torture Victims Is Terrorism
By Moazzam Begg
• Women Driving License a Victory for Saudi Society
By Mamdouh Almuhaini
• The UAE and Egypt Share Unbreakable Bonds
By Khalaf Ahmad Al-Habtoor
• King Salman Meets Russian Realism
By Dr. Manuel Almeida
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Why Arabs in the US Are Their Own Worst Enemy
By Ray Hanania
28 September 2017
The Arab and Muslim community in America has many problems. They are often the same problems that Arabs and Muslims face around the world, including the Arab and Muslim worlds.
In America, many Arabs and Muslims are there physically, but their thoughts, hearts and minds are “back home.” In other words, they pay more attention to the politics of the Middle East than they do to the politics of America.
As a consequence, most Arabs and Muslims who embrace moderation and reject extremism keep quiet. They don’t like what they see, but they do little to change it. Whenever a moderate voice rises amid the despair of the American Arab and Muslim communities, extremist voices shout them down, so the rest of the community learns to accept silence as a response to bullying and intimidation.
I was asked to join a protest a few months ago against Sharon Brannigan, who holds a local elective office in a community with a history of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim incidents, Palos Township.
Brannigan posted a few comments on her Facebook page that were critical of Arabs and Muslims. Of course, Arabs and Muslims in America are hyper sensitive. Every little thing bugs us. In fact, I would argue it is the little things that bother Arabs and Muslims in America more than the big things, because we tend to respond to the little things and shrug helplessly in the face of the major issues.
I read through Brannigan’s comments and felt she was merely expressing strong views on the issue of immigration and used Arabs and the Middle East community as the target of her feelings because that community has a strong presence in her locality.
The activists, many of whom I respect, organized protests against Brannigan demanding that she be thrown out of office. She apologized for her comments, but apologies don’t go far among some Arabs and Muslims.
So I picked up the telephone and I spoke with Brannigan. I could tell that while she had concerns about immigration and the ease at which fanatics, terrorists and criminals of all ethnicities can enter America without being scrutinized — border scrutiny is a fundamental policy of every country, by the way — she didn’t mean to cast aspersions against Arabs or Muslims.
Brannigan issued a new statement and sent it to me. It basically said what I suspected. She apologized, and acknowledged that she had allowed her fears to get the better of her words.
She wrote, “I am not anti-Arab. I am not anti-Muslim. I am not anti-immigrant. I am the granddaughter of immigrants who came to this country from Ireland and Italy through Ellis Island with a dream of prosperity and goodness. I know what racism is and I know what discrimination is. It was not my intent to reflect any of those feelings. Through all the hurt feelings and anger, I believe the issues have been distorted and I unintentionally contributed to that misunderstanding.”
Instead of accepting her apology, the small group of protesters, led by some extremists, stepped up the anger. At board meetings, they yelled, screamed and were incoherently ignorant, making all Arabs and Muslims look uncompromising and stupid.
When I wrote that I accepted Brannigan’s apology as an Arab American who most Americans believe is Muslim — I am Christian but I feel I am “Muslim by culture” — some protesters started yelling at me, inundating me with ugly and anonymous email hate.
Among the many problems in the Arab World (and among some Muslims), intolerance of Christians is a plague. We are attacked, vilified, bullied and told, as I was: “You have no right to speak for our community.”
But I am used to it. I know these extremists represent a small segment of our society in America. The majority of Arabs and Muslims who are moderate, reasoned and have commonsense are intimidated by the bullying.
Forgiveness is not just a trait among Christian Arabs. It is a trait among true Muslims, too.
Forgiving someone who says something stupid can be a first step in moving forward and building something, rather than being mired in the mud of endless conflict.
That’s why I believe in the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and support compromise. While fighting for “100 percent victory,” those who are suffering continue to suffer. Those who say stupid things continue to say stupid things.
Ironically, suffering is not what the Arab and Muslim community in America can really claim. Most of the community is wealthy. Their children get good education. They have strong businesses and they are engaging at every level of American society, although the American news media focuses on news that makes us look bad or casts us only as “victims.”
Yet Arabs and Muslims in America are denied equality in government services, and we are unfairly singled out for criticism, exclusion and marginalization. We’re not even counted in the US census, which decides how much public funding recognized ethnic groups receive.
Arabs and Muslims in America are more than just “victims.” We deserve more respect and recognition for our achievements, not just from American society as a whole, but from ourselves as well.
There are so many bigger issues to raise and to focus our collective energy on rather than to refuse to accept an apology from someone accused of racism.
