Diplomacy & Crisis News

“Tis the season to be merry,” but not in the Land of Israel, which is plagued by war and bloodshed. However, Harfoush’s concert at the European Commission brings peace amidst a dark Christmas in the Middle East.     

As Americans prepare to celebrate Christmas, they aspire to live in a world enjoying peace and harmony. “Tis the season to be merry,” people say. But sadly, for the peoples in the Middle East, peace and harmony is a distant dream, far away from the reality that they experience, as far too many peoples homes have been reduced to rubble in that part of the world, forcing the local inhabitants to flee for their lives. In fact, here in the Holy Land, we are not merry. We are very depressed and feel that this is a dark holiday.    

Israel has been at war since the October 7 massacre, which slaughtered over 1,600. On that horrific day, Hamas raped women en masse, mutilated babies, and committed crimes against humanity at the Rave Music Festival and other nearby kibbutzim, which many refer to as Israel’s September 11. In a recent display by the Israeli mission to the United Nations, the New York Times reported that Yael Richert, a chief superintendent with the Israel Police, noted: “Everything was an apocalypse of corpses. Girls without any clothes on. Without tops. Without underwear. People cut in half. Butchered. Some were beheaded. There were girls with a broken pelvis due to repetitive rapes. Their legs were spread wide apart, in a split.” Another survivor of the Rave Massacre noted that a Hamas terrorist cut off a woman’s breast, threw it on the road and played with it. 

They also took over 260 Israelis hostages, including women, children and the elderly. Many of the hostages are now celebrating the holidays in total darkness in Gaza. Indeed, Newsweek compared what Hamas did on October 7 to ISIS, declaring that there was footage of “women abducted with their babies, grandmothers taken hostage and paraded down the streets of Gaza. There’s a video of a teenage Israeli woman being pulled by terrorists from the back of a vehicle in Gaza. In the video, she is barefoot, wearing sweatpants and a tee-shirt, and as she turns, you can see the back of her sweatpants are covered in blood that came from between her legs.”

We now know the name of the victim is Naama Levy, she is 19 years old and is still being held hostage in Gaza to date. Her mother recently published a plea for her release in the Times of Israel: “You have seen the video of my daughter Naama Levy.  Everyone has. You have seen her dragged by her long brown hair from the back of a jeep at gunpoint, somewhere in Gaza, her gray sweatpants covered in blood. You may have perhaps noticed that her ankles are cut, that’s she’s barefoot and limping.  She is seriously injured. She is frightened. And I, her mother, am helpless in these moments of horror.” She was only one of many victims.  

The few hostages that have been released are completely traumatized. As one of the doctors who examined released hostages told CBS, “There is not a single person who came back that didn’t have a significant physical injury or medical problem. On top of that, some of them were getting medication to look better than they actually were. We definitely saw signs of being handcuffed. We did hear and see evidence of sexual abuse in a significant part of the people we have treated. We also heard evidence and that was one of the hardest parts of abuse against those who are still there, both physical and sexual.”

Since the October 7 massacre, the people in the entire region have been suffering from a war that feels as if it has no end in sight. All of Israel, from Eilat in the South to Rosh Ha-Nikra in the North, is under rocket fire. For a great period of the last semester, most children had zoom classes and were not in school. Although school has now resumed, many services that existed for children before the war do not exist now. The situation is so bad here that only foreign journalists, diplomats, politicians, olim and Israelis are flying to the Jewish state these days for the most part. As a result of the security situation, most foreign airlines refuse to fly into Ben-Gurion Airport. 

Similarly, a great part of Gaza has been reduced to rubble and people are literally starving there, as 1.9 million Gazans have been displaced from their homes because of the war and Hamas is stealing the limited humanitarian aid that is let through.  As the country becomes colder, many people in Gaza are forced to live in tents instead of proper homes, as their homes were destroyed in the war and Hamas unlike Israel does not provide their refugees with hotel rooms. 

I have a good friend who was forced to flee her home because of intensive rocket fire from Lebanon. Her beautiful home with a swimming pool was literally transformed overnight into a war zone, unsafe for her, her husband and their four small children to live in. The Israeli government offered her a hotel room in Tiberius, but she chose to flee to Switzerland instead, for she feared this war had no end in sight. I got another friend whose cousin was murdered on October 7. All day long, she is crying over her loss, her beloved relative who went to work and did not come home, leaving behind a widow in her twenties and small children. All of the people here around the holiday season feel the lack of peace and security.

Imagine what it is like to celebrate Christmas without a Christmas tree. This year in Bethlehem, there are no Christmas trees put up in public displays, according to a Palestinian source that I know. Imagine what it is like to celebrate Christmas without the children going out to see the play “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens. This year in Netanya, the city where I live, the municipality canceled all of the Hanukkah plays because of the war. 

Unfortunately, people who live in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and other parts of the Middle East are also suffering around Christmas this year. In Syria alone, the Civil War that began in 2011 has resulted in over 400,000 deaths and millions of others have been displaced from their homes, and do not know if they will ever be able to return. The situation in the Cedar state is also not good. Lebanon has lost tens of thousands of lives over the years as well. The people of Yemen are literally starving to death, as the civil war there devastated that country. Literally, anywhere where Iran’s proxies took over, from Gaza to Syria and Lebanon to Yemen, the people are suffering gravely.

It is in this spirit that the European Commission in Brussels decided to host a concert titled “Save a Life, You Save Humanity.” Omar Harfouch, who is the Honorary President of the Organization for Dialogue and Diversity, a pianist and composer, who has been active in peace-building efforts in the Middle East, decided to perform this song in the European Commission in order to highlight the value of preserving human life in a region dominated by war, heartache and sorrow. The song “Save a Life, You Save Humanity” was inspired by the Quran and the Talmud, who both have a phrase declaring “you save a life, you save the world entire.” 

