Middle East Press on: Annexation, Iran, Abraham Accord, Trump and Lebanon: New Age Islam's Selection, 13 November 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
13 November 2024
Annexation Vs. Security: Israel’s Strategic Choice In A Tense Moment
Will Iran Respond To Israel's Attack? The Answer May Surprise You
The Abraham Accords 2.0 Is The Only Path Forward For A Peaceful Middle East
Why Trump’s Victory Is A Victory Over Antisemitism
How Trump Might Deal With The Gaza And Lebanon Wars
Why Dutch Support For Israel's Football Hooligans Has Roots In Colonial Racism
Turkic World Rising Toward Unified Future
Compiled by New Age Islam Edit Desk
Annexation Vs. Security: Israel’s Strategic Choice In A Tense Moment
By JPost Editorial
November 13, 2024
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s recent call for West Bank annexation has put Israel at a decisive crossroads, one that invites scrutiny for the timing of his statements.
Smotrich envisions a bold step toward Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, eyeing the incoming Trump administration as a potential ally. But amid rising regional threats – from Iran’s relentless drive for influence to the ongoing conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas – Israel faces far more urgent priorities that demand focus.
Smotrich said on Monday that he hoped Israel would extend sovereignty into the West Bank in 2025 and that he would push the government to engage the incoming administration to gain Washington’s support. Israel’s new foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, separately said that while no decision was made, the issue could come up in talks with the future US administration in Washington.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long used annexation as a political lever, and Smotrich’s remarks may very well serve as a trial balloon to gauge Washington’s stance under President-elect Donald Trump. But Israel’s national security interests would be far better served by focusing on de-escalating regional conflicts and working closely with the US on countering Iran.
The man reportedly tapped by Trump to be his secretary of state, Senator Marco Rubio, is known for his assertive stance on Iran and aligns with Israel’s position on containing Iranian influence. With Rubio as a diplomatic ally, Israel could rally significant support from the US to counteract Iranian ambitions rather than risking a new front by pursuing annexation.
West Bank annexation fraught with risks
Israel’s push for sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is not a new idea; Smotrich’s faction has long advocated for annexation, claiming historical and security justifications. However, extending sovereignty over the West Bank – a region Palestinians envision as part of a future state – is fraught with risks, especially in the context of international law and global perception.
Most world powers view the West Bank settlements as illegal, and a unilateral move to apply sovereignty could lead to severe diplomatic isolation for Israel.
It could also threaten to isolate Israel from its Arab allies – including signatories of the previous Trump administration’s Abraham Accords – and Saudi Arabia, whose consideration of warmer ties with Israel appears to be doubtful after recent contact between the Saudis and Iranians and comments by Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
Beyond the diplomatic consequences, annexation could lead to increased violence and unrest in the West Bank, triggering a potentially incomprehensible Third Intifada that Israel is ill-prepared to handle while already facing threats on multiple fronts.
The current wars with Hamas in Gaza and the persistent shadow of Hezbollah in Lebanon are complex enough without adding a new battleground. Until those wars are won, there should never be any thought of further adding fuel to the proverbial fire.
Israel’s immediate focus should be on securing itself against the existential threat posed against it by Iran. An annexation move could further embolden Iran to destabilize the region by arming its proxies, potentially drawing more factions into open conflict with Israel. This is a risk Israel cannot afford, especially when there is an opportunity to strengthen the anti-Iran alliance with the US under Trump.
Rubio, a staunch advocate for a robust US foreign policy against Iran, has the potential to bring the support Israel needs to counteract Tehran. With his experience in foreign policy and his views on confronting adversaries like Iran, Rubio’s appointment could be a pivotal opportunity to deepen US-Israel security cooperation.
Rather than antagonizing international support with a divisive annexation move, Israel would do well to channel this support toward a consolidated anti-Iranian front.
Netanyahu’s government must consider whether the pursuit of sovereignty in the West Bank aligns with Israel’s core national interests or serves more as a tool to appease certain factions within his coalition. With Iran’s influence seeping into Israel’s borders through its proxies, every resource, every diplomatic relationship, and every strategic decision must be oriented toward neutralizing these threats.