What Arabs and Muslims are lacking in America is leadership that embraces moderation and rejects extremism. We need leaders who are willing to courageously speak out against the fanatics who embarrass us, undermine us, and distract us from the real issues holding our community back.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1169316
-----
Kurdish 'Yes' Vote Puts Iraq's Security in Peril
By Sajad Jiyad
September 28, 2017
Partnership between Baghdad and Erbil, which led to near complete defeat of Daesh, should be the focus
After more than 25 years of autonomy from the government in Baghdad, Iraq's Kurdish region reached a watershed on September 25 when it voted on independence. According to the Kurdish authorities, more than 90 per cent of people voted for secession in the nonbinding referendum.
Kurds are celebrating the result, which they see as an overdue reckoning and potentially a step toward their long-standing dreams of statehood, but few other parties are pleased. The question now is what will come next. Domestic and foreign opposition to the referendum threaten to escalate tensions, and pressure is mounting on the federal government in Baghdad to find a way to defuse the situation and prevent the breakup of Iraq.
Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, has insisted that the referendum was not about setting the borders for a future Kurdish state or taking an immediate step toward independence. Instead, he said, it was a confirmation of the will of Iraqi Kurdish people to form their own state in the future.
Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi of Iraq is already taking a tough line. He has insisted that the referendum was unconstitutional and made clear that his government would take measures to prevent the breakup of the country. It's an important objective. A united Iraq is crucial right now, as the war against Daesh continues. Kurdish secession moves will destabilise Iraq even further.
Moreover, Abadi has good reason to be concerned about how the referendum was held. Voting took place not only in the autonomous Kurdish region, but also in what are termed the disputed areas - areas that are officially in federal Iraq but have come under the control of the Kurdish Regional Government and its peshmerga troops. The vote also took place in Kirkuk, a city whose status is still undecided according to the Iraqi Constitution. Baghdad rightly looks at this as an attempt by the Kurds to establish facts on the ground for a land grab for a future Kurdish state.
The Iraqi federal government was hardly alone in opposing the referendum. The United States may be an ally of the Kurdish government, but Washington believed the independence vote shouldn't have been held before Daesh is defeated. On Septembet 25, the State Department said the United States was "deeply disappointed" with the Kurdish government. The United Nations likewise voiced concerns about the "potentially destabilising effects" of the referendum.
But the most vociferous critics have been Turkey and Iran, both of which have Kurdish secessionist movements that they fear could be encouraged by the vote. Turkey has said it may close its border with the Kurdish region, while Iran prevented flights into and out of the Kurdish region from using its airspace. Both countries have threatened military action if the Kurdish region secedes from Iraq, and to make the threat clear, both countries held military exercises near the border.
Outside intervention isn't the only potential trigger for escalation. Iraq's Parliament has demanded that Abadi mobilise troops to secure Kirkuk and the disputed areas in response to the referendum. While he made clear that federal forces would not be used against the Kurdish region, he has asked the military to be "prepared to protect Kurdish citizens."
Abadi now has a tough job. He must keep Iraq whole and reassure Turkey and Iran enough that they do not intervene. At the same time, he should not punish the millions of Kurdish Iraqis who want to express their aspiration for self-determination. This is why moving forward, Abadi and the government in Baghdad must figure out how to differentiate between the actions of Kurdish politicians and the generations-long collective emotional wishes of the Kurdish people.
If Baghdad works with its neighbours it can rebalance the relationship between the federal government and the Kurdish government and maintain peaceful control of the situation. Control of oil exports through Turkey by the Kurdish government, long viewed as illegal by Baghdad, can be returned to the Iraqi government, as Turkey has hinted at. This would essentially freeze the finances of the regional government and force it to go back to Baghdad for funding.
On September 26, the Iraqi cabinet ordered the Kurdish government to return control of Iraqi borders with Iran and Turkey, and airports by 6pm Friday; if the Kurds refuse, the federal government says it will shut down Kurdish airspace. Turkey and Iran both appear eager to enforce that demand and Iraqi troops are already taking part in manoeuvers on the Turkish side of the border.
These measures will pressure the Kurdish leadership to agree to some of Baghdad's terms. Such measures would satisfy pressure on the Iraqi federal government from its Arab and non-Kurdish communities to check Kurdish expansionism and also pacify Turkish and Iranian worries about instability. But they will not answer the longer-term questions about Iraqi Kurdish aspirations for independence or the fate of Kirkuk.
These questions will need to be answered through tough negotiations between Baghdad and the Kurdish government. Before that, the partnership between Baghdad and Erbil, backed by the international coalition, which has led to the near complete defeat of Daesh in Iraq, should continue to be the focus.
