Latest news with #Dari-language
Memri
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Afghan Daily: 'If A War Were To Break Out Between The United States And Iran, It Can Be Predicted That Afghans Would Support The People Of Iran'
On April 7, 2025, an Afghan media outlet published an article arguing that in the event of war between the United States and Iran, Afghans will support Iran. The Dari-language article, titled "Will Afghans Support Iran Or America?" argued that although there no likelihood of war, Afghans have strong ties to Iran due to shared history, culture, and social connections, and therefore will stand by Iran. Following are excerpts from the article, as translated from Dari: "A War Between The United States And Iran May Remind Afghans Of The Positive Historical Relations And Past Alliances, Prompting Them To Support Iran" "These days, talk of a possible war between Iran and the United States is everywhere. Although I consider the occurrence of such a war unlikely for various reasons, if a war were to break out between the United States and Iran, it can be predicted that Afghans would support the people of Iran. "This support would stem from cultural, historical, and social reasons rooted in the deep ties between the two nations. "In this article, we will point out four main factors that lead to this support. "1. Historical Commonalities "Afghanistan and Iran have long shared a common history rooted in ancient empires and the region's rich cultures. This shared history has created human and cultural bonds between the peoples of the two countries. As a result, a war between the United States and Iran may remind Afghans of the positive historical relations and past alliances, prompting them to support Iran. "2. Cultural Commonalities "Shared culture and customs are another important reason for Afghans' support of Iran. The Persian language, which is widely spoken in both countries, serves as a strong communicative bridge between the people of Iran and Afghanistan. In addition to language, many traditions, customs, and cultural values are common between the two countries, which further strengthen the closeness between the people of Afghanistan and Iran." "Many Afghans Live In Iran And Participate In The Host Country's Economic, Social, And Cultural Activities – These Close Ties Lead Afghans To Feel A Sense Of Responsibility And Support For Iran In The Event Of A War Between The United States And Iran" "3. Neighborhood "Afghanistan and Iran are two neighboring countries that share close geographical relations. This neighborhood results in deeper and stronger human, economic, and social ties between the people of the two countries. Therefore, in times of crisis or war, the people of Afghanistan may feel a sense of responsibility to support their neighbors. "4. The Presence of Several Million Afghan Migrants in Iran "Iran has hosted millions of Afghan migrants over the past years. This large migrant presence has created strong human and social connections between the people of the two countries. Many Afghans live in Iran and participate in the host country's economic, social, and cultural activities. These close ties lead Afghans to feel a sense of responsibility and support for Iran in the event of a war between the United States and Iran. "As a result, these four important factors demonstrate the reasons why Afghans would support the people of Iran in the event of a war with the United States. Historical and cultural ties, neighborhood, and the presence of Afghan migrants in Iran are all influential factors that could lead to solidarity and support from the Afghan people toward Iran in times of crisis." Source: (Afghanistan), April 7, 2025.
![Afghan Article On U.S. 'Great Failure' In Afghanistan: 'From The Very Beginning, [China] Was Kept Out Of The Afghanistan Equation'](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.memri.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fnew_images%2Forg%2F11900_SD_thumb_320.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Memri
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Afghan Article On U.S. 'Great Failure' In Afghanistan: 'From The Very Beginning, [China] Was Kept Out Of The Afghanistan Equation'
A Dari-language article in the Afghan press assesses the lessons learnt from the Western failure in Afghanistan, arguing that any strategy should have also included regional players such as China, Russia, and Pakistan, in order to avoid a power vacuum. "Western governments, by focusing solely on state-building and neglecting other consequential factors, essentially failed to properly understand the shifting balance of power in the region and the world," the article states. The article, titled "The Great Failure Of The United States In The War In Afghanistan" and published by Sarie News, notes that European countries will need their own military power to enter Afghanistan-like situations. "In the current situation, where the significant migration of the Afghan people to European countries is increasing, Europe may soon conclude that it should not have relied on the capabilities of a country like the United States to enter the battlefield in Afghanistan," it says, adding: "Without American military planes, America's allies could not have evacuated their forces and personnel from Afghanistan." Following are excerpts from the article, as translated from Dari: "The United States Spent Over Two Trillion Dollars In Afghanistan In An Attempt To Establish Governance Institutions And Structures – However, We Witnessed That All Of These Infrastructures Collapsed Within A Few Weeks" "The war in Afghanistan has always and at all times been considered a major failure and a great defeat for the United States. The high costs of this war, contrasted with its very limited achievements, highlight a fundamental question: Why was this war initiated? Over the course of 20 years of war in Afghanistan, more than 48,000 Afghan civilians, at least 66,000 Afghan military personnel, and 3,500 NATO soldiers lost their lives. "The United States spent over two trillion dollars in Afghanistan in an attempt to establish governance institutions and structures. However, we witnessed that all of these infrastructures collapsed within a few weeks. "The irresponsible withdrawal of the United States, which created a power vacuum, proved that the people of Afghanistan have been left stranded and abandoned in the absence of a state and national leadership. For the West, the current duty and mission is to review its lessons from Afghanistan and take them as a guiding principle moving