EU slams ‘heinous and cowardly' Damascus church attack
The EU on Monday condemned as 'heinous' a deadly weekend suicide attack on a Damascus church, saying the bloc 'stands in solidarity' with Syria in combatting ethnic and religious violence.
'This heinous and cowardly violence against Christians is an attack against all Syrians,' said a statement from EU foreign policy spokesperson Anouar El Anouni on the attack, blamed by Syrian authorities on ISIS.
'It is a grave reminder of the need to intensify efforts against the terrorist threat and to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh and other terrorist organizations,' El Anouni said, using an alternative name for ISIS.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
21 minutes ago
- Arab News
Netanyahu's delusional pursuit of a ‘new Middle East'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persistently declares his ambition to 'change the face of the Middle East.' Yet his repeated assertions seem to clash with the unfolding reality on the ground. Netanyahu's opportunistic relationship with language is now proving detrimental to his country. The Israeli leader undoubtedly grasps fundamental marketing principles, particularly the power of strong branding and consistent messaging. However, for any product to succeed over time, clever branding alone is insufficient; the product itself must live up to at least a minimum degree of expectation. Netanyahu's 'product,' however, has proven utterly defective. Yet the 75-year-old Israeli prime minister stubbornly refuses to abandon his outdated marketing techniques. But what, exactly, is Netanyahu selling? Long before assuming Israel's leadership, Netanyahu mastered the art of repetition — a technique often employed by politicians to inundate public discourse with specific slogans. Over time, these slogans are intended to become 'common sense.' As a member of the Knesset in 1992, Netanyahu delivered what appeared to be a bombshell: Iran was 'within three to five years' from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In 1996, he urged the US Congress to act, declaring that 'time is running out.' Iran has remained his primary focus Dr. Ramzy Baroud While the US pivoted its attention toward Iraq, following the September 2001 attacks, Netanyahu evidently hoped to eliminate two regional foes in one stroke. Following the fall of the Iraqi government in 2003, Netanyahu channeled all his energy into a new discourse: Iran as an existential threat. Between then and now, Iran has remained his primary focus, even as regional alliances began to form around a discourse of stabilization and renewed diplomatic ties. However, the Obama administration, especially during its second term, was clearly uninterested in another regional war. As soon as Obama left office, Netanyahu reverted to his old marketing strategy. It was during Trump's first term that Netanyahu brought all his marketing techniques to the fore. He utilized what is known as comparative advertising, where his enemies' 'product' is denigrated with basic terms such as 'barbarism,' 'dark age,' and so forth, while his own is promoted as representing 'civilization,' 'enlightenment,' and 'progress.' He also invested heavily in the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) marketing technique. This entailed spreading negative or misleading information about others, while promoting his own as a far superior alternative. This brings us to 'solution framing.' For instance, the so-called 'existential threats' faced by Israel can supposedly be resolved through the establishment of a 'new Middle East.' For this new reality to materialize, the US, he argues, would have to take action to save not only Israel but also the 'civilized world.' It must be noted that Netanyahu's 'new Middle East' is not his original framing. This notion can be traced to a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2004. It followed the US war and invasion of Iraq, and was part of the intellectual euphoria among US and other Western intellectuals seeking to reshape the region in a way that suited US geopolitical needs. The Carnegie article sought to expand the definition of the Middle East beyond the traditional Middle East and North Africa, reaching as far as the Caucasus and Central Asia. American politicians adopted this new concept, tailoring it to suit US interests at the time. It was US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who largely rebranded 'greater' to 'new,' thus coining the 'new Middle East,' which she announced in June 2006. Clever branding alone is insufficient Dr. Ramzy Baroud Though Netanyahu embraced the term, he improvised it in recent years. Instead of speaking of it as a distant objective, the Israeli leader declared that he was actively in the process of making it a reality. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East. We are changing the face of the world,' he triumphantly declared in June 2021. Even following the events of Oct. 7, 2023, and the Israeli war and assault on Gaza that ensued, Netanyahu never ceased using the term. This time, however, his emphasis on 'change' rotated between a future possibility and an active reality. 'I ask that you stand steadfast because we are going to change the Middle East,' he said on Oct. 9 of that same year. And again, in September 2024, he proclaimed that Israel was 'pursuing' a plan to 'assassinate Hezbollah leaders' with the aim of 'changing the strategic reality of the Middle East.' And again, in October, December, and January of this year. In every instance, he contextualized the 'change of the Middle East' with bombs and rockets, and nothing else. In May, coinciding with a major Israeli bombing of Yemen, he declared that Israel's 'mission' exceeds that of 'defeating Hamas,' extending to 'changing the face of the Middle East.' And, finally, on June 16, he assigned the same language to the war with Iran, this time remaining committed to the new tweak of adding the word 'face' to his new, envisaged Middle East. Of course, old branding tactics aside, Netanyahu's Middle East, much like the old US 'greater Middle East,' remains a pipe dream aimed at dominating the resource-rich region, with Israel serving the role of regional hegemon. That said, the events of the past two years have demonstrated that, although the Middle East is indeed changing, this transformation is not happening because of Israel. Consequently, the outcome will most likely not be to its liking. Therefore, Netanyahu may continue repeating, like a broken record, old colonial slogans, but genuine change will only happen because of the peoples of the region and their many capable political players.