Other countries, in particular the US, can also play a positive role. By supporting Baghdad's efforts to prevent conflict and by encouraging the Kurdish government to be more flexible in its dealing with the federal government, the United States and others can bring the two sides together. This will avoid giving too great a role for Turkey and Iran, who are more concerned about their own interests. This may be the only way to reach a peaceful resolution to a tense situation in a region.
Source; khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/kurdish-yes-vote-puts-iraqs-security-in-peril
----
Much More Than Just Allowing Women to Drive
By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
28 September 2017
These are happy and historic days in Saudi Arabia. There have been several positive changes, which would have never crossed our mind after despair took over us. Social and political battles over education, employment, sports and the media erupted every time an obstacle was removed.
The mother of all battles was that of granting women their right to drive cars. King Salman’s intervention and issuance of the decree allowing them to drive marks the end of the most difficult and biggest obstacle.
The king’s decision is brave and wise. History will remember him for a long time as the man who ended an era and launched a new one. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman – who is in charge of development in the kingdom – will also be remembered.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the engineer of the “vision” of the new state and its future. Ever since the vision was announced, decisions have been made one after the other. We thought they will never be made due to the vicious circle which we were incapable of exiting for decades.
The message concluded here is that we are before a new modern kingdom that is finding its status among civilized nations by adopting more welcoming standards that include everyone and that is building a new and competent generation which is efficient with its men and women amid the development of a real economy.
Many decisions and activities, which came as a surprise to the Saudi society, have looked almost impossible until recently. They actually reflect the transition plan and those who look at the entire picture can see that.
Political and Social Meaning
Allowing women to drive cars after a fierce opposition is of great significance but I think its political and social meaning is much bigger than that. The king’s decision is a clear message to the society stipulating that the government is walking the path of change and modernization which will not allow those objecting to obstruct it.
Years have been wasted while waiting for the society to change as conservative elements have shut its doors to most things until hopelessness took over us. They objected to any initiative or any hint to allow women to go out or drive cars or work or participate in social life.
Saudi Arabia cannot adopt an ambitious plan like Vision 2030 without acknowledging women as partners in it. The sceptics’ excuses fell with the king’s brave decision to allow women to drive. The aim of this decision is not popularity or pleasing one party at the expense of another. The aim is to serve the country’s and society’s higher interests.
The driving ban has never had convincing social or religious justifications for years. It rather conveyed the desire of a category that wants the society to be according to its wishes. Those isolated men who obstructed social and economic development can no longer lead an entire nation.
In order to not generalize, let’s note that those objecting to the historic decision belong to two categories: a conservative category whose ideas are based on traditions it wants to maintain– we respect this opinion but it does not bind everyone – and a politicized category that wants to lead the society according to its agenda.
This latter category no longer has a place in the kingdom as it’s an extremist category with ill intentions. It opposes every move and project because it wants Saudi Arabia to remain a disabled, depressed and obstructed state so it fails.
This category better understand the message that no one will allow it to stop the wheel.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/28/Much-more-than-just-allowing-women-to-drive.html
----
Moral Paralysis In American Academia
By y Hamid Dabashi
29 September 2017
Late in September, the admin of an academic list-serve sent a message to the list in which he requested a pdf copy of a recently published scholarly paper he identified as: "The Case for Colonialism" by Bruce Gilley (Third World Quarterly, September 2017). Soon a couple of list members obliged and sent the admin and everyone else on that list two separate PDF copies of this article.
As soon as the PDF was circulated signs of trouble emerged: "I needed to breathe deeply several times while reading this," one list-serve member said, "It's VERY disturbing".
"I am disturbed by the author's call for re-colonization with the purpose of civilizing post-colonial countries," another member soon added, "and by his recipe for 'making colonialism acceptable to colonized'... I wonder how this paper could pass external peer review? Why would TWQ publish this?"
Soon the admin of the list-serve who had initiated this cycle of comments chimed in, identified the author of this essay as "a colleague of mine ... and I think he is more honest and genuine than some of the Middle East Studies scholars in the West."
Bourgeois Politesse
As the list-serve members continued to respond in piecemeal, it became clear that a career opportunist professor had published an article in a leading academic journal that prides itself on being "peer-reviewed", and in which he (based on shoddy scholarship) not only unapologetically defended the colonial savagery Europeans had visited upon the Earth but, in fact, he called for its renewal in our own time.
That there is an academic careerist who has sensed which way the political wind is blowing in the US and Europe and perfectly in tune with the spirit of the age of Trumpism is seeking to cash in and jump on the already overstuffed bandwagon of racists is not surprising at all. Senior scholars like the blatantly racist, imperialist Niall Fergusson of Harvard or his colleague Samuel Huntington, or before them the top-notch Zionist propagandist Bernard Lewis and his Lebanese sidekick, the late Fouad Ajami, have all been singing the same tunes and enjoyed the full privileges of a first-class university since George W Bush's "war on terror" commenced - and in fact, long before that.