By holding off on annexation, Israel could avoid stirring up unnecessary tensions, focusing instead on securing strong partnerships with the US and regional allies. This is a time to consolidate allies, not to alienate them by reigniting controversies that could spiral into new conflicts.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828828
----
Will Iran Respond To Israel's Attack? The Answer May Surprise You
By Salem Alketbi
November 13, 2024
The most pressing question following Israel’s recent attack on Iran is: Will Iran respond, and if so, how?
The likely answer is that Iran will not respond, for several objective reasons. Primary among these is evidence suggesting extensive prior arrangements were made before the Israeli attack, with Iran being informed of the attack and its intended targets, according to informed American sources speaking to Axios.
These arrangements contradicted Israeli intentions, as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant had sought a “lethal, precise, and surprising” attack. The American role in these arrangements is evident, making them part of an implicit agreement under which Iran refrains from retaliation.
The critical factor in maintaining these arrangements lies in Israel’s adherence to the pre-communicated target list. The Iranian losses appear to have been limited to military facilities, which spares the Iranian regime any embarrassment should it choose not to respond.
This situation allows both sides to claim the achievement of their objectives and declare psychological victory.
This is further evidenced by the notable media blackout from both parties, with information being released so selectively that the nature of the strikes remains unclear – whether they were conducted by aircraft or missiles, and whether they were launched from within or outside Iranian airspace.
This attack has effectively restored the balance of power and rules of engagement that have historically governed their conflict. While this strategic position may not align with current Israeli government objectives – indeed, it represents a missed opportunity to confront Iran at its weakest regional and international position – Netanyahu’s government appears to have settled for constraining Iran’s regional proxies by eliminating terror leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas. In doing so, Israel has maintained its strong alliance with the United States, which had strongly opposed igniting any regional war on the eve of US presidential elections.
Israel is now expected to pivot toward cyber warfare or hybrid warfare as more effective and less costly strategies to counter Iranian threats.
Israelis on a perpetual state of alertness
Despite Israel’s qualitative superiority in missile and air capabilities, Netanyahu’s government recognizes the domestic sensitivity and the challenge of keeping Israelis in a perpetual state of alertness due to ongoing Iranian threats.
Additional factors suggest Iran will not respond. Tehran recognizes that the limited Israeli attack may be attempting to provoke a response that would justify expanding the conflict. The Iranian regime’s strategy in such situations is to avoid entrapment, particularly since the Israeli attack was proportional to Iran’s previous actions and caused no major damage to Iranian military facilities.
Furthermore, Iran’s fundamental strategy relies on proxy warfare rather than direct confrontation, meaning it retains the option to respond through its proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. The Iranian regime prioritizes preserving its network of regional proxies, focusing on de-escalation and avoiding their total loss, rather than matching Israel’s pattern of strikes and counterstrikes.
A crucial domestic consideration is Iranian public opinion. The Israeli attack was imperceptible to the Iranian people and caused no visible losses. Consequently, the hardline regime’s stature remains intact, preserved by the limited nature of what was effectively Israel’s first acknowledged direct attack on Iran.
Testing Iranian air defense capabilities
The attack primarily tested Iranian air defense capabilities without directly engaging them, allowing the Iranian regime to claim success in deterring a larger Israeli assault. Conversely, Israel can claim success in penetrating Iranian territory with aircraft, missiles, and drones despite Gulf Cooperation Council states’ refusal to allow use of their airspace. Israel can also argue that the attack has broken a long-standing psychological barrier between the two countries, making future operations more feasible.
In conclusion, the attack has maintained the strategic equilibrium between Iran and Israel, allowing both sides to respite and claim victory. This makes an Iranian response highly unlikely, if not impossible.
However, psychological warfare, propaganda statements, and mutual threats will likely continue, as such verbal confrontation falls within acceptable parameters of their relationship. Despite preemptive statements from Iranian officials – including Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baqai’s assertion that “Any aggression by the Israeli regime against Iran will be met with full force,” and The New York Times’ report that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered military planning for potential responses – these fall within Iran’s acceptable retreat parameters.
The limited scope of the Israeli attack, which targeted only a few military bases and weapons storage facilities without causing widespread damage or casualties, does not necessitate an Iranian response. Indeed, such a response would likely give Israel the opportunity it originally sought to destroy strategic targets – an action the United States had previously prevented.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828829
-----
The Abraham Accords 2.0 Is The Only Path Forward For A Peaceful Middle East
By Karen Amouyal
November 13, 2024
Four years ago, I stood watching the signing of the Abraham Accords with cautious optimism. Could peace truly take root in the Middle East? I wanted to believe in the vision presented – a chance for longstanding adversaries to build bridges, not just for symbolic gestures, but for genuine security, stability, and prosperity. Now, as I look at the current landscape, I’m convinced that the success of the Abraham Accords is only the beginning.