The concert took place in the main hall of the European Commission, during a musical evening organized on the eve of the European summit which brings together all European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, to make crucial decisions concerning the future of Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East. During his performance, Omar Harfouch read Surah Al-Ma’idah 32: “The Almighty says: and he who saves a life, it is as if he had saved all humanity”, in front of European officials and decision-makers, all under the sponsorship of European Commissioner Oliviér Várhelyi. 

During the reading of this surah, the audience had a surprised face as they heard the Holy Quran, which for the first time was read inside the European Commission building. Very involved in his fight for peace, Omar Harfouch asked political leaders to promise him one thing: that they would each save a life after hearing his music, composed for the occasion. The composer’s new musical work was composed of two parts symbolizing the divisions of today’s world: the first, which tells of a full and happy life, filled with love and tolerance. The second, which describes a life of sadness, destruction, fear, loss of security and hope. And which poses a crucial question: which world do we want to live in: the first or the second?

From the end of the first part, played on the piano with the orchestra, the audience warmly applauded the musicians. At the end of the second part, the audience was on its feet, some people in the audience unable to contain a few tears. The success was such that Omar Harfouch and his orchestra were immediately asked by the ambassadors present in the room to play this composition in all European cities.

Note that during this concert, Omar Harfouch was accompanied by his official violinist, the Ukrainian Anna Bondarenko, and an orchestra of fifteen musicians from different nationalities: French, Belgian, Syrian, Ukrainian and Macedonian.  It was also the first time that a classical music concert took place in an official building of the European Commission in Brussels.  His song calling for tolerance was so moving that here in the Holy Land, I dream of the day when he can also come here to perform his song in a call for peace and harmony, so that this dark Christmas can be transformed into a beautiful bright one, where peoples around the world live in peace and prosperity with each other. 

The global displacement crisis has reached alarming proportions, with millions of people forced to leave their homes due to armed conflicts, persecution and systematic policies.   According to the concept paper written for an international conference sponsored by the West Azerbaijan community, “It is imperative to prioritize the voluntary, safe and dignified return of expelled people to their homes as a long-term solution.”

The Azerbaijanis were deliberately expelled and deported from the territory of present-day Armenia in 1905-1906, 1918-1920 and 1948-1953.  In 1948-1953 alone, more than 150,000 Azerbaijanis were deported en masse from their historical lands in the territory of the Armenian SSR.  Some of them, especially the elderly and infants, died due to severe resettlement conditions, unfavorable climate, physical deprivation and mental suffering.   In the face of the disintegration of the USSR, more than 250,000 Azerbaijanis living in Armenia were forcibly expelled from their historical lands.   216 of them were mercilessly slaughtered and 1,154 were injured.

In a recent conference titled “Enabling the safe and dignified return of Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia: Global context and just solution,” Dr. Nazim Mustafa of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences noted: “In the 1800s, only a few Armenians existed there,” noting that it was the decision of the colonial powers to transform Yerevan Province into a homeland for the Armenian people by importing Armenians into the region and kicking out Azerbaijanis.   

Professor Yildiz Deveci Bozkus from Ankara University underscored that Yerevan province was originally a majority Azerbaijani area and that foreign experts in the past even noted that there were scarcely any Armenians in the area.   Yet, she noted that thanks to the work of colonial powers who supported the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from the region, it is now an exclusively Armenian place: “The Soviet policy led to the displacement of thousands of Azerbaijanis, with their historical and cultural heritage being destroyed in Armenia.  This changed the demography of the region.”

According to the concept paper, “The case of forced expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, where they once constituted an absolute majority, represents an immense and unprecedented injustice.   The plight of Azerbaijani expellees from Armenia exemplifies the grievous consequences of ethnic cleansing perpetuated by systematic state efforts, characterized by violence and gross human rights violations.   These tragic events unfolded over multiple periods, notably in 1948-53 and 1987-91.   The consequences of these illegal actions remain unresolved.”

Khalid Taimur Akram, the executive director of the Pakistani Research Center for a Community with a Shared Future, stated: “The forced expulsion of Azerbaijanis from their homes in the 1990’s represents a dark chapter in the history of the South Caucasus.   Families of refugees had their lives shattered.    The Armenian forces committed ethnic cleansing.”  He emphasized that their safe return to their homes is pivotal for the establishment of peace and security in the South Caucasus.  

According to the Concept of Return, which was published by the conference, “Ethnic cleansing committed against Azerbaijanis was in most carried out with the state organs through violence, genocide, massacres and other crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights.   The Soviet Union, in particular its notorious leader Joseph Stalin, who transferred Zangazur and other majority Azerbaijani areas to Armenia in 1921 and who signed a racist order on the deportation of one hundred thousand ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia, remained unredressed.”

They continued: “In the same vein, the actions committed by the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic against its Azerbaijani population in 1987-1991 are still unremedied.  In Armenia nowadays, Azerbaijani historical and cultural heritage including mosques and graveyards, toponyms were changed and systematic racial discrimination was carried out against Azerbaijanis.   Those who participated in ethnic cleansing and other crimes against ethnic Azerbaijanis and their misdeeds are glorified at the state level in Armenia.” 

It should be emphasized that the Azerbaijanis who were forced out of Armenia were peaceful citizens, who did not pose a threat to the Armenian state.  They were not part of any armed groups that threatened the political goals of the Armenians.  They were merely kicked out of their homes because of their faith and nationality, and for no other reason.   For this reason, in the framework of a future peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, their return should not be considered a threat.        

