Pakistan Press On US-Brokered Israel-UAE Accord, Arab Spring and Afghanistan Peace Process: New Age Islam's Selection, 23 December 2020
By
New Age Islam Edit Desk
23 December
2020
• US-Brokered
Israel-UAE Accord: A Glimmer of Hope in the Violent and Complex Middle East
By
Muhammad J. Siddiqui
• Bitter
Spring - A Decade On From What Was Dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’
By Mahir
Ali
• Jane
Austen’s World Resembles Pakistan
By Rafia
Zakaria
• Pakistan
and the Afghan Peace Process
By
Mehreen Naushad
• The Long-Drawn
Violence in Afghanistan
By Syed
Akhtar Ali Shah
• The Long-Drawn
Violence in Afghanistan
By Syed
Akhtar Ali Shah
-----
US-Brokered
Israel-UAE Accord: A Glimmer Of Hope In The Violent And Complex Middle East
By
Muhammad J. Siddiqui
23 Dec 2020
MANY have
hailed the recent US-brokered Israel-UAE accord as a glimmer of hope in the
violent and complex region of the Middle East. But despite its broad appeal to
strengthen economic and cultural ties between the two countries, it fails to
address the Palestinian question, hence dampening all hopes of this document
becoming a global template for future agreements of Israel with countries
including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.
The Gulf
Cooperation Council (comprising six Middle Eastern monarchies) endorses and
stands behind this accord. Historically, GCC members have been strong
supporters of the Palestinian cause, and their sympathies with the same are
unconditional. So why has the GCC decided to change course now?
The major
blame for the GCC’s frustration with the Palestinian leadership can be
attributed to the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah and their past
allyship with key GCC rivals such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Iran and the Muslim
Brotherhood. But this agreement lays the foundation of a united alliance
against Iran and its proxies within the Middle East. With America’s blessing,
the GCC has adopted a new multipronged strategy aimed at intensifying the
pressure on Iran. First, they plan on engaging the European countries to
dismantle Hezbollah’s influence in the Middle East. This would be supported by
full and unconditional logistical support of Israel that would be ready to go
to extremes to settle its long-running feud with Iran.
Following
the Iranian threat is the anxiety of GCC members over the incoming Biden
administration in the United States. There is high anticipation that the Biden
administration would hold the GCC monarchies accountable over their track
record of violating human rights, whether it be war crimes in Yemen, freedom of
speech at home, alleged terrorist financing or the lack of religious freedom.
If this escalates, it could well see an internal regime change or perhaps a
pathway to a controlled democracy.
Similarly,
with the departure of Donald Trump, Israel will be losing one of its greatest
allies and would be in need of a strong collective bargaining agreement from
within the region to manage the new president’s administration. A formidable
GCC alliance with Israel and India would garner enough support in the US
Congress to retain the existing status quo until a major global crisis takes
place and their geopolitical stature is restored.
Apart from
these external threats, a crash in the global resource and service industry
(primarily tourism) has left every member of the GCC in a major economic
crisis. With overpriced real-estate projects that were financed by now
cash-strapped banks, coupled with state enterprises including luxury airlines
posting massive losses, GCC members desperately need help in terms of liquidity
and investment. The recent withdrawal of cash deposits from Pakistan followed
by massive lay-offs in the ranks of the construction-related labour force in
the Gulf is nothing more than a reflection of the GCC’s staggering financial
stress and over-leveraged economy. However, to attract investors in the GCC,
the volatility in the region has to decrease and GCC members will be forced to
curtail their notorious interference in the internal affairs of their
neighbours.
With these
regional developments, some analysts insist that Pakistan should accept Israel
and reap numerous benefits related primarily to its ties with the US. However,
Pakistan’s recent history, trust deficit and interactions with the US indicate
that the country’s relationship with the US will remain transactional for the
foreseeable future, and any further capital investment or technological
transfer to Pakistan would require enhanced due diligence with the
balance of power always favouring India.
Whatever
the case, while GCC members, including those that are home to the most sacred
cities for Muslims, are seeking the patronage and protection of Israel, perhaps
they should be looking closely at poverty-struck Afghanistan, where
ill-equipped, barefooted Afghans, recently handed the majestic global
superpower its first decisive defeat of the 21st century. Members of the GCC
must learn to be self-reliant when it comes to matters of defence, embrace open
societies, and abolish the centuries-old tribal form of governance that still
exists.