We need an Abraham Accords 2.0, and the urgency has never been more palpable. Today, Iran’s influence in the region has intensified to a point that demands a decisive response. It has spread its power through Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, arming militias, proxies, and terrorist groups, destabilizing countries across the Middle East. This isn’t just about rivalries or regional tensions; It’s about survival and security for the countries living in the shadow of Iran’s ambitions. And that’s why I believe the Accords must expand, bringing together more nations in a unified coalition against the threat of Iranian hegemony.
Despite the ongoing war in Gaza, the Abraham Accords have held strong. No signatory has wavered; not a single embassy has closed its doors. The UAE, for example, has publicly stated that it has no intention of cutting ties with Israel; instead, it has used its position in the region to facilitate humanitarian aid to Gazans, proving that cooperation doesn’t weaken in the face of challenges.
This is a powerful signal: these relationships are resilient, built on mutual interests that transcend immediate crises. They are precisely the kind of alliances that can provide a strong front against Iranian aggression.
We have an opportunity now, with the anticipated return of Donald Trump to office. It was his administration that helped broker these historic agreements, and I believe he has the insight and commitment to push them further.
With Iran growing bolder, expanding the Abraham Accords into a 2.0 phase – one rooted in strategic security partnerships and defense cooperation – could be a game-changer for the entire region.
Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Oman, both with vested interests in countering Iran, should be brought into the fold. With their inclusion, we wouldn’t just have a patchwork of treaties; we’d have a coalition with the power to deter and defend.
The missing piece: Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is, in many ways, the missing piece. The economic and security benefits of normalizing ties with Israel are clear, but perhaps even more compelling is the shared interest in standing against Iran’s power grab. With the US on board, an Israel-Saudi agreement could lay the foundation for a robust Arab-Israeli alliance – a coalition that sends a clear message to Tehran that its ambitions will meet a united resistance.
The reality is that peace and stability in the Middle East will require more than agreements on paper; they need to be backed by meaningful, practical cooperation. We’ve already seen what’s possible when countries work together in a real, coordinated defense: Back in April, Israel, Jordan, and the UAE are reported to have cooperated to intercept Iranian missiles targeting Israel. This is the kind of tangible security alliance the Abraham Accords 2.0 could foster. It would make clear that Iran is not dealing with isolated players but with a collective force.
We’ve also witnessed the power of economic partnerships, with trade between Israel and the UAE alone reaching nearly $3 billion since the signing of the Accords. This isn’t just about commerce; it’s about creating interdependence, establishing mutual interests that go beyond politics. These growing ties – trade, tourism, innovation – are the pillars of what I call “warm peace.” They make peace durable, resilient in the face of regional tensions.
Renewed Abraham Accords would be more than an alliance
An expanded Abraham Accords would not just be an alliance; it would be a new balance of power in the Middle East, one that counters Iran’s influence with strength and cooperation. For Arab and Muslim states, aligning with Israel isn’t just a political choice, it’s a strategic necessity. Iran’s shadow has loomed large for too long, and the stakes are simply too high to remain on the sidelines.
With Trump poised to resume his role as a champion of these accords, we have a window of opportunity to take this bold step. It’s not just about defending our interests; it’s about building a future in which Iran’s shadow no longer dictates our region’s fate.
The Abraham Accords 2.0 isn’t just an option – it’s the path forward for a Middle East defined not by division but by a united front that can ensure peace, security, and strength for generations to come.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828826
----
Why Trump’s Victory Is A Victory Over Antisemitism
By Hananya Naftali
November 12, 2024
Trump Fights Antisemitism with Actions, Not Just Words
President-elect has made his stance about the Jewish people crystal clear by acting and not just verbally supporting the State of Israel. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem wasn’t a mere gesture; it was a historic promise finally fulfilled after decades of empty commitments by previous administrations. In doing so, Trump declared to the world that America unapologetically stands by Israel and supports that the Jewish people have the right to claim Jerusalem as their capital, no matter who opposes it.