Sadly, West Azerbaijanis are not the only nation to suffer such a fate.   Ambassador Gunyan Saptoma, Chairman of the International Relations Commission of the Council of the Indonesian Ulema, noted that the right of return of the refugees is engrained in international law and that there are many displaced nations in Southeast Asia as well.  One poignant example he gave was the boat people of Vietnam: “The Vietnam War lasted for twenty years.   After the fall of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, when the United States decided to withdraw its troops from South Vietnam, there were about a half of a million boat people and around 700,000 fled to the United States and its allies, such as Canada and Australia.”

However, unlike the West Azerbaijanis, the boat people of Vietnam did see light at the end of the tunnel:  “More than 100,000 later were repatriated back to Vietnam for they were not accepted by the United States as real refugees.   I participated in the effort to repatriate 12,000 Vietnamese back to South Vietnam.   The Vietnamese government agreed to accept them in 1993.”  Let us hope that in the wake of a peace agreement the West Azerbaijanis can be accepted back as well.     

China’s People Liberal Army En Marche…

China has benefitted from the lack of focus on its actions since 2022 while the West was completely concentrated on Ukraine. The conflicts in Europe and the Middle East were not expected soon before they began, and once those conflicts took shape, the focus on China’s growing presence on the world stage was no longer the main concern in the West. China has been able to avoid sanctions while not only having some ties to Russian arms deals, but also by avoiding a major fallout from Covid. While China is not in a poor position due to these international events, the ties that China forms or diminishes will have a significant impact on life in China.

US economic Tic Tok Toe with China through both Republican and Democratic administrations has put pressure on China’s export economy which relies heavily on manufactured goods exports to North America and Europe. While China’s economic burdens grow due to those policies, China’s manufacturing weight on the world economy is still in a fair position. China still has a great amount of access to many of those Western economies that its fair-weather allies have been locked out of, and will still be able to manage their economy in a position of strength. Chinese companies have been able to seek some direct benefits through nearshoring to places like Mexico, and will need to come to a meeting of minds in achieving new economic arrangements via importing raw goods after Government changes in places like Argentina. China may not be in a boom phase like they were in the 2010s, but they can enter into their position as an advanced economy, complete with stable policies, manageable recessions, and clever investment policy, if they choose such a path.

China must choose to create an image of itself as being independent, strong and not greatly aligned to nations that are embroiled in direct conflict with their trade partners, even if the trade relationship is not ideal for China. Exporting and trade with Western countries who allow for a great deal of leeway in their relationships with China are already a political advantage. Even if these activities are serious concerns in Western countries, there are surprisingly few actions being taken to stop them at this time that will prevent Chinese exports to Western nations. This balance of national/party interests for China not only have a limit, but likely have an expiration date, and China should avoid making themselves into a target as there is little benefit to China in a hot conflict with any regional or international opponents.

Russia has recently taken to importing artillery surpluses from North Korea, and likely has sought such ammunition and gear from China as many of their Soviet designed systems operate with similar equipment. There is little benefit however to China in aligning itself with Russia’s war in Ukraine, as the sales from consumer goods outweighs the sales of artillery sales to one nation. While China and Russia do align on many policy positions, they are not proper allies in any sense of the word, and make decisions to their own singular benefit. China would be able to balance their own position by selling its arms to both sides, as both sides use similar artillery shells and China’s only benefits from the Russo-Ukraine war are possible export opportunities and cheap raw imports. With funds drying up to support Ukraine, and both sides using the same Red Dawn era equipment, China does not need to take a position to gain a balanced economic and political position when dealing with Russia or NATO in Europe. China does well when it is not directly or indirectly involved in a war, or with those who seek conflict.

China has sought recent assurances to secure their energy imports from actors in the Persian Gulf region in order to fuel its manufacturing economy. The strategy of tamping down the pressure helps China in two ways. The first it to maintain Chinese commercial shipping capabilities towards the region that can be easily blocked by smaller regional powers or by India, and the second is to secure a dependable and frequent supply of energy imports to its massive economy and population. To ensure this, China should maintain its own military capabilities as it has done throughout its history, but make trade and profits from exports the primary policy driver over possible plans to assault Taiwan, or having shooting sessions in the mountains with India. An attack on Taiwan would end much of China’s relationship with the West, aka, all of their export consumers, and conflicts with India will only sour relations further with what will be the most important power in Asia over the next ten years.

Economic and societal pressures is the biggest threat to China’s current government. Energy should be clearly sought though agreements with allies of export consumer nations, as ties to regimes that cause more conflict is not good for Chinese exports, Chinese imports, or Chinese energy infrastructure. Tying China’s economy to nations in perpetual conflict will have the effect of putting economic pressure on the Chinese people themselves. China possesses a large population, a fair amount of natural resources, and a good amount of territory, and does not need to fight for those essential elements to be a stable nation. The biggest threat to China’s regime is a local revolt, and that will come with instability and conflict. Economic pressure for China is one of the main elements that may disintegrate stability in Chinese communities. While economic trade pressures may result in a slow but managed decline, pressures from conflicts will unravel a society rapidly. Allies in conflict give no benefit if China has no direct goals in those conflicts, simply adding hardships to Chinese citizens. China’s ties to horrific regimes only ensures losses of funds, fuel, food and family members who rely on the youth to care for the elderly…and with these great pressures, come great changes. The next few short years will determine China’s ultimate path.

 

If one asks the average American, who are the Qizilbash people, the average American won’t know what you are speaking about.   They will say the “Qizil what?”   And then, if you ask them about the connection of the Qizilbash people to Azerbaijan, the average American will ask you how to spell Azerbaijan and ponder where it is on the map.    However, the average American should learn a little bit about who the Qizilbash people are if they seek to understand the history of modern-day Azerbaijan,  Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, the regions of strategic value to the United States of America.   