What is far more troubling than a non-entity seeking instant notoriety by going against the massively accumulated archival evidence of human suffering European colonialism has caused and scholarly arguments mapping out the planetary calamities of the white supremacists' conquest of the world is this bizarre bourgeois etiquette and liberal politesse that invariably rise obsequiously to meet such obscenities. Oh, he is our "colleague", the professoriate proffer. "Let us invite him for a 'dialogue'," they generously gesture. We need to respect freedom of expression - ad nauseam.
To be sure, there were enough courageous, principled, informed, and emphatic people on this list and beyond who came forward and mopped the floor with this opportunist charlatan. But they did so by defying the bleeding-heart liberals of the inane mantra, "Oh, I disagree with you but will give my life to defend your right to say it" persuasion.
Psychopathology of Dissent
What are the limits of liberal "tolerance"? At what point will noble anger, utter disgust, principled indignation, and moral outrage overcome this banal bourgeois gentility?
We justly and correctly have ostracised Holocaust deniers. The slaughter of six million Jews and the suffering of the survivors of the Holocaust are not matters of "scholarly debate." But in the US, if you write defending the genocidal legacy of colonialism, you get yourself published in a "peer-reviewed" journal, even move up to become full professors at an Ivy League university, and a band of your peers get together politely to discuss and debate your ignorant stupidities with courteous and gentle demeanours.
Since this debacle, most of the editorial board of the journal have resigned, its chief editor was scandalised for having lied that he had run the article through peer review, and even the author has retracted his own article and asked for it to be removed from the journal. But all of this spectacle has, in fact, increased the public cachet of the author and his article. Those who have objected to this obscenity can now be charged with intolerance and "political correctness". For all we know, Donald Trump might soon invite this professor and appoint him as his next education secretary.
I recall a few years ago, when I had just made it to a blacklist of "dangerous professors" that a notorious Zionist propagandist had compiled and published in a book (I have made it to all such lists designed to frighten and silence me and as you see they have had exactly the opposite effect), a "psychologist" had managed to put all our email addresses together and sent us a collective message in which he said he wanted to study us and examine our psychological profiles in relation to our "radical ideas". Would we kindly respond to a questionnaire he was preparing for this purpose?
Before I had even digested the absurdity of the very idea of psychopathologising political dissent, suddenly I saw members of that list began writing back politely to this person and asking for more details about his study. What was striking was how not a single person on that mailing list was outraged by the very notion of being "studied" for psychopathological traits presumably explaining our "radical ideas." They were all politely discussing the details of the proposed study. The term "gulag" evidently meant nothing to them. It is obscene to be tolerant of obscene ideas.
The case in point is how the prominent American public intellectual professor, Noam Chomsky, who, too, was on the editorial board of this academic journal, has as usual refused to denounce Bruce Gilley, offering his habitual bourgeois hogwash that the professor has the right to say what he said and that he too publishes things that offend people.
This, of course, is highbrow gibberish - shifting the issue to the domain of censorship and freedom of speech, where an entire transcontinental history of European and American colonial savagery, loudly defended by Gilly, is to be dismissed and, in fact, celebrated and the descendants of those pernicious cycles of barbarism better shut up and be quiet lest their protest might offend Professor Chomsky's bleeding-heart liberal defence of "free speech".
But being "offended" by what this careerist charlatan has said is not the issue. I, for one, am not offended by what Bruce Gilley, Niall Fergusson, or Bernard Lewis have said, nor am I surprised. Both Bruce Gilley's barefaced defence of the criminal terrors of colonialism and Chomsky's defence of the right to publish such a defence of murderous terror are definitive to the moral depravity of European, and now American, imperial arrogance that has both robbed and terrorised the world and then sought to preside over its moral universe.
It is like Israeli colonial officers who invade and colonise Palestine, murder Palestinians, and then retire to make films about how their military services had psychologically traumatised them, send those films to European film festivals and get top prizes for them!
Crimes against Humanity
What this liberal defence of immoral hatemongering tops and completes is the systemic mendacity of European colonialism, and now American imperialism, having their cake and eating it, too.
First come their settler colonialists - their warlord imperialists, their slave traders and their rapists and thieves, riding on their warships, fighter jets, and oil tankers - and then come their priests to convert us to their Christianity and teach us how to turn the other cheek, and then come their historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and political scientists studying us and telling us how we deserved to be colonised, and then come their "public intellectuals" admonishing their elected leaders for doing so and feeling so good about their "radicalism", and then come their bleeding-heart liberals, their sagacious, open-minded preachers of tolerance for different opinions who tell us how they are willing to pay with their lives defending the right of the "free speech" of those defending the cause of those murderous creatures who came and slaughtered your parents, raped your mothers and sisters, and burned your children alive, and then ran away with your natural resources.