Trump's administration also recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights and made it clear that America would no longer turn a blind eye to Palestinian-funded terrorism. His Abraham Accords—a series of unprecedented peace agreements between Israel and several Arab countries—showed that peace in the Middle East can happen without appeasing those who threaten the Jewish nation’s existence. These actions were not just pro-Israel; they were anti-antisemitic and proved that America’s support for Israel is non-negotiable.
I keep mentioning Israel because for Jewish people worldwide, Israel isn’t just a country; it’s a symbol of survival, safety, and identity after centuries of persecution and statelessness. When Israel is unfairly singled out or its legitimacy is questioned, it often crosses into antisemitism by denying the Jewish people the same right to self-determination and security that other nations take for granted. So, in any fight against antisemitism, defending Israel’s right to exist as the Jewish homeland is essential.
Antisemitism isn’t just thriving in dark corners of the internet; it’s out in the open, often disguised as “anti-Zionism.” But far-left activists march in American cities waving flags that aren’t just anti-Israel—they’re anti-America. At recent pro-Hamas protests, radicals burn the American flag with the flag of Israel because they openly support the destruction of Israel, oppose the right of the Jewish people to exist, and hate any entity that supports Israel and the Jewish people.
In this world where being “politically correct” often means letting hatred slide, Trump stands firm against the toxic ideology that threatens Israel and the US, which has proliferated thanks to the far-left in America. The far-left claims to support “human rights”, but backs groups that chant for the end of Israel and America, and support regimes that stone women, imprison journalists, and silence dissenters.
If these pro-Hamas protesters despise the principles America stands for so much, Trump should help them leave. Why should America, a country built on freedom and respect, tolerate people who don’t respect the flag? It’s time to draw a line: America must protect its values, and that includes standing against those who openly support terrorism.
What Trump’s Victory Means for Israel
A second Trump term means a stronger US that Israel can continue to count on. Trump doesn’t cower to the United Nations, nor does he concede to hostile regimes openly calling for Israel’s destruction. Trump's foreign policy ensures that Israel’s enemies know that any attack will not go unanswered.
Trump’s victory also means a renewed battle against the forces trying to tear down America and Israel, including the far-left defenders of Hamas and other terrorist organizations who spread anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitism. The “Squad” and their followers can barely condemn terrorism without making excuses for the people aiming to destroy Israel.
But Trump doesn’t cater to these extremists. He has been one of the few voices bold enough to call them what they are: anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and anti-American. He understands that antisemitism isn’t just a “Jewish issue”; it’s a threat to any democratic society. In a world where antisemitism hides behind anti-Israel rhetoric, Trump’s support for Israel is the most effective antidote.
A Victory for Common Sense and Freedom
Like every leader, Trump has his flaws. His leadership style may not be for everyone, but his commitment to protecting the Jewish state and standing up to antisemitism is undeniable. For Jews around the world, Trump’s return to the Oval Office sends a message to the world that antisemitism has no place in America or anywhere else. America will fight to protect its Jews and ensure that they don’t have to hide their identity or fear for their lives.
So yes, a Trump victory is a victory over antisemitism too. It may take a while, but just like in every battle we have faced - we will emerge victorious.
Hananya Naftali is a leading Israeli Jewish influencer and human rights activist in the fight against antisemitism, antizionism and the BDS Movement.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828810
--------
How Trump Might Deal With The Gaza And Lebanon Wars
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
November 12, 2024
When Donald Trump won his first presidency, it came as a surprise. We knew very little about him — his personality, ideas or leadership style. In a closed seminar, one of his close associates said: “His strength is also his flaw; he has a strong personality, so beware of angering him — he might just throw you under the bus.” It turned out he was not wrong.
This new version of Trump appears to be different from the first. He seems less aggressive, more willing to listen, and he seems to have a broader understanding of political issues.
We are cautiously optimistic, given his immense popularity at home. This domestic support gives him a strong foundation for both internal and external influence. He won every battle of his campaign and his opponents have laid down their arms, recognizing his victory. We know his abilities from his previous presidency — he has the courage and energy to bring significant change. Like any president entering a second term, he will aim to make his mark in the history books.
It may be overly hopeful to see Trump as the man who will end wars and conflicts, or even say he can “save the planet.” However, he has promised to work toward these goals.