Recently, the State Committee on Work with the Diaspora, a government agency of Azerbaijan, held an event titled “the Heritage of the Qizilbash in Azerbaijan: in the footsteps of history,” which sought to raise awareness about the Qizilbash people, who are an association of Turkic nomadic tribes that speak the Azerbaijani language.  These tribes included the Rumlu, Shamlu, Ustajlu, Afshar, Qajar, Tekelu, and Zulkadar.   From the 15th century onwards, these tribes contributed to the foundation of the imperial Azerbaijani Dynasty of Safavids that originated in Azerbaijan and ruled over a big part of the Near and  Middle East.   

The Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty or the State of Qizilbash which was its other denomination, was the first Twelver Shia Empire in modern-day Iran.   Because of the Safavids, Iran today is Shia and not Sunni.  However, the Safavids were not primitive like the mullahs in Tehran are today.  The Iran under Azerbaijani Safavids was an economic stronghold between East and West who had an efficient state bureaucracy based upon checks and balances.   They created great architectural landmarks and patronized the fine arts.   Under their role, Turkic and not Persian influence was dominant.  The State language was Azerbaijani as well as military and ruling elite consisted of Azerbaijani Qizilbash tribes. Indeed, it was only from the Pahlavi Dynasty onwards that Turkic identity in Iran was repressed rather than celebrated.        

The conference that was held in Azerbaijan sought to raise awareness about the roots and identity of the Qizilbash and to promote communication that can lead to the reunification of the global community of Qizilbash, like it existed at the time of the Azerbaijani Safavid Empire. “Azerbaijan is doing great work to unite the Qizilbash people,” former federal secretary of Pakistan, Board member of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization Agha Sarwar Raza stated.   “Our ancestors lived on the territory of Azerbaijan.   Subsequently, they spread to different countries.   Azerbaijan is our motherland.”  

In a joint statement, the members of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization, co-organizer of the conference, stated: “We, members of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization which is part of the world Qizilbash community, feel proud to note that the Qizilbash movement which emerged in the second half of the 15th century opened a new page in the history of the Near and Middle East and the Turkic world on the whole.   During the reign of the Safavid state founded by the Qizilbash tribes which incorporated present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, Dagestan, Iran, Iraq, Eastern Turkey, Eastern Georgia, Southern Turkmenistan and Western Afghanistan and in the subsequent years notably during the conquest of Nadir Shah Afshar, a great figure in world military history, the Qizilbash made a stronghold in these areas thus having eventually spread to different parts of the world.”

They continued by “stressing the importance of this international conference as a great beginning in the wider study and promotion of Qizilbash heritage which appears to be a glorious page in the history of Azerbaijan.  In a broader sense, we perceive this significant event as a historical step marking organized and purposeful activities towards the appropriation by Azerbaijani people and state of its glorious historical heritage.”   On another note, the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization “expressed our faith in the sustainability of activities on a broader scale and format towards strengthening the bonds of the world Qizilbash with their historical homeland and their return to their historical roots and support future efforts of this kind.”

The Qizilbash Global Heritage was established in Canada in order to help Qizilbash from across the world to reconnect with their roots, coordinate their joint activities, to be introduced to the Azerbaijani language and culture, and to integrate them into Azerbaijani society.   Arshi Qizilbash, the deputy chairman of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization, stated that the goal of the organization is to grow and take their organization to the United Nations and UNESCO for recognition as a world heritage organization.   

By Rachel Avraham

La poignée de cas d'objets volants non identifiés qui demeurent étranges tend à occulter les 95 à 98% de phénomènes élucidés. Des marchands de rêve exploitent ce vieux filon avec les méthodes commerciales et médiatiques d'aujourd'hui. / Science, Espace, États-Unis (affaires intérieures), États-Unis, (...) / Science, Espace, États-Unis (affaires intérieures), États-Unis, Fiction, Technologie, Cinéma - 2023/12

Dans le cadre favorable d'une Ve République souvent qualifiée de monarchie présidentielle, M. Emmanuel Macron travaille à mettre en place ce qui pourrait devenir une postdémocratie. Pour conjurer la fatigue citoyenne, il revisite efficacement une ancienne théorie des fondements de l'État, étudiée par (...) / Histoire, France, Fiction, Communication - 2023/12

Un monde nouveau, solidaire, dégagé des impératifs de la rentabilité, comment ça marche ? Peu d'expériences de ce type peuvent prétendre avoir un passé. C'est le cas de Longo Maï en Provence. Depuis un demi-siècle, on y travaille beaucoup, on y discute énormément. Les générations se succèdent, les gens (...) / France, Solidarité, Société - 2023/08

Pour la droite et l'extrême droite, le soulèvement des quartiers populaires témoignerait d'une forme d'ingratitude : les émeutiers détruisent ce que l'État fait pour eux alors même qu'il abandonne les zones rurales ; les uns incendient leur médiathèque pendant que les autres survivent dans des déserts (...) / Santé, État, France, Médecine - 2023/08

Lorsque l'espoir se fait rare, la nostalgie des aventuriers désabusés — politiques ou littéraires — renaît. Les auteurs relevant de cette tradition se montrent souvent très critiques d'un ordre qui leur paraît trop bourgeois, trop soumis aux aspirations conformistes de la foule. Leur forme de (...) / Extrême droite, France, Idéologie, Littérature, Personnalités - 2023/08