forward. "The first lesson that can be drawn from the Afghanistan disaster is that the use of foreign military force is not a wise strategy for effectively and sustainably advancing the agenda of 'regime change.' The West completely failed in building a modern, democratic, and strong state that could significantly counter threats. "Within this framework, the United States effectively fell into a similar trap to the one it faced after its illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Only a short time after the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, Iraq witnessed a surge in terrorist activities, which in turn paved the way for the emergence of the group 'ISIS.' Similarly, we witnessed this in Libya, where NATO's action in overthrowing Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi plunged the country into chaos, insecurity, and civil war." "China Could Have Been An Effective Player In Afghanistan's Developments. However, From The Very Beginning, It Was Kept Out Of The Afghanistan Equation – Without A Doubt, China Could Have Made Significant Investments In Afghanistan And Helped Move The Country Forward" "Overall, it must be said that the very idea of 'nation-building' from the top down (forced nation-building) is fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure from the outset. This model assumes that military presence in a country and the influx of resources will inevitably lead to security, development, and democratic governance. However, nation-building requires popular support and can only succeed when carried out by local representatives who are perceived as legitimate by the people. "This element was significantly absent in Afghanistan. The United States, by relying on warlords who had committed numerous wrongful acts on Afghan soil and who also fled during the recent crisis in Afghanistan, effectively made a substantial portion of the Afghan nation lose trust in it. "From a broader perspective, the idea that existing institutions in a country can easily be replaced with new ones has largely proven to be incorrect. Most governments have been formed through a gradual process of cooperation and compromise over time, rather than by external forces and actors. Therefore, persuading nations, as opposed to coercion and superficial imitations in the context of nation and state-building, will yield far better results. "The second lesson that can be drawn from 20 years of failure and war in Afghanistan is that state-building must be accompanied by regional strategies. Approaches that ignore key regional players are not realistic. Western governments, by focusing solely on state-building and neglecting other consequential factors, essentially failed to properly understand the shifting balance of power in the region and the world. "China could have been an effective player in Afghanistan's developments. However, from the very beginning, it was kept out of the Afghanistan equation. Without a doubt, China could have made significant investments in Afghanistan and helped move the country forward. Nevertheless, this did not happen, and this opportunity was wrongly wasted, leaving the people of Afghanistan unable to benefit from the country's development." "Similarly, Greater Cooperation And A More Active Presence Of Russia In Afghanistan Could Have Transformed Afghanistan's Northern Corridors Into Hubs That Would Bring Prosperity And Economic Growth To The Country" "Similarly, greater cooperation and a more active presence of Russia in Afghanistan could have transformed Afghanistan's northern corridors into hubs that would bring prosperity and economic growth to the country. However, this did not happen, and Afghanistan remains largely dependent on the southern corridors along the Pakistan border for trade and meeting its essential needs. This has effectively given Pakistan a significant leverage in Afghanistan's affairs. "Moreover, the United States, through actors such as Saudi Arabia, which has made significant investments in Pakistan and is a close partner of Washington, could have exerted pressure on the Pakistani government to play a more effective and constructive role in Afghanistan's affairs. However, this opportunity was also lost. "Ultimately, the last lesson that can be learned from the Afghanistan disaster is related to Europe. It is a lesson that reminds Europe that it must develop its capabilities in alignment with its strategic interests. Given the shifting balance of power and the global power corridors, Europe must significantly reconsider its reliance on the power and international capabilities of the United States. "The process of the withdrawal of American forces and their allies from Afghanistan by American planes clearly shows what is at stake. Without American military planes, America's allies could not have evacuated their forces and personnel from Afghanistan. In the current situation, where the significant migration of the Afghan people to European countries is increasing, Europe may soon conclude that it should not have relied on the capabilities of a country like the United States to enter the battlefield in Afghanistan." Source: (Afghanistan), February 24, 2025.
![Dari-Language Telegram Channel: 'A Threat Greater Than 9/11 Is On The Way'; 'Iran Is Not Immune From The [Afghan] Taliban Threat'; 'Taliban Have Threatened Tajikistan'](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.memri.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fnew_images%2Fjttm%2F03252025e_thumb_320.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Memri
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Dari-Language Telegram Channel: 'A Threat Greater Than 9/11 Is On The Way'; 'Iran Is Not Immune From The [Afghan] Taliban Threat'; 'Taliban Have Threatened Tajikistan'
The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI's Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here . In a Dari-language article dated March 13, 2025, on the Bazgasht News Telegram channel warned that "a threat greater than 9/11" is coming in view of the Afghan Taliban's continuing support for Al-Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the Islamic State Khurasan Province (ISKP). The article, titled "A Threat Greater Than 9/11 Is On The Way – Is The World On The Brink Of A New Terrorist Crisis?" warns that since the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban rulers have not only destabilized the region but have also fueled global security threats by supporting terrorist groups like TTP and Taliban factions aiding ISKP. The article highlights the Taliban's deep ties to Al