Currently, there is the Ukraine war, conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, the question of a Palestinian state, tensions with Iran, the Houthis’ presence at the entrance to the Red Sea, the end of the US’ military presence in Iraq and Syria, North Korea’s threats to US allies and, perhaps the most challenging issue, strained relations with China, both politically and militarily, in regions like the Philippines and Taiwan.
Trump has often spoken about his ability to leverage his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. Europe and Russia are both bogged down in this conflict; after nearly two years, Russia has not been able to take over Ukraine, nor have the Ukrainians succeeded in driving out Russian forces. A military resolution seems out of reach.
However, finding a solution in Ukraine might be easier than addressing the complex and overlapping conflicts in the Middle East. Can Trump navigate this regional landscape, where previous presidents like Joe Biden, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan saw their efforts falter?
Reports suggest that Trump has already begun unofficial and unpublicized efforts to mediate an end to the hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon. This implies that the combatants may continue fighting until after Jan. 20, when Trump officially enters the White House and might announce the first peace deal.
Until then, over the next two months, Trump will leave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to continue military operations to weaken Hamas and Hezbollah. Once in office, Trump could press all three sides to negotiate, with each making concessions: Hamas could release hostages, Israel might accept Palestinian Authority leadership in Gaza and the Lebanese army would take control of the south, disarming Hezbollah.
Trump supports Israel’s demand to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its military capability. This would make for a limited agreement, but the negotiators representing Hezbollah would have little choice. Without an agreement, Israel might expand operations in southern Lebanon, escalating its military actions, and Lebanon might eventually have to accept the terms it currently rejects.
If an agreement is reached, it would be a positive step, as it would bring an end to the longest-running conflict with Israel in the region’s history.
If Trump can oversee such a trilateral agreement in January, as expected, it would set the stage for the bigger challenge: seeking a potential deal with Iran.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2579016
----
Why Dutch Support For Israel's Football Hooligans Has Roots In Colonial Racism
12 November 2024
Late last week, the western world was aghast at the alleged "antisemitic attacks" in Amsterdam targeting Israeli football fans, injuring 10 of them.
King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands swiftly condemned the attacks, which he claimed were reminiscent of "dark and grim times for the Jewish people", and vowed not to "turn a blind eye to antisemitism" amid mass arrests.
The king does not seem to consider it antisemitic, however, to equate Israeli football hooligans with the entire Jewish people, or at least with all Dutch Jews, let alone to compare clashes between football fans and anti-genocide demonstrators to the Holocaust.
During a phone call with Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Friday morning, the king further affirmed: "We failed the Jewish community of the Netherlands during World War Two, and last night we failed again."
It is unclear whether the king was referring to the antisemitic Dutch riots that targeted Amsterdam Jews after the Nazi occupation, especially in February 1941, or the Dutch police's collaboration with the Nazis in rounding up and deporting Dutch Jews.
Post-war Dutch authorities and public culture often neglect to mention the extent of Dutch collaboration with the Nazis while their country was under occupation.
Collaborating with the Nazis, as in the case of at least 300,000 Dutch citizens, including a private network of "Jew hunters", is, of course, quite different from the king's reference to the Dutch simply "failing" to protect the Jewish community.
Even the cognitively diminished US President Joe Biden, who lacks any originality, issued a statement parroting the words of the king that the attacks "echo dark moments in history".
French President Emmanuel Macron also "firmly condemned" the "violence against Israeli citizens in Amsterdam", stating that it recalled "the most shameful hours in history". He later announced his plan to attend a Uefa Nations League event in Paris to "send a message of fraternity and solidarity after the intolerable antisemitic acts".
'Pogroms'
Western leaders have gone apoplectic about the "pogrom", with many mimicking the Israeli mainstream's description of the 7 November events.
The Jerusalem Post, a right-wing Israeli newspaper, referred to the brawl as the "Amsterdam pogrom" and compared it to Kristallnacht, while the left-wing Israeli journalist Gideon Levy joined the chorus, saying it was an "ugly, criminal pogrom", even if he also compared it to actual daily settler pogroms in the West Bank, which the western press ignores.
Following the chaos in Amsterdam, the Dutch police pledged that "security will be beefed up at Jewish institutions across the city, which has a large Jewish community".
One is at a loss: did the alleged attacks target the Amsterdam Jewish community, its homes, synagogues, cemeteries, and businesses, or was this a clash between Israeli football hooligans who support genocide and racism and Dutch opponents of the genocide?