Pakistan
and Bangladesh should expect Israel to come bearing an olive branch, as it is
aware of the large population, women’s empowerment, exuberant youth and the
abilities of these nations. Yet hopefully, the price of Pakistan’s acceptance
of Israel will be significantly higher than that of the member states of the Gulf
Cooperation Council and would include a clear pathway to the independence of
the glorious land of Palestine.
-----
Muhammad
J. Siddiqui is an international banker based in Toronto.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1597343/different-course
------
Bitter Spring
- A Decade On From What Was Dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’
By
Mahir Ali
23 Dec 2020
EVEN in his
hometown of Sidi Bouzid, many people don’t look back kindly on Mohamed
Bouazizi, the 26-year-old Tunisian fruit vendor who set himself on fire 10
years ago this month.
It was an
act of despair rather than rebellion. He had a family of eight to feed. Being
deprived of his only means of livelihood — his fruit cart — by officious
representatives of the state was more than Bouazizi could bear. His
self-immolation sparked protests across Tunisia. Ten days after Bouazizi
succumbed to his burns on Jan 4, 2011, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia’s
president for 23 years, fled to Saudi Arabia (where he died last year). Even
more amazingly, though, events in the relatively small North African state
resonated widely across the region as pent-up political and socioeconomic
frustrations bubbled to the surface.
The
tensions exploded most spectacularly in Egypt, with spontaneous mobilisations
centred on Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Hosni Mubarak was the next head of state to
be toppled, after 30 years at the helm. Popular rebellions also erupted in
Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Even in countries with little or no unrest,
the ruling elites panicked.
A decade on
from what was dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’, it is neither unusual nor inappropriate
to ask: but what good came of it, after all?
The
horrifying trajectory of Yemen, Syria and Libya speaks for itself — although in
both cases it is worth taking into account the liberal doses of foreign
intervention. Egypt’s story is very different, but nonetheless deeply
depressing. There, a short-lived experiment in representative government,
somewhat blighted by the Muslim Brotherhood’s dismal administration, made way
all too swiftly for a return to strongman rule. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s regime
is widely viewed as even more repressive than the Mubarak variant.
Tunisia is
often held out as the sole instance where the changes wrought in 2011 have been
institutionally entrenched to some degree. It has had close calls, but managed
to crawl back from the brink. Yet economic conditions remain precarious and
corruption remains rife. Tunisians are among the most eager recruits to the
jihadist cause, as well as the most numerous contributors to the refugee flow
towards the Italian coast. Hardly a happy ending.
A recent
report in The Guardian quotes a roadside bread seller in the Tunisian
hinterland, 60-year-old Aisha Quraishi, as looking back on Ben Ali’s ouster in
these words: “We won a little freedom. Under him we couldn’t speak. But does
this affect my life? I want freedom and dignity. Can’t I have both?” The direct
or subtle response from most Middle Eastern regimes would be a simple ‘no’. The
continuing tragedy across much of the region is that for large segments of the
population neither freedom nor dignity is a viable option.
Historically,
the unwritten compact between authoritarian regimes and their populations could
occasionally be summed up as: keep quiet and your basic needs will be met. That
is generally unfeasible in the age of neoliberal capitalism. The lesson
autocrats would like their subjects to draw from the Arab Spring is that
resistance is futile.
A recent
YouGov survey carried out in nine countries across the region suggests that
most people acknowledge things are in many respects worse than they were 10
years ago. At the same time, though, many of them don’t regret the uprisings.
The absence
of any obvious alternatives was among the factors that blighted the Arab
Spring. The protests may have been very successfully coordinated on social
media, but there was no organisation behind them, no opposition parties that
could channel the largely organic mobilisations. In Egypt, the Muslim
Brotherhood, taken by surprise, eventually took advantage of the vacuum —
even though its ideology was anathema to the vast majority of protesters — with
ultimately disastrous consequences.