This is a setup, made to make you look like a barbarian if you as much as uttered a word in protest. It is the systemic totality and the closed-circuited mendacity of the diabolic truth of colonialism that begins with the brutish settler colonialists and their fighter jets and concludes with kind and considered, open-minded and tolerant, priestly caste of liberal and polite professors.
No! Absolutely not! Certain historical calamities are no longer subjects for "scholarly" debate and differences of opinion. The genocide of Native Americans by European settler colonialists, the savage history of African slavery by the selfsame European settlers and their descendants, the criminal enormity of dropping the atom bomb on innocent Japanese, the Jewish Holocaust, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the settler colonialist Zionists ... and the monumentally murderous history of European colonialism around the globe. These are no longer up for scholastic debates. These are the monuments of moral shame.
Any Johnny-come-lately career opportunist charlatan who wishes to cash in on the rising Trumpian obscenity must be treated with utter disgust, with unsurpassed revulsion. He must be ostracised, publicly shamed and humiliated, and never ever called "a colleague" who should be politely invited for a "civilised debate". Against that "civilised" gathering of morally compromised scholars, I will proudly form a band of barbarian dissidents.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/moral-paralysis-american-academia-170928091638481.html
-----
It's Official: Defending Torture Victims Is Terrorism
By Moazzam Begg
29 September 2017
How does a man walk free and smile after leaving court with a conviction for a crime under the Terrorism Act (2000) only to be greeted by a cheering crowd bearing flowers, chocolates and hugs?
In November last year, CAGE's International Director, Muhammad Rabbani, was stopped and detained by police at London Heathrow airport under controversial Schedule 7 powers which allow officers to detain, question and search travellers at ports of entry in the UK without any reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
My colleague had just returned from a trip to the Gulf where he'd taken sensitive testimony from a client who'd made very serious torture allegations against the US. This information was stored on Rabbani's digital devices with a view to pursuing legal action on the client's behalf. When asked by the police to divulge the passcodes to these devices Rabbani refused. Subsequently, he was arrested and, several months later, charged with "wilfully obstructing or seeking to frustrate a search examination". Rabbani called the experience a "digital strip search".
Over half a million people have been stopped under Schedule 7 - nearly 80 percent of those from ethnic minorities. Up to 85,000 people are stopped every year. The reasoning behind the law is purportedly to prevent terrorists entering the UK, but numbers show that the net is enormous while the catch minuscule. Last year, only 0.02 percent of those stopped were arrested, let alone charged or convicted of terrorist offences.
At CAGE, we have been campaigning against the intrusive and invasive nature of Schedule 7 for years; many of our staff and volunteers are customarily detained under this law. When Rabbani took the decision of refusing to cower in front of this abuse of power he knew that he'd have to pay a price - even if it meant prison. We knew we had another fight on our hands.
The last time I attended Westminster Magistrates Court was in March 2013, when I was brought in a convoy of police cars with flashing lights and blaring sirens and taken, handcuffed, to hear charges of terrorism levelled against me. As I sat in the dock, I looked to my right and saw several people seated in the public gallery who'd come to show their support and smiled. One of them was Muhammad Rabbani. In that moment, neither of us could have imagined that we would be exchanging places soon enough.
As Rabbani sat in the dock on Monday morning listening to the charges read out against him, he briefly looked towards me seated in a packed public gallery and smiled.
In court, defence counsel, Henry Blaxland QC, explained how Rabbani had been stopped and questioned multiple times under Schedule 7. He had been generally cooperative but had, on occasion, refused to disclose his passwords - without further incident. One of those stops occurred in 2013, when he and I were travelling together to Doha, the court heard. The police had threatened me with arrest for failing to answer their questions and hand over passwords to electronic devices.
One of the terribly frustrating things I found after being questioned by police officers at airports is their lack of understanding and comprehension of the huge powers at their disposal. This couldn't have been more evident than when Blaxland cross-examined PC Tariq Choudary, the principal officer involved in Rabbani's questioning.
Perhaps he was just nervous, but Choudary's answers were incoherent, incomprehensible and embarrassing. After being repeatedly told by the magistrate to speak up, Choudary found himself refusing to answer fairly mild questions. Blaxland asked if police stops were generally based on specific information, whether Rabbani's was such a case and if he'd ever come across a case where someone had refused to submit his password? To each question, Choudary replied: "I cannot confirm or deny that." During awkward moments of silence, the magistrate had to intervene and explain that he could answer the questions, especially since the prosecution was not objecting. Many of these exchanges were followed with sharp intakes of breath and open laughter in the gallery. What dawned on most of the people in attendance was the pitiful nature of the police officers charged with protecting our borders, and yet they are granted to so much power.