According to The New York Times, prior to the clashes, Israeli fans who were in town for a football match between an Israeli and a Dutch team in which the Israelis lost were captured on video shouting racist "anti-Arab chants on their way to the match".
One of their popular chants celebrated the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians and the annihilation of tens of thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza, with the crowd repeating: "Why is there no school in Gaza? There are no children left there."
The night before the match, Israeli football fans attacked a Dutch taxi driver of Arab descent and, according to the Dutch police, "vandalised a taxi and burned a Palestinian flag" and removed Palestinian flags from the front of local residents' homes.
Israeli hooligans were also caught on video "attacking Dutch police while pelting private homes with stones and hunting victims with metal pipes" and shouting expletives at local Dutch people in Dam Square, including "Fuck you, Palestine".
Presumably, they targeted Dutch citizens of Arab and Muslim background.
What would drive the Dutch king and a chorus of Dutch politicians, including the mayor of Amsterdam, to condemn their own citizens as "antisemitic" when it was the pro-genocide Israeli hooligans who provoked and attacked them and clashed with them, sparking a western frenzy of support as if a veritable pogrom had targeted Amsterdam's Jewish community?
Perhaps some historical context will help.
'Most pro-Israel country'
On 3 September, amid Israel's ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the Netherlands celebrated 75 years of diplomatic relations with Israel at a grand reception in the Hague in the presence of the Israeli ambassador and current Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp.
The Netherlands, which had voted for the United Nations resolution to partition Palestine in November 1947, recognised Israel de facto only in December 1949 when it established relations with it and de jure in January 1950 - a year and seven months after the establishment of the European Jewish settler colony.
This delay in recognition was not due to any aversion to white settler-colonies, of which the Dutch had been pioneers in the Americas, South Africa, and Southeast Asia for three and a half centuries. (Indeed, the Dutch built the first apartheid wall to keep Native Americans out in what is today downtown Manhattan, whose erstwhile location is honoured by "Wall Street", which is named after it.)
Rather, it was on account of UN-imposed negotiations at the time to dismantle the Dutch settler-colony in Indonesia, which the Dutch did not want to jeopardise by offending the Indonesians (presumably since they were Muslim in their majority and were themselves victims of European settler colonialism for four centuries), of whom they had killed 100,000 since 1945 alone - 40,000 of them executed outright.
The Dutch committed these massacres immediately after the Holocaust and the liberation of their own country from the Nazis. After Indonesia gained its independence on 27 December 1949, the Dutch felt free to recognise Israel.
Unlike all other European countries that had relations with Israel and established their embassies in Tel Aviv, the Dutch established theirs in West Jerusalem, which the Israelis had illegally annexed on 5 December 1949. The UN General Assembly issued Resolution 303 four days later, condemning the annexation as a violation of international law.
The Dutch moved their embassy to Tel Aviv in 1980 based on strict instructions from the European Community soon after Israel annexed East Jerusalem. Recently, however, they have been preparing to move it back to illegally annexed Jerusalem yet again.
Since 1950, the Netherlands has been, in the words of Dutch historian Peter Malcontent, the "most pro-Israel country in Europe".
While many Dutch people collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War to deport and kill the vast majority of Dutch Jews (upward of 105,000 people), like other genocidal Europeans, the Dutch expressed their repentance for their crimes by supporting Jewish settler-colonialism in Palestine after the war.
Considered a brotherly Germanic and Aryan race, Dutch Christians were cultivated by the Nazis, who looked upon them as equals.
By the end of the war, of the countries in Western Europe the Nazis had conquered, the Netherlands reported the largest number of its Jews killed, both in terms of percentages (75 percent were killed) and in absolute numbers - more than Belgium or France.
Dutch Social-Democratic Prime Minister Willem Drees, himself a former prisoner of war held in Buchenwald, was most sympathetic to settler-colonies more generally. Not only did he strengthen his country's friendship with Israel, but he even sought a personal friendship with David Ben-Gurion.
Fanatical support
But the love the colonial Netherlands has for Israel transcends political parties.
Indeed, Joseph Luns, a former Dutch foreign minister who served from 1952 to 1971, was from the Catholic People's Party and was just as committed to Israel as Drees.