Des ruines de Berlin au « miracle économique » des années 1950, l'Allemagne d'après-guerre reste associée dans l'imaginaire collectif à un formidable redressement rythmé par l'occupation, le plan Marshall, la naissance de deux pays, vitrines des deux systèmes qui s'affrontent pendant la guerre froide. (...) / Histoire, Royaume-Uni, Relations internationales, États-Unis, Allemagne - 2023/08

/ Diplomatie, Relations internationales, Sécurité européenne, Europe - Relations internationales / Diplomatie, Relations internationales, Sécurité européenne, Europe - Relations internationales

/ Criminalité, Migrations, Mouvement de contestation, Narcotrafic, Monde, Mafia - Relations internationales / Criminalité, Migrations, Mouvement de contestation, Narcotrafic, Monde, Mafia - Relations internationales

/ Relations Est-Ouest, Conflit, Géopolitique, Relations internationales, Relations bilatérales, Relations Nord-Sud - Relations internationales / Relations Est-Ouest, Conflit, Géopolitique, Relations internationales, Relations bilatérales, Relations Nord-Sud - Relations internationales

/ Israël, Russie, Conflit, Relations internationales, Géopolitique, Ukraine, Palestine (Gaza) - Relations internationales / Israël, Russie, Conflit, Relations internationales, Géopolitique, Ukraine, Palestine (Gaza) - Relations internationales

/ Armement, Industrie de l'armement, Commerce des armes, Conflit, Armes chimiques et biologiques - Relations internationales / Armement, Industrie de l'armement, Commerce des armes, Conflit, Armes chimiques et biologiques - Relations internationales

Ce graphique comptabilise les morts survenues dans trois circonstances : conflits armés étatiques, non étatiques et attaques d'acteurs organisés ciblant des civils non armés. En raison du manque d'informations disponibles dans certaines zones de conflit, l'estimation du nombre de victimes peut être (...) / Monde, Terrorisme, Armée, Conflit - Relations internationales

/ Palestine (Gaza), Conflit israélo-palestinien, Israël - Proche-Orient / Palestine (Gaza), Conflit israélo-palestinien, Israël - Proche-Orient

/ Frontières, Palestine (Gaza), Conflit israélo-palestinien - Proche-Orient / Frontières, Palestine (Gaza), Conflit israélo-palestinien - Proche-Orient

/ Géopolitique, Palestine, Diplomatie, État, Crime de guerre, Relations internationales - Proche-Orient / Géopolitique, Palestine, Diplomatie, État, Crime de guerre, Relations internationales - Proche-Orient

The emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Saudi Arabia, which brought togethers leaders from the Arab world, including Bashir Al-Assad, Turkey, and even the president of Iran, has come to a close with the rejection of Israel’s claims to self-defense against Hamas, and a joint call for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the war in Gaza. None of the usual saber rattling from these circles is likely to bring Israel to withdrawal from Gaza before its military objectives are met; even the US, which has repeatedly pressured Israel on instituting humanitarian pauses and pushed it in the direction of a ceasefire, allegedly as a condition for hostage release, will not be much affected by these comments. However, without a doubt, this gathering, unequivocally equating Hamas with the Palestinian cause, is a strategic communication to Jerusalem and Washington. As any overt messages with covert meanings, it is worth deciphering. There are several takeaways that jump to mind if one follows the trajectory of the unfolding events in the Middle East for the past several years.

First, GCC states are terrified of the escalation of the conflict, already ongoing and easily observable from the multiple recent Houthi border attacks on Saudi Arabia, which were more successful than their attacks on Israel. There is also a shared regional concern that if Hizbullah and other Iran-backed proxies escalate, as they have threatened to do in response to Israel’s prolonged ground operations in Gaza, this increased terrorist activity could destabilize Iraq where Saudis, Emiratis, and others recently invested billions. Moreover, after the series of recent bilateral normalization agreements with Bashir Al-Assad, GCC and others are embarrassed that Syrian Iran-backed militias are emerging as some of the most active players in the widening conflict, particularly against US troops. Whatever may have been the behind-the-scenes pressure, Assad takes Iran’s lead, and backing by Russia and increasingly China, as far more persuasive than the calls from Riyadh and elsewhere.

The region is not prepared for what Iran might do next. The entire East of Saudi Arabia is Shia majority, and Iran has been indoctrinating the population there for decades. Houthis are bordering Saudis and are ready to strike, and on the other side of KSA are the Iraqi militias, also organized to strike. None of that is in the news. There has been no action taken by the Defense Ministry to defend the borders. UAE is a small state heavily dependent on Iran for trade and has been a past victim of Houthi missiles as well. Abu Dhabi has no real chance to succeed in a direct war with Iran or its proxies. Bahrain has a huge Shia presence linked to Hezbullah and Iran, and the Arab Spring would have resulted in the loss of monarchy there if not for the Saudis who are no longer in position or willing to defend them. We have seen the Saudi silence in the face of a recent Houthi drone attack on a Bahraini base in Yemen which killed several people and wounded over 50 Bahrainis.

The Islamists and their corrupt supporters who are now clearly taking charge of foreign policy in KSA  have been making money from the financial arrangements resulting from the normalization with Iran and not willing to give up power to face Iran off. They have allowed Iranian presence into the country with the return of the Iranian diplomats. They have also facilitated the free flow of intelligence through Qatar and Iran and Houthis, starting with the push for the ill-begotten Al-Ula agreement. The Foreign Ministry has for years have worked to legitimize the Houthis as a peace partner contrary to MBS’s and his brother’s agenda. For that reason, Khalid bin Salman, the defense minister, was seemingly missing in action during recent Houthi attacks on Saudi borders that killed several soldiers. Turkey is not so much worried about Iran as it agrees with its agenda on this issue and has been actively helping Iran. Erdogan has refused to oust Hamas from Turkey, and for years has allowed Hamas cells to plan attacks in Israel. Qatar has effectively sided with Iran – the coordinated statements following the October 7 attack are quite clear. Kuwait is essentially ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is overwhelmingly in control of the population, with the Royal Family forced to cater to their ideology. Oman is one of Iran’s top trade and military partners; Baghdad and Assad have been essentially coopted by Iran. The Iraqi government is hostage to Tehran’s whims. Egypt is increasingly isolated internationally; according to many reports, the Islamists in Egypt are on the rise and taking advantage of the economic crisis; pro-Islamist political factions in Egypt are more interested in working with Russia, China, and Iran than with the US.