The
tendency of authoritarian regimes to crush all dissent often works all too
well, with the result that when it comes to the crunch the seething masses are
rudderless. Hence, once the dust has settled, the usual suspects — often in
uniform, or at least closely affiliated with the economic elite and the
military hierarchy — are invariably waiting in the wings. And it’s back to square
one for those agitating for democracy and socioeconomic change.
The extent
of foreign intervention, whether from near or afar, also matters a great deal.
In the past decade, Middle East’s turmoil has been exacerbated by the Saudi,
Iranian, Israeli, Qatari, Turkish and Emirati role, and equally if not more by
American, European and Russian machinations, to say nothing of the arms sales
that fuel the conflicts.
So, is
there no scope for hope? Just last year, political changes followed uprisings
in Algeria and Sudan that echoed the Arab Spring. Pockets of unrest
sporadically emerge here and there. But cosmetic change doesn’t count and, from
an optimistic standpoint, the real thing could still be decades away.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1597342/bitter-spring
------
Jane
Austen’s World Resembles Pakistan
By
Rafia Zakaria
23 Dec 2020
I FIRST
read Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice in Grade 7 or 8 and immediately loved
it. I had good reasons; Austen’s world seemed very much to resemble the one
that I saw around me in Pakistan. The first line of the novel, “It is a truth
universally acknowledged, that a single man, in possession of a good fortune,
must be in want of a wife”, reflected the concerns of mothers and grandmothers,
and the general narrative of life, played out in the domestic and usually
all-female interiors of this or that person’s house, reflected the goings-on of
my own extended family.
I am, of
course, not the only one to have swallowed whole this seeming resemblance as a
reason to love Jane Austen. There have been movies, notably Bride and
Prejudice, and a handful of books that situate the catty and gossipy and the
ever-righteous cast of women into the South Asian context, all to great effect.
For all
these reasons, I was shocked when I learned that the whole Austen enterprise —
its gleeful promotion by foreign book editors who want South Asians to appear
as modified versions of themselves — is a colonialist trap.
The
evidence is plentiful. First, when South Asian authors produce Jane Austen fan
fiction set in South Asia, they prove the colonial thesis: the South Asian
present is really just a version of (in this case) the British past.
The
consequence of such productions is that they situate formerly colonised
countries in South Asia at a rate of progress that is slower than that of the
Western world. After all, if all of us are simply living out what the British
did hundreds of years ago during the era of the British Empire, we are backward
and they are forever further along.
The second
reason is the politics of Jane Austen herself. A close look at Pride and
Prejudice and Mansfield Park reveals an erasure or, at best, a fleeting mention
of how the great fortunes of men like Mr Darcy and Mr Bingley have been earned,
and how the massive estates on which they live (and which the Bennet sisters
Jane and Elizabeth marry into) have been procured.
Since this
is the Empire period, this largesse is connected inextricably to what Britain
happened to be doing abroad. In simple terms, it was the plunder in the
colonies that made such lives, such estates, men like Darcy and Bingley,
possible. Sometimes it is what a novelist doesn’t include that is important; in
this case, Austen erases the dirty origins of things, presenting English
country life as not only idyllic but as morally righteous.
This bit of
moral righteousness is also important. Austen’s heroines — sheltered girls as
they are — spend a great deal of time agonising over and ironing out what the
right thing to do is. At the same time, the larger injustice being carried out
abroad (some of the novels are situated around times when there were rebellions
in many colonies) in the name of Britain is made invisible.
The central
concerns are figuring out whom to marry, the necessity of marrying and, of
course, the morality of angling for a rich husband. In focusing on the micro
politics of Darcy and Bingley, everything else is obscured from view. White and
Western fans of Austen are entirely willing to overlook all this, but given the
fact that the land that is today Pakistan is one of the places that was
plundered and divided by the purveyors of Empire, we should refuse to forgive
Austen’s racist and colonist sins.
Finally, a
word about what Austen-worship and the proliferation of would-be Austen stories
say about Pakistanis as the formerly colonised. Like the cossetted women of
Austen’s domestic dramas, the middle and upper middle-class women in Pakistan
are only too used to lives where the injustice behind their own comfort are
obscured.