Drees and Luns explained their love of Israel as a result of the Nazi Holocaust. Their sentiments were shared by a majority of the Dutch population whose support of Israel during its conquest of the rest of Palestine and three Arab countries in the 1967 war exceeded popular support in the US and all other European countries (67 percent of the Dutch supported Israel compared to 55 percent of Americans, 59 percent of Brits, and 58 percent of the French).
During the 1973 war, not only did the Netherlands again fully back Israel by providing it with weapons to defend its illegally conquered Arab lands, but then-Dutch defence minister from the Labour Party, Henk Vredeling, went as far as invoking the Holocaust to defend his country's support: "I had seen the Jews drift away once, and then I could not prevent it. I thought that would not happen to me a second time."
While other European countries began to recognise the Palestinian people's right to self-determination in the 1970s, the Dutch adamantly refused and tried to block any such recognition, including voting against the 1974 UN General Assembly Resolution 3237, which recognised that right.
As early as 1972, the new Dutch foreign minister at the time, Norbert Schmelzer, assured his Israeli allies that he would continue to oppose European countries' intent to recognise the Palestinians' right to self-determination and would redouble his efforts "to let" such European recognition "fade away in an acceptable manner".
It was the Dutch also who insisted on watering down the European Community's 1980 Venice Declaration in support of Palestinian rights.
In addition, the Netherlands specialises in exporting racist dogs to the Israeli "Oketz" army unit to attack Palestinians. In fact, Dutch support of Israel is so fanatical that it was criticised for its excess by the equally fanatical pro-Israel countries in Europe, including Germany, France and Britain.
In 2012, then-Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy rejected a joint European statement that invoked a European Union report about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and then made sure to "torpedo" yet another EU report critical of Israeli policies.
Rosenthal insisted on referring to the occupied Palestinian territories as no more than "disputed" territories, repeating Israel's official position on them at the time.
After Yasser Arafat's capitulation at Oslo in 1993, the Dutch began to finance his Israeli-sponsored Bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza. Still, as the "peace process" crumbled, the Dutch consensus remained that Israel had every right to use whatever violence it deemed necessary to "defend" itself and that the Palestinians were the ones who must cease their "violence".
This was hardly a new position.
Such views were expressed in Dutch newspapers in the 1920s and 1930s, describing Palestinians as Oriental "farmers with a 'cruel psychology', a 'passionate soul', and capable of 'intense cruelties'", as the historian Malcontent further shows.
Endemic racism
It is not only the Dutch political class and Dutch media that adore Israel and have an aversion to the Palestinians, but so does the Dutch public at large. In 2003, the German Marshall Fund survey found that "in Europe, Dutch society not only continued to have the warmest feelings for Israel but also the coolest for the Palestinians".
Aside from Israel, the Netherlands is arguably the most anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian country in the world, at the official level, at the media level, and at the popular level.
Still, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement has scored a number of successes in the country when in the last few years the biggest Dutch Pension fund, ABP, divested from Israeli banks and when the Netherlands Trade Union FNV dropped technology firm HP as a partner in their offers to their members.
But given their country's own horrific settler-colonial history, being one of Europe's biggest African slave merchants historically, not to mention its pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian history, is it any surprise that Dutch officials would defend pro-genocide Israeli hooligans and condemn their own citizens, who clashed with them - not because they are Jewish, but because of their racist chants and violent rioting and attacks on them?
Dutch officials' racism toward their own citizens of Arab and Muslim background is in tune with their settler-colonial history in the Americas, South Africa, and Indonesia - whose white settler-colony in what is today Jakarta they once named "Batavia" - and their ongoing continued commitment to Israel and its Jewish supremacist regime.
Their defence of the pro-genocide Israeli rioters as victims and their repression of anti-genocide demonstrators as perpetrators of a pogrom is merely the latest manifestation of this endemic Dutch racism.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/dutch-support-Israels-football-hooligans-roots-colonial-racism
-----
Turkic World Rising Toward Unified Future
By Ahmet Turan
Nov 13, 2024
Looking at the history of the institutionalization of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), it is noticeable that autumn has a special place among the seasons. Indeed, the organization's first meeting, which was first named the Summit of Heads of State of Turkic-speaking Countries, was held in Ankara on Oct. 30, 1992. The late Turkish President Turgut Özal’s statement “Our cooperation is not to the detriment of anyone and will not be to the detriment of anyone in the future” was one of the important statements that shed light on the development of the organization after the first meeting.