Blaxland further asked Choudary if he'd informed Rabbani regarding provisions within the Code of Practice that he had the right not to disclose confidential material - given Rabbani's job and the role of CAGE as rights NGO. Choudary essentially replied by saying that he could only determine whether the information was confidential (excluded material) after he'd accessed it. In other words, the police can only inform you of your right of confidentiality once they've violated it.
Despite the troubling nature of this particular case, some would argue Schedule 7 is a necessary inconvenience in troubled times and an integral part of the fight against terrorism. There is no evidence to suggest that Schedule 7 has made the country safer in any way. In fact, we believe that latent religious and racial prejudices evident in the application of this power further alienate and negatively radicalises people.
The court heard about the intrusive nature of Schedule 7 but was not equipped to address it. Rabbani was convicted under terrorism laws for simply failing to provide his passwords. He will, of course, appeal the decision but, the greatest loser in this first round has been Schedule 7 and its invisible supporters. Britain in 2017 calls people who don't give their passwords to the police, "terrorists". For the rest of us, the ramifications for our right to privacy and guarding confidential information will now be put to the test. For Muhammad Rabbani, his was a brave act of civil disobedience, long overdue. He fought to expose the unjust nature of this law and passed with flying colours.
That's how a man convicted of terrorism walks free from court. Like a hero, with a smile on his face.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/official-defending-torture-victims-terrorism-170928111316886.html
-----
Women Driving License a Victory for Saudi Society
By Mamdouh AlMuhaini
28 September 2017
Journalists deal with constant flow of news as unemotionally as they can in order to accurately deliver reports, write exciting stories or gain exclusive interviews.
This is what colleagues at Al-Arabiya.net do while providing extensive and distinguished coverage of events developing continuously. It could be hurricanes, nuclear tests, conflicts, terrorist operations, separatist demands and others.
However, Saudi King Salman’s historic decision to allow women to drive does not resemble any other. It differs a lot from other breaking news we cover. It is a huge and exceptional decision that represents victory for Saudi women following decades of deprivation. This decision altered the conditions of our profession a bit and allowed joy and happiness to be conveyed and shared.
Saudi women have suffered as a result of this ban for a long time and faced strangest situations as a result. They could not practice normal routine – amounting to the freedom of movement – and had to find a man to drive them to the market or hospital. They would buy a car with their own money but then give it to a driver although they were themselves more skilled.
In recent years, there have been horrible incidents of female teachers who became victims of accidents caused by reckless drivers. This happened because they couldn’t sit behind the steering wheel and go to their schools safe and sound.
The issue of women driving – which is normal and does not require a lot of analysis – became a controversial matter due to a bunch of extremists. They tried to do this despite the consensus that the issue has nothing to do with religion and are related to Saudi women’s progress, beginning with education.
The government intervened during the era of King Saud to ensure girls’ right to education and the day finally arrived when King Salman lifted the driving ban. The decision marked a victory for women and thus put this phase behind us. We can now devote ourselves to what is more important.
Impact on Society
The ban did not only affect women but also men and the entire society. It is psychologically and morally harmful that a woman exits the same ministry or mall as you and you go to your air-conditioned car while she has to stand in the burning sun to find a cab.
The objections of those who are against women driving conveyed a false and distorted image of Saudi women and depicted them as incompetent and unequal to men as if they do not deserve a simple right. They were seen either as pampered “queens” as some tried to market the ban as praise when in fact it is derogatory. What sort of strange and bleak queens are these when they cannot sit in the chair of a leader?
The ban also conveyed a wrong image of the Saudi society considering it is against something that the entire world agrees on. This is not the case though as most of the Saudi society accepts the idea and many Saudi women in towns have driven their cars in deserts and rural areas for decades without raising anyone’s anger or objections.
However even when you express and explain this truth to a foreigner, he will remain sceptical, as if all Saudis hide a regressive streak in their character no matter how civilized they are.
When I was studying outside Saudi Arabia, Europeans and Americans would ask me whether I supported women’s driving. I used to tell them the question itself is an insult, even if unintentional, and I would walk away. However, I do not blame them. People build an image about a society based on the phenomena occurring in it.
Excuse to Target
One of the ban’s major disadvantages was that it distorted Saudi Arabia’s image in countries around the world and the kingdom’s rivals and enemies used it as an excuse to target it on every occasion. Any report or interview about Saudi Arabia included background information about this ban.