Al Arabiya
39 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Qatar says situation in the country is stable amid regional tension
Qatar said on Monday that it is ready to take all necessary measures to ensure safety of citizens and residents adding that advisories do not reflect the 'presence of specific threats' in the country. Developing
Arab News
40 minutes ago
- Arab News
Risky business: how firms can survive in an era of turmoil
The past two decades have ushered in an era where geopolitical uncertainty is no longer an occasional disruptor but a persistent and systemic condition shaping global business. Traditional risk models based on assumptions of relative stability and predictable disruptions are proving inadequate in a world marked by escalating conflicts, fracturing supply chains, and a geopolitical landscape in flux. The stakes are enormous: Companies spanning finance, industry, energy, and technology face a fundamental challenge not only in managing risk, but also in fundamentally rethinking how they understand and navigate uncertainty itself. Historically, firms confronted geopolitical risk as a series of isolated shocks: wars, sanctions, or political upheavals that, while disruptive, were relatively bounded and transient. The 1990s and early 2000s witnessed this episodic framing, where firms relied on crisis management, insurance, and post-hoc operational fixes. Yet recent years have made clear that uncertainty has morphed into a more complex phenomenon — what academics might term 'deep uncertainty' or 'Knightian uncertainty,' where probabilities are unknowable and the future resists prediction. The protracted conflicts in the Middle East, great power rivalries, and the weaponization of trade and technology have created an environment of continuous geopolitical tension. Supply chains are no longer linear and stable but web-like, interdependent, and vulnerable to cascading failures triggered by remote events. The pandemic's disruption of global logistics compounded by the Russia-Ukraine war's impact on energy markets highlight how multiple risk vectors interact unpredictably. This multidimensional uncertainty forces firms to abandon conventional risk frameworks based on expected value calculations and instead adopt more dynamic, resilience-focused approaches. In response, firms have institutionalized geopolitical risk analysis in ways unrecognizable even a decade ago. Once confined to academic circles or boutique consultancies, political risk analysis is now central to corporate strategy and governance. Major multinational firms have expanded in-house intelligence capabilities, building Palantir-like data environments that synthesize satellite imagery, open-source intelligence, shipping data, and insurance trends to triangulate risk exposure in near real-time. This integration of heterogeneous data sources enables earlier detection of emerging threats than traditional quarterly risk reports or government advisories. Supply chains are no longer linear and stable Dr. John Sfakianakis But data and technology alone do not suffice. Firms increasingly recruit former diplomats, military analysts, and intelligence officers to serve as geopolitical strategists, blending quantitative analytics with qualitative expertise. This human dimension is critical to interpreting ambiguous signals, contextualizing political developments, and anticipating non-linear outcomes that purely algorithmic models might miss. The 2020s could well be remembered as the decade when geopolitical strategists — combining analytical rigor with nuanced understanding of global affairs — became as indispensable as quants were to financial firms in the 2000s. Maersk's experience during the 2017 NotPetya cyberattack exemplifies how geopolitical risk now demands systemic resilience. The malware attack disrupted the company's IT systems worldwide, halting container operations and exposing the fragility of integrated global logistics networks. Far from treating the event as an isolated cyber incident, Maersk restructured its operational model to emphasize redundancy, modularity, and rapid recovery capabilities — core principles of resilience in complex systems theory. This shift acknowledges that in a deeply interconnected environment, firms must prepare not only for probable risks, but also for unforeseeable systemic shocks. JPMorgan Chase similarly offers insight into the evolution of financial risk management. The bank has woven geopolitical intelligence deeply into its credit risk assessments, investment