In Morocco, the King has been less visible and there have been many shocking and largely unreported pro-Hamas rallies recently despite the Muslim Brotherhood party being formally out of government. There is reason to believe that many hidden Islamists rose through security institutions to take the royal system by surprise. Moreover, unideological but otherwise corrupt officials made common cause with Iran through covert trade circles and business deals despite lack of formal relations between these countries. These lobbies are now taking advantage of the regional situation to isolate those who have supported King Mohammed VI’s regional vision for integration. In short, anyone willing to stand up to Iran and its spheres of influence has been either discredited, ostracized, or compromised. The rest are either willing to help Iran or are scared of Pro-Iran forces and the potential and growing support for them from Russia and China. Simultaneously, US is clearly unwilling to engage in a show of direct force and even lets its own troops get attacked in Iraq and Syria.

Second, it has long since become apparent that Iran is the new leader and decisionmaker in the region; the Gaza summit runs parallel to a summit with Iran president who came to Saudi Arabia for this purpose. These two events cemented this perception. Although Saudi Arabia recently normalized with Iran, there are tensions inherent to this relationship; KSA remains a target of Iran’s theocratic dogma and single-minded dedication to become the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and Tehran’s aspiration to assert religious, not just geopolitical primacy over the region and the Muslim world. Iran has been calling the shots behind the scenes on the theater of war in Gaza and regionally the entire time; those who presume that Hezbullah or any other proxy makes its decision independently are misguided.

A WSJ report from 6 months before the October 7 attack on Israel underscores Iran’s influence, as an Iranian official traveled to Beirut in April to call on Gaza and Hezbullah to attack Israel; Ramadan riots, which also featured Palestinian Islamic Jihad rockets from Gaza ensued at about the same time. Later reports indicate that at least some officials in Iran had direct knowledge of the October 7 attack and gave a final approval to it; Hamas also indicated the level of long-term Iran support that went far beyond general proxy-building. A month before the Simchat Torah assault, 500 Hamas and PIJ fighter reportedly trained in Iran. All logistical and military calculations are done by Iran, and Iran calls the shots on the level of involvement by various proxies. Thus the summit is less about forcing Israel into a withdrawal and more about acknowledging Iran’s lead on this issue; GCC states and others need to appease Iran, not Israel, if they wish to avoid escalation and entrapment by Iran’s regional army; therefore the purpose of the summit was simply to ingratiate themselves to the overlords in Tehran. The summit represents a weakened Saudi Arabia and the Arab world to appease Iran and to follow its lead on information warfare for fear of being punished if they appear not sufficiently obsequious to its goals.

Third, it is clear that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is no longer in charge – if he ever was fully in charge – but is compelled to carry out instructions and to follow the official Saudi foreign policy dictated by others. Indeed, officially, the foreign policy of the country is subject only to the king himself. Much fanfare has been made in the media over Mohammed bin Salman’s allegedly assertive role in regional affairs; however, should the king choose to put a limit to this responsibility, his son would still have to follow the official orders as the Prime Minister. Moreover, while the king himself has not been visible in the past 6 months, it is very clear that given the choice, the Crown Prince would likely have continued his previous line, which has always clashed with the Foreign Ministry and other more conservative elements of the country’s advisory circles. This entire arrangement of normalizing with countries and ideologies he clearly despised, including Assad, who had very little to bring to the Saudi table, as well as the tone of the two summits, have run so sharply in contrast to his previously stated concerns and policies that one can only surmise the Crown Prince has been deprived of any choice on the course of the events.

The answer to who is really running the show in Saudi Arabia lies with the people who have been pushing a pro-Iran and pro-Houthi policy the entire time, such as the long-serving Saudi Ambassador to Yemen, Mohammed AlJaber, who has been in that position since before Mohammed bin Salman rose to his current status, and who has been pushing for diplomatic channels with Houthi and undermining the official defense policy at the time Mohammed bin Salman was still the Defense Minister. Others of that ilk have been making more frequent appearance in public pushing the Palestinian cause in contrast to MBS’s efforts, since the start of the COVID pandemic, as the supporters of the Crown Prince’s policies became increasingly quieter first in the Saudi Arabic language media, and then in the outreach to the pro-Israel circles in the US. One early warning sign of the change in the political trajectory was Prince Turki Al Faisal’s surprise appearance at the Manama Summit immediately following the conclusion of Saudi Arabia’s G20 hosting duties in late November 2020, where he waxed at length about the importance of that issue while attacking Israel, despite the fact that the very purpose of the Manama Summit was to disengage from the old-school politicizing of the Palestinian cause. Its aim, undermined by Turki Al-Faisal’s comments, was to focus on integrating the region, including Israelis and Palestinians under the economic umbrella, envisioned by the Trump administration.