The
servants who clean homes and wash clothes rarely appear in the ever-slicker
domestic dramas that are set in front of television viewers. The cultural
message is easily absorbed; like Austen’s heroines, who never ask how the money
is made or whether the farmers in the countryside are happy with the arrival of
Bingleys and Darcys, Pakistani women keep quiet and do not ask the questions
that must be asked.
Literature
presents a lens through which to view the world, but when the lens suggests
seeing less, not noting how the lives of others not as fortunate are impacted
by actions and livelihoods, it is not worthy of adoration or emulation. Austen
is one offender, but she is hardly the only one. Presenting her case here is
representative of how stories of the British past carry within their bones the
unquestioned architecture of colonialism.
Rejecting
does not mean a cancellation of all literature that goes against the current
decolonising project. It is instead a call to understand how we were made
invisible and continue to remain invisible. Seeing how unmentionable the actual
inhabitants of the colonies were in most British literature from the Age of
Empire must direct us to consider deeply the mini-colonialisms of our own
lives.
It is all
very well to get lost in the dramas about who loves who and who will marry who,
but it is time all women began to go beyond just that. The people, the
servitude, the injustice, the inequality, that makes lives of leisure possible
deserves more consideration. December, with its weddings and parties — which are
continuing apace despite a global pandemic — is an excellent time to start.
Domestic dramas are not the sum total of our post-colonial lives, and
Pakistan’s present is not and never will be Britain’s abhorrent past.
-----
Rafia
Zakaria is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1597344/the-questions-never-asked
------
Pakistan
and the Afghan Peace Process
By
Mehreen Naushad
December
23, 2020
On December
2, the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban announced that they had made a
breakthrough in the Intra-Afghan Dialogue. The two parties have concluded a
written agreement that lays down how the procedure moves for future discussions
in the peace process on substantive issues such as a ceasefire.
With the
peace process nearing its conclusion, the leading question that comes to mind
with regard to Pakistan facilitating the Afghan Peace Process is: what is
Pakistan going to get out of a stable Afghanistan? It obviously wants to dispel
the international community’s perception of Pakistan as a state-sponsoring
terrorism that provides safe haven, intelligence and military aid to terrorist
groups. Additionally, Pakistan also wants to improve its relations with major
regional powers including Afghanistan, US, Russia, and the European Union.
It is the
firsBy t time that Pakistan’s hopes and role in attaining peace and security in
South Asia aligns with the interests of the international community. All
previous attempts at ending the long-drawn and bloody armed conflict in
Afghanistan, and stabilizing the region, were unsuccessful. This may be
attributable to Pakistan’s previously strong support of a Taliban-led
government in Afghanistan. However, it seems Pakistan is done playing favorites
in the peace process. A shift towards negotiation and compromise from military
initiatives by Pakistan can be seen. In this respect, we see Pakistan’s
long-term policies also start to shift.
Pakistan’s
role as a facilitator in the Afghan Peace Process is quite beneficial to the state.
By being back at the negotiating table with the major regional powers, Pakistan
hopes to improve its relations with other states. It provides Pakistan with the
opportunity to attain one of its primary foreign policy aims with respect to
Afghanistan – to establish a network of regional allies.
Furthermore,
Pakistan hopes to work in collaboration with Afghanistan to suppress terror
groups and alleviate the international community’s claims of state sponsored
terrorism. This has a chance of affecting Pakistan’s position with the
Financial Action Task Force, and can also lead to increased trade and possibly
the reinstatement of economic aid flowing into the country.
In order to
improve its ties with Afghanistan, Pakistan should hope for a friendly
government in Kabul. Pakistan has made a concerted effort to appear as a
non-biased actor in the Afghan Peace Process by not positioning itself with one
party. During a strife between the Afghan government and the Taliban at the
Doha negotiations, Pakistan opted to not intervene. Instead, Pakistan formally
acknowledged President Ashraf Ghani as the new president of Afghanistan, and
expressed its desire to work closely with the Afghan government in the future.
This has also improved Pakistan’s credibility before the international
community in its commitment to ensuring a propitious outcome from the
Intra-Afghan Dialogue.