It is so painful to see Iranian or Brotherhood mouthpieces, affiliated with Doha, exploiting this issue and distorting your country’s image on international television channels and during global conferences. One of the most important benefits of this decision is that it has disarmed Saudi Arabia’s enemies after they used this ban against it for years.
The decision was met with positive and celebratory reactions from across the world as world leaders and celebrities congratulated the Saudi society.
The historic decision also brings major economic benefits. The most important ones are saving the cost of bringing drivers whose number exceeds 800,000. This is in addition to other advantages which are still not clear and which we may not many know about.
As I write this down, a wonderful story, narrated by a friend once, came to my mind. He told me that a group of women would go out every Friday and drive their cars crossing several kilometers until they reach the borders of a small province. They would sell butter, soured yogurt and other products they had after Friday prayers.
When they would finish, they would go to a supermarket and buy some grocery and candy for their children. Then they would head home racing against time to reach before the sun sets. I dedicate this great decision to these good women who can now drive their cars in safe paved roads instead of driving through long and rugged deserts.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/09/28/September-26-A-historic-day-and-a-great-decision.html
-----
The UAE and Egypt Share Unbreakable Bonds
By Khalaf Ahmad Al-Habtoor
29 September 2017
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s recent two-day visit to Abu Dhabi for talks with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan was a testament to the brotherly relations between our two countries and peoples. Our leaders are unfailingly hospitable to guests, but the mutual warmth and respect exuded by El-Sisi and Prince Mohammed was unmistakable.
El-Sisi has characterized the relationship as “special,” and indeed it is. He was visibly touched by the emotionally charged assurances of UAE military official Mohammed bin Salem Kurdous Al-Ameri, who attended the meeting.
“We are with you and we will sacrifice for Egypt. We are implementing the will of the late Emirati leader Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan, and His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, to defend Egypt and sacrifice for it,” Al-Ameri said. El-Sisi, who has repeatedly said threats to the security of Arab Gulf states is “a red line” for him, replied: “We will sacrifice for you too.”
Besides the close ties established under the late Sheikh Zayed, since the destructive Muslim Brotherhood regime was ousted from Cairo in 2013, Egypt and the UAE have formed an ironclad economic, diplomatic and strategic partnership based on shared regional interests and security concerns.
Prominent on the allies’ to-do list are combating terrorism and the malevolent influence of extremist ideologies. Deterring Iran and its new friend Qatar from destabilizing the Arab world, and facilitating political unification in Libya — where division and lawlessness are an invitation to terrorists fleeing Syria and Iraq — are high on their agenda.
When the chips were down, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait provided substantial financial support to keep the fragile Egyptian economy afloat while the US, UK and EU turned their backs.
Cairo placed its trust in Emirati economic advisers, and Egypt has benefited from hundreds of projects in the fields of transport, infrastructure, education and health, completed under a UAE development assistance program pledged in 2014.
Today, the UAE’s investments in Egypt exceed $6 billion. A new investment law allowing foreign investors to repatriate profits, convert Egyptian pounds into foreign currencies and benefit from tax-free incentives will encourage even greater direct investment.
Thankfully, Egypt’s economy is no longer in intensive care, its once depleted foreign reserves have risen to a healthy $36 billion, and tourism revenues increased 170 percent in the first seven months of 2017 compared with the same period last year.
Following years of sporadic electricity blackouts, Egypt’s energy requirements will be secured for many years when its supergiant offshore gas field begins production at the end of 2017.
El-Sisi’s economic reforms — the pound’s flotation, decreased subsidies and the imposition of value-added tax (VAT) — are paying off, and have been praised by International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank officials. Inflation is taking a heavy toll on some sectors of society, but there is no gain without pain.
I urge the Egyptian people to exercise patience. El-Sisi is making provisions for the needs of coming generations, amid an expanding population set to reach 128 million by 2030.
Egypt’s new administrative capital has been criticized in some quarters as being a grandiose waste of money. The critics are wrong. Cairo’s infrastructure is struggling to cope with overcrowding, and parts of the city are brought to a standstill by endless traffic jams. The population needs to be dispersed to ensure a better quality of life for all.
Certain Western powers are not happy that El-Sisi is also shoring up Egypt’s defenses with weapons purchased from diverse countries. A cabal of US lawmakers who pushed for America’s latest suspension of military aid to Egypt allege that he is squandering his treasury’s finances.
Cairo recently purchased four German-made submarines, 50 Russian MIG-29 fighter jets, 24 French-manufactured Rafale combat aircraft and a naval frigate. Naturally, Egypt cannot rely on the US for hardware when the Obama administration froze delivery of paid-for F16s and Apache helicopters.