People such as AlJaber and Turki Al-Faisal are the so-called “Old Guard” of the Saudi politics, the portion of the Royal Family close to the late King Abdullah and the former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, many of whom share pro-Muslim Brotherhood paradigm and who even attempted to reunify Hamas and Fatah at a summit in Saudi Arabia over Ramadan this past year. Turki Al Faisal is also the former Saudi intelligence chief, who had faded into the background as the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had risen in influence, but who has, for the last three years, once again displaced Mohammed bin Salman in public view, especially with respect to addressing regional concerns. Turki Al-Faisal has in fact recently restated Saudi opposition over the war in Gaza, attacking Netanyahu, repeating the Foreign Ministry’s initial position that Israel brought the Hamas attack on itself, and justifying the Hamas attack as provoked by “occupation”, a message that had been widely shared by Hamas and by Muslim Brotherhood in the days and weeks preceding Turki Al-Faisal’s public appearance. His role in this matter was surprising, because normally MBS or his brother, Khalid bin Salman, the defense minister, would have been expected to express the official foreign policy. The shift indicates that despite senior official titles, the order of importance has shifted from Salman’s and his sons to some other branch of the family, and Prince Turki was speaking on their behalf.

Finally, the collective gathering to issue the statement calling for an immediate ceasefire and rejecting Israel’s claim to self-defense, underscores that all who gathered there, however reluctantly, have agreed to accept Iran as the leader on the Palestinian cause and have also accepted Iran’s position that Hamas, rather than anyone else, represents Palestinians. By agreeing to these underlying premises, the participants have implicitly acknowledged that they are also accepting all claims by Hamas, however unlikely, self-serving, and outright fictitious. This means that by accepting Hamas’s legitimacy in public and its rule over Gaza this gathering may eventually act beyond verbiage such as the failed motion to impose an oil embargo to force the US and its allies to pressure Israel into putting a stop to combat and to save Hamas from severe military losses. UAE and Bahrain have rejected the breakdown of the Abraham Accords de jure, but de fact the damage has been significant. In months leading up to the attack, there already has been a roll back in the sale of Israeli products in UAE; pro-Israel speakers were becoming unwelcome at the Emirati universities. And while the Bahraini shura (council) never ratified the Abraham Accords to begin with, the fact that it was now vocally rising up to challenge the foreign policy adopted by the King is also a worrying sign. 

Ultimately, 11 countries declined to ratify the punitive clauses that would sanction #Israel, embargo oil in a repetition of the 1973 crisis, or severe diplomatic relations. In fact, according to media reports, KSA was one of the countries to help block the most extreme of these initiatives. The reasons for that may seem paradoxical given the context. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine with doing underhanded business deals with Israeli companies so long as they are registered outside Israel. Moreover, the Saudis and Israelis, along with the other Abraham Accords signatories, continue some level of defense cooperation. But any political, social, and cultural movement towards improved relations, much less formal diplomacy, has become a taboo topic.  American Jews, such Jared Kushner, are given a platform to push for normalization at public business events aimed at attracting foreign investors; however, that topic is not visited in internal discussions. Likewise, the feverish media campaign about the alleged prospects for normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, was superficial; there was no real movement in that direction, as confirmed to the author from multiple sources. It was politically beneficial to the US, to Netanyahu who strove to tout regional diplomacy and to distract from domestic upheavals, and gave the Saudis an excuse to earn some cheap PR points with Biden in an election year while pushing for defense-related concessions. October 7 gave them a much needed excuse to withdraw from the appearance of talks – always exclusively with the US, with no participation by any Israeli officials – rather quickly. But Saudi Arabia was not the only interested party in the double talk on this issue – tough political posturing on the one hand, while looking for leeway to avoid a complete breakdown in relations. Egypt, too, despite a significant bilateral deterioration in relations, has avoided withdrawing from the peace treaty. At least one of the reasons for that is economic: Cairo is dealing with a significant economic crisis; Israel’s withdrawal from gas related extraction as a result of the war impacted Egypt’s business. It also cannot afford to lose the remnants of US aid, directly dependent on normalized relations.

Countries like Mauritania and Somalia were alleged to be in the middle of rapprochement with Israel and one or both of them were expected to join up with the regional ministerial N7 gathering that was to be held by Morocco, and that had already been postponed even before the attack. Maintaining a lifeline to Israel out of economic self-interest may prevent a repetition of the 1970s for now; if the war lingers on, that could change. However, despite avoiding a drastic fallout, the Arab states are faced with the reality that the Hamas attack on Israel in the wake of the US continued search for some sort of a diplomatic breakthrough leaves them vulnerable to Iran, as Israel is now perceived to be weakened. They are losing control of their own populations, which, by and large, did not back the Abraham Accords and did not have an opportunity to be fully immersed in the people-to-people outreach. The attack has reversed much of the slow progress made over the past years since the conclusion of the Accords, and probably set back these relations many years.

Indeed, despite suffering military losses in Gaza, Hamas is enjoying its greatest public relations victory since the 2007 takeover of Gaza in the partial elections that took place. The rhetoric from the Arab and Muslim states is emboldening the fighters to continue its stand-off with Israel; the successful galvanizing of the masses of supporters globally are amplifying the propaganda success, and the recruitment of new followers who are now reinvigorated by the apparent mass victory, and example of the Hamas fighters in avoiding detecting and striking a major blow to the enemy, is likely through the roof. That, too, has an impact on the Arab street who for years was beginning to think that Muslim Brotherhood-linked movements were dying. The OCtober 7 attack sent the message to the contrary. The result is now an additional pressure factor on the Arab governments to avoid internal upheaval they may not be able to control

Israel’s messaging has not always been effective either, in this context. The government sees its neighbors as having turned against it and views such actions as betrayal. But countries like Egypt are left in between a rock and a hard place, and are managing to hold back waves of popular resentment as some of the military action by Israel near their own borders that they see as overreach and which may not be necessary to meet immediate objectives. Israel, in an uncompromising mode, is unlikely to be listening to these concerns, which only adds fuel to the fire. Without a doubt, however, the hardcore conservatives in the Middle East, are taking full advantage of this congruence of factors to their full advantage. Let’s recall a telling revelation from the recent explosive Semafor article by Jay Solomon, who reveals the extent of IRanian influence campaigns in Europe and the United States.