strategies, and client advisory services. It uses scenario planning to model the geopolitical trajectories of rival powers and regulatory regimes, adjusting exposure dynamically rather than relying on static risk scores. JPMorgan's approach signals a broader shift within finance — from risk avoidance to strategic risk optimization — where understanding geopolitical volatility becomes a source of competitive advantage. Toyota's response to the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and ensuing nuclear crisis highlights the operational dimension of geopolitical uncertainty in manufacturing. Recognizing the risks inherent in geographically concentrated supply chains, Toyota diversified its suppliers and reconfigured production buffers to absorb disruptions. The company's strategy underscores an important insight: resilience is as much about redesigning physical and logistical infrastructure as it is about forecasting events. By embedding redundancy and flexibility into supply networks, firms reduce vulnerability to complex geopolitical shocks that defy precise prediction. The energy sector offers another critical lens on geopolitical risk. The vulnerability of global oil markets to chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz illustrates how physical infrastructure and security concerns translate directly into economic risk. War-risk insurance premiums for tankers, port congestion, and maritime route disruptions have surged, signaling that market participants price risk differently from traditional financial benchmarks. The disconnect between futures markets and shipping realities suggests that risk models must integrate granular, geospatial data alongside macroeconomic indicators to capture true exposure. Resilience must become a strategic asset Dr. John Sfakianakis Technology firms face a distinct, but equally complex, set of geopolitical risks. Trade restrictions, export controls, and supply chain weaponization — exemplified by tensions between the US and China — have fractured innovation ecosystems. Firms such as Intel and Cisco navigate regulatory uncertainty and evolving security frameworks that impact sourcing, research collaboration, and market access. Managing these risks requires integrating geopolitical analysis on multiple levels — from bilateral relations to international governance — into product planning, supply chain management, and R&D investment decisions. What do these trends imply for firms confronting an era in which 'nothing is certain'? The first is the inadequacy of predictive risk models that rely on probabilistic forecasts or historical analogues. In a world of deep uncertainty, firms must embrace strategies that prioritize adaptability, modularity, and rapid response over precise prediction. This entails decentralizing decision-making, empowering local managers to react to fluid conditions, and embedding scenario-based planning that stresses plausible alternative futures rather than a single forecast. Second, firms must cultivate intelligence ecosystems that combine real-time data analytics with expert judgment. The fusion of satellite tracking, open-source data, insurance analytics, and human expertise enables detection of early warning signals and triangulation of emerging risks. Such capabilities shorten the time lag between geopolitical events and operational adjustments, which can be critical in volatile environments. Third, resilience must become a strategic asset, not a contingency plan. Organizations should invest proactively in supply chain redundancy, cybersecurity, diversified sourcing, and flexible production capacity. This shift — from viewing resilience as a cost center to a competitive advantage — will differentiate leaders in an uncertain world. The contemporary geopolitical landscape is characterized not merely by increased risk, but also by a fundamental shift in the nature of uncertainty. Firms no longer operate in a world where stability is the default and disruptions are exceptions. Instead, persistent volatility and systemic interdependence demand that companies develop new cognitive and operational frameworks that accept uncertainty as a permanent condition. In this environment, success depends less on predicting the future than on designing organizations capable of thriving amid unpredictability. Geopolitical uncertainty is not a 'black swan' — it is the new baseline. The winners will be those who treat resilience and adaptive capacity not as defensive measures, but as central pillars of competitive strategy.