Improving
its bilateral relations with Afghanistan is of utmost importance to Pakistan,
in the context of India. Although India may not be an active participant in the
peace process, it nonetheless has its own interests in Afghanistan’s
stabilization. India has always had good ties with Afghanistan’s elected
governments. Its interests in Afghanistan are simply to use its territory to
keep a check on Pakistan’s power and influence in the region. By establishing a
strong relationship with both the Afghan government and the Taliban, Pakistan
can reduce India’s economic, political and security influence in Afghanistan.
Accordingly,
Pakistan should hope for a mixed government to be established in Afghanistan. A
Taliban-led government may lean more towards Pakistan in the political
landscape, but Pakistan should not want them to be in complete control. A 1990s
Afghanistan on Pakistan’s western front would lead to the resurgence of
terrorism and militancy in the region by empowering terrorist groups in
Pakistan such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
However,
the peace process has created a false sense of security in the region. The
times following a successful conclusion of the peace progress and post-US
withdrawal from Afghanistan present a number of challenges for Pakistan’s
national security.
The
withdrawal of international forces creates a space for stronger militant groups
in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other neighboring countries to try to grab control
over the region. We already see this happening. The US declaration of
withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by January 15, 2021, has led to different
militant groups in Pakistan gravitating towards each other to form an alliance.
The
convergence of these terrorist groups only spells disaster for Pakistan’s
national security, particularly in light of a lack of comprehensive policy
following the US troops withdrawal. There are also chances of a full-blown civil
war erupting in Afghanistan with different factions being supported by regional
powers such as India and Russia, thus pushing Pakistan back into a state of
armed conflict on its western border.
Following
the US Afghanistan Peace Agreement, 12 violent attacks were carried out in
Pakistan against security forces of Pakistan which are attributable to the TTP
and its affiliated groups. These proscribed organizations have uncovered
newfound incentives with the looming withdrawal of troops, leading to a sudden rise
in the terror attacks. This is a reflection of what post-US withdrawal from
Afghanistan would look like for the region.
India may
also see the deteriorating peace and security in the region as opportunity to
continue pressing its narrative of Pakistan being a state that is sponsoring
terrorism. This could prove to be a costly challenge to Pakistan’s credibility
post the Afghan Peace Process, which only recently it seems to be regaining due
to its due role as a facilitator and negotiator in the Intra-Afghan Dialogue.
Pakistan cannot withstand more backlash from the international community for
not doing enough in curbing terrorism. Pakistan’s grey-listing in the FATF has
already caused considerable damage to its economic and political credibility.
Pakistan’s
role in the Afghan Peace Process between the US, the Afghan government and the
Taliban is very crucial. The future of peace and security in the region is
dependent upon the role Pakistan chooses to play in the Afghan Peace Process –
will it hamper or drive the peace process forward.
Pakistan
will benefit more from adopting the role of a facilitator in the Afghan Peace
Process and a stable Afghanistan. However, it would be foolish to assume that
once the peace process concludes, the region would stabilize overnight. The
challenges to Pakistan’s national security will continue for years after. Thus,
it is imperative that Pakistan adopts a concrete foreign policy in Afghanistan
and continues to monitor the socio-economic and political landscape to mitigate
the effects of the said challenges.
------
Mehreen
Naushad is a freelance contributor, and holds an LLM degree.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/762800-pakistan-and-the-afghan-peace-process
-----
The Long-Drawn
Violence In Afghanistan
By
Syed Akhtar Ali Shah
December
23, 202
Afghanistan
has been under fire ever since the Saur Revolution because of undue foreign
interference as well as the doings of many of her own leaders — tribal and
political. During these years the self-appointed jihadis of all hue from all
over the world flocked to that land to fight America’s war under the policy of
containment of communism (USSR) modified with Reagan’s Doctrine.
Having
achieved their strategic objective of USSR’s retreat from Afghanistan — also
helped by the policy of glasnost of Gorbachev — the United States, forgetting
the holy jihad, abandoned Afghanistan to her own fate. Hence, what followed was
a sustained period of chaos in Afghanistan.
The land
having remained under turmoil was eventually taken over by the Taliban on gun
point, of course propped up and supported by outside forces. The Taliban
government soon gained notoriety as a pariah state and epicentre of terrorism
due to Al Qaeda. Most acts of terrorism were traced to Afghanistan,
orchestrated by Al Qaeda. The events of 9/11 were a game changer, as the US and
the Europeans in particular realised that Al Qaeda was a serious threat to
their social order and vital national interests. Demands were made to hand over
Osama bin Laden, but Mullah Omar and his associates refused to do so.
On refusal,
the US and NATO, under a UN mandate, landed with boots on ground announcing to
bring the offenders to justice. New governments consisting of divergent shades
ascended power followed by successive elections to the office of president and
the Loya Jirga, with a new political system based upon a written constitution.
America’s
focus was more on the dismantling of the Al Qaeda network than on Taliban. The
Taliban made tactical retreat to areas conducive for them in order to preserve
their manpower. The US, however, during this period has been successful in
achieving the strategic goal of incapacitating the Al Qaeda. But, on the other
hand, the Taliban sprang up from their safe havens and started a new cycle of
violence and gained control in peripheral areas, eventually challenging the
Afghan government’s legitimacy.
Having
debilitated the Al Qaeda, the US no longer considered them a threat. Through
backchannel diplomacy, the US got in touch with the Taliban, eventually inking the
Doha Agreement, seeking guarantees from the Taliban that they would not allow
their soil to be used against the US and her allies. In return, she gave
assurances of gradual withdrawal with certain conditionalities, although
annexures were also added but not disclosed. However, the government of
Afghanistan was kept out of the new development. The second part of the
agreement pertained to the intra-Afghan dialogue without spelling out
modalities.
The
agreement was hailed by many as a step for peace but without any guarantee from
the Taliban to stop violence within Afghanistan, the land continued to burn.
Despite all appeals from international forums, the Taliban remained
belligerent, using all means for violence. The incidence of violence jacked up
with enormous intensity, with a stated objective to have maximum leverage at
the negotiation table.
Even in a
hostile environment, the formation of the High Council for Reconciliation by
the Afghan government provided impetus to negotiations with the initial meetings
of the council and the Taliban. But again, snags appeared due to no clear
agenda and both sides taking a hard line on the future political setup of
Afghanistan, with the Taliban insisting on exclusive power and enforcement of
the Hanafi jurisprudence as the main law, while the other side not agreeing due
to the diverse religious outlooks present in the society.
After
lengthy deliberations, the ice broke on December 2, as both parties mutually
agreed to continue with the ongoing group discussions in order to achieve the
goal of comprehensive peace. Not only the US but also other stakeholders
welcomed the move as a chance to halt violence.
The
breakthrough is an obvious boaster to the Afghan government, as it has enhanced
its legitimate status. Agreement on procedures and agenda is a leap forward
toward sustainable peace, helping both sides to arrive at substantial issues,
including confidence building measures such as ceasefire, also known as Teega
in Afghan parlance.
The
21-point code reached between the two sides revolves around four basic
principles. Amongst those the Doha Agreement of February 29, 2020, will form
the basis of negotiations, with a focus on durable peace. This will not include
any subject that is against the sacred and blessed religion of Islam or the
interests of the country. In case differences emerge in the interpretation of
Shariah law, a joint committee of the negotiation teams would make a decision.
The other agreed principles were respect for the other side, not to be in haste
and to listen to each other with patience. Committed to prepare verified
minutes and to release only agreed upon statements; maintain confidentiality,
not to re-open the decided issue and not to allow anyone in the room except the
negotiators.
The recent
development may be taken as a first step towards a 1,000-mile hazardous journey
with many ups and downs. The success of the dialogue depends upon reaching a
common ground and cessation of violence. The issue of Hanafi jurisprudence or
any other should not be a big problem. Pakistan is pursuing a Constitution
stating Islam as a state religion with a proclamation that no law shall be
against the Quran and Sunnah. However, this provides a democratic system
carrying the principles of pluralism. The same model can also be adopted over
there.
The Taliban
must agree to a political setup providing equal chance for all the political
groups to participate in the elections in order to have durable peace. The
insistence for exclusive power will only cause alienation, leading either to
dictatorship of the Taliban or continued fire in the form of violence. The
recipe is common ground.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2277005/the-long-drawn-violence-in-afghanistan
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-press-brokered-israel-uae/d/123848
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