Ariane Tabatabai, currently a Pentagon official who still has access to classified information, at one point turned to senior Iranian officials for guidance on some of her duties. She was told to hold off responding to an invitation by Israelis to a conference there, but received a greenlight to accept an approach from Turki Al-Faisal in Saudi Arabia, which took place in 2014, years before Mohammed bin Salman reached the peak of his influence. At the time, it appears, Iran viewed the Saudi Old Guard as a possible partner for some of its agenda. After all, Khomeini had the Muslim Brotherhood texts translated to Farsi and popularized in Iran following the Islamic Revolution. Despite some ideological differences, the revolutionary fervor, nepotism, corruption, conservatism, and similar dogmatic and authoritarian approaches among the Islamists in power circles were, on some level, always stronger than ethnic and religious strife that has kept Iran and Saudi Arabia at a distance historically. All of these factors were bubbling under the surface of the Arab-Muslim Summit – but this complex history and political dynamics were apparently disregarded by the US officials who had spent countless hours since the war broke out traveling around the region in an effort to bring the regional leaders into the US fold on this issue and against Hamas.

Despite this seemingly active shuttle regional diplomacy by various high level US officials, the outcome has been a dismal failure. The limitation of the US foreign policy is that it has not brought anything to the table that would address any of the above mentioned concerns. It has not given up on a futile policy of trying to come to a deal with Iran; it has not properly countered China’s growing political and aspirational military presence in the Middle East and North Africa; it has not been willing to name Iran’s direct hand in the October 7 attack, and it has not provided its Middle Eastern allies with any reassurances, commitments, or offers that would make it worth their while to align with Israel. 

It has also failed to differentiate between the various competing factions in these governments and the divergent interests over the future of their countries, much less the general trajectory of the region. The conservatives in GCC begrudgingly went along with some of the more aggressive reforms, particularly in Saudi Arabia, but overall wished to limit these reforms to specific economic and cosmetic social changes, without a full reimaging of the entire infrastructure and political direction of their societies, which would include a more open and integrated approach to other ethnicities, religious views, and countries. They viewed most of MBS’s Vision2030 as fundamentally in conflict with their own values, but so long as he appeared to have power and some level of backing from the US, were willing to play along. The Khashoggi fallout undid much of the international good will, weakened the Crown Prince politically, and gave these factions an an opening to return to power and to put pressure from within to hinder, slow down, or reverse the progress made in reimagining Saudi Arabia and the region away from these fundamentalist or in many cases, completely ahistorical convictions and misinterpretations. These factions were willing to use the Palestinian cause to retain or regain the favor of the street, and for decades have been much more conciliatory towards Iran than the more nationalist-inclined of the factions, such as the reformists. T

hey believed that they could come to some sort of a power sharing understanding with Tehran, and on the basis of tribal and nepotistic interests, were more concerned with what would happen to their own private fiefdoms and gravy trains, than how Iran’s hold in the region could affect the societies and the region overall. Hence, we saw years of parallel shadow diplomacy with the Houthis, Iran, and other proxies and factions that seemed to contradict and undermine the official, assertive line and defense position which also extended to other Saudi allies. Ultimately, such positioning not only contributed to the weakening of the nationalist line and leadership in KSA, but contributed to strife with some of its closest regional allies. Similarly, UAE was maneuvered by such lobbies away from a strong cohesive line supportive of an anti-Islamist anti-Iran position, and into rivalry with Riyadh. The result of these divisive politics was increased regional sectarianism, deteriorating relations, and opening for Iran and its proxies to divide, conquer, and push their own agendas, while isolating Arab states, and turning them against each other.  Moreover, Israel’s catastrophic intelligence failures made it appear weak and isolated, undermining its position as a regional asset capable of standing up to Iran. ISrael was once seen as an additional unifying factor that could bring the region together against Iran and smooth over the edges among the Arab “brothers”. But that perception started to change with the Al Ula agreement, which brought Qatar, as a Trojan horse, back into the fold of the Arab states, and weakened Israel’s position.

The October 7 events struck an even stronger blow to Israel’s deteriorating status. The only way for it to accomplish that  – to return to the prestige of the bygone era of only a few years ago – is to restore deterrence, but because it is seen as the “weaker horse”, the Arab and Muslim world will be working against it, not with it, in this matter (the Gaza war). US and Israel are also not willing to confront the fact of Islamist agenda, generously funded by Qatar, continuing to repeat past political mistakes in that regard, which only empowers the anti-Islamist elements. ISrael has had a policy of non-interference in the internal political affairs of the Arab states; it showed no particular interest in the power struggle between the reformists and the Old Guard; the Sunni and the Shia; the nationalists and the nepotists. And the US, for decades, preferred the Islamists and genuinely considered them as a grassroots movement reflective of the majority of the population, and thus worthy of respect, rather than than a fanatic, exclusivist, hierarchical highly tribal faction that represented problematic ideology that threatened US security interests in the region and beyond. Both countries, Israel and the US,  have either intentionally or by negligence betrayed the reformists in Saudi Arabia, who previously led the region and their effort to stand up to Iran, leading to a chain of events which culminated in the Arab-Islamic Summit in Saudi Arabia; the only way to fix the situation is for Israel to prevail and to wise up to the fact that Iran and Hamas are political problems as much as military ones while finding a way to help their few beleaguered allies.

Irina Tsukerman is a Fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute and a Fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.