Should El-Sisi be blamed for strengthening Egypt’s military capabilities when Daesh and affiliated groups are operating out of the Sinai Peninsula and infiltrating the country across its northwest border? Should he be blamed when he has witnessed the tragic fate of Iraq, Syria and Libya, not to mention the fact that Cairo is a guarantor of the territorial integrity of its Gulf allies?
In July, El-Sisi inaugurated the largest military base in the Middle East and Africa, accompanied by Prince Mohammed, Bahrain’s Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, Makkah Gov. Prince Khalid Al-Faisal and Kuwait’s Defense Minister Mohammed Al-Khalid Al-Hamad Al-Sabah.
I commend El-Sisi for his telescopic view in light the region’s multiple challenges, and it is my greatest hope that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain will forge an impenetrable bloc on all fronts — a single powerful body. Such an entity would have to be constructed with the bricks of trust, and cemented by complete transparency and loyalty. The foundations exist. All that is needed is a leap of faith.
I still remember fondly Egypt’s glory days, when Alexandria rivalled the French Riviera and Cairo was where luxury carmakers and fashion houses launched their new models. That Egypt has disappeared, but if El-Sisi has his way, this country that has stolen a piece of my heart will once again dazzle the world with its brilliance.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1169331
-----
King Salman Meets Russian Realism
By Dr. Manuel Almeida
29 September 2017
Five decades of broken diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union (1938-1992) offer some perspective into the significance of King Salman’s expected visit to Moscow next week, the first ever by a Saudi monarch.
In 1926, after Moscow recognized King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud’s conquest of the Hijaz, formal diplomatic ties were established, but they did not advance much. The goal of exporting the communist, atheist model worldwide, often via local proxies, inevitably made the Soviet Union an enemy of Saudi Arabia, which naturally drifted toward the pro-US camp during the Cold War.
Among other conflicts, Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union found themselves on opposing sides of North Yemen’s civil war between royalists and republicans in the 1960s, and later during the decade-long Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
Soviet support for Arab nationalist regimes in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, as well as a Marxist insurgency in Oman, and the rise of a Marxist state in South Yemen, made the communist threat look very real from Riyadh.
Only the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the obvious failure of various Marxist projects in the Middle East, defused the natural incompatibilities between the two states. But considerable disagreements remained around such issues as oil production policy, the conflict in Chechnya and Russia’s support for Iran’s nuclear program.
Under Russian President Vladimir Putin and the late King Abdullah, bilateral relations gradually reached steadier ground, partially due to Putin’s pragmatic foreign policy approach. Over the last three years, unprecedented progress was made toward what both sides have seen as untapped economic potential to be explored.
In June 2015, then-Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman visited Putin in St. Petersburg, accompanied by a high-profile delegation including various ministers. Numerous deals were signed across different sectors, including investment, support for developing Saudi Arabia’s nuclear energy plans, and partnerships in oil and gas.
The years 2015 and 2016 saw much debate about a Saudi-Russian oil battle over market share in Europe, then compared to what had happened over the Asian market a few years earlier.
Against this background, an agreement between Prince Mohammed and Putin on the sidelines of a G-20 meeting in China in September 2016 is rumored to have paved the way for the deal between Russia and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) over production cuts later that year.
Prince Mohammed, the chief architect of Vision 2030 — a wide-ranging reform program representing an opportunity for Russian economic interests and investments — visited Russia again earlier this year. During that visit, Putin said Russian-Saudi economic exchanges had registered a 130-percent increase since the beginning of the year.
Despite Russia’s ruthless military backing for the genocidal Assad regime, and Saudi support to the Syrian opposition, there are signs that both sides have learned to live with their disagreements on this critical issue. With the advancement of the Russian-led plan for “de-escalation zones,” and the Saudi stance that the Syrian opposition ought to unite and negotiate, some kind of compromise seems within reach.
As Prince Mohammed said while in Moscow in May: “As for the points on which we have differences, a clear mechanism exists to overcome them and we are progressing at a quick pace in this respect.”
The expected meeting between King Salman and Putin should not be interpreted as a Saudi rebuff of its alliance with the US, and it ought to put to rest the idea that Russia is a privileged partner of the so-called “axis of resistance.”
Instead, it attests to a pragmatic Saudi recognition of the significant role Russia has carved out for itself in the region over the past few years, from Libya to Syria and Iran to Yemen. From Moscow’s perspective, with close ties to all other regional powerhouses, a deeper working relationship with Riyadh on key areas such as trade, energy and security is long overdue.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1169326
-----
URL:https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/arabs-their-own-worst-enemy/d/112697