The fact that most of the subsequent summits were held in October-November supports the judgment in the introductory sentence. As a matter of fact, the 9th summit, which was an important turning point in the history of the organization and the evolution of the Summit of Heads of State of Turkic Speaking Countries into the Turkic Council, was also held from Oct. 2-3, 2009. With this summit held in Nakhchivan, a bridge to the Turkic world in terms of geostrategic location, the organization decided to continue its journey under the name of the Turkic Council.
With a summit held in November, the organization gained its current final identity, the Organisation of Turkic States. On Nov. 12, 2021, the declaration signed at the end of this summit held in Istanbul underlined “the importance of holding consultations on regional and international issues affecting the interests of the Turkic world in order to develop a consolidated position among the member states.” In particular, the return of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, which was strongly supported by Türkiye, contributed to the consolidation of the OTS’s position on a common foreign policy agenda for the member states.
The approach of the Turkish state mind on this issue at the first meeting of the OTS was mentioned above. However, the organization’s current functional structure is undoubtedly the result of the political will of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. President Erdoğan, whose actions and discourses always display his attitude toward the Turkic republics on the axis of friendship and brotherhood, does not fail to transform this approach into the driving force of Turkish foreign policy. In this context, the OTS’s achievement of an effective organizational structure constitutes one of the cornerstones of the vision of “placing Turkish foreign policy on an institutional basis,” which is frequently referred to by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.
Steps toward unification
Dozens of developments in the past years are the projections of the vision put forward by the current political will of Türkiye for the OTS. Among these, there are activities that need to be emphasized in particular. The “Common Turkic Alphabet” announced within the framework of the 3rd Meeting of the Turkic World Common Alphabet Commission in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, on Sept. 9-11 is one of the important initiatives in this context. This development, which was described as a “historic step” by President Erdoğan, is one of the initiatives documenting that the common understanding in the Turkic world has been formalized.
Again in one of the November months, the participation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) as an observer member in the 9th OTS Summit held in Samarkand on Nov. 11, 2022, was one of the operational reflections of the will to form a common foreign policy among the OTS members.
In addition, the fact that Hungary has started to take part in the summits as an observer member since 2018 shows that the OTS includes the “heart geography of Turks” beyond its land borders.
The establishment of the Turkic Investment Fund in the following year within the framework of the principle of “equal capital contribution and equal voting rights” demonstrated the willingness of the OTS to evolve into an example of unity and solidarity in economic terms.
The intensive support of the political will of the member states for their efforts to open the “TuranSEZ” Special Economic Zone named “Turan” and the declaration of will to open the Zangezur Corridor after the resolution of the Karabakh Issue are some of the special agendas that the OTS continues to pursue.
From promoting the recognition of the TRNC and its accession to the organization to the common alphabet, the achievement of a consensus in political, economic and cultural fields represents the OTS’ determination to become an international actor today.
In the summer of this year, the Informal Summit of Heads of States of OTS took place in Shusha, in the heart of the liberated territories of Azerbaijan, which sent important messages to the international community in terms of the capacity of the organization. The Karabakh Declaration signed on the margins of this summit is the culmination of the common will of the OTS in terms of building a sustainable future.
This November's agenda
This is another month of November full of special and intense agendas for OTS. At the 11th Summit of the OTS held on Nov. 6, 2024, in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, the heads of the member states reaffirmed their will to develop and enrich cooperation in the Turkic world.
The fact that President Erdoğan, who visited Bishkek within the scope of the summit, was awarded the “Order of Manas,” the highest state medal of Kyrgyzstan, is also one of the obvious reflections of Türkiye’s prestige in the OTS.
Within the agreement reached at the summit, crucial decisions such as the Charter of the Turkic World, the Regulation on Permanent Representatives of the OTS, and the adoption of the OTS Flag, which will reinforce the institutionalization of the OTS, give an important idea about the future of the organization.
In this sense, the Organisation of Turkic States, which is taking firm steps toward becoming a global actor, also reveals the accuracy of Ankara’s vision of the "The Century of Türkiye" under the leadership of President Erdoğan. In the acquis of the OTS for more than 22 years, especially when the summits in November, which are full of positive agendas, are taken into consideration, the following fact revives in the minds of the Turkic world: “A summit in November is something else.”
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/turkic-world-rising-toward-unified-future
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/annexation-iran-abraham-accord-trump-lebanon/d/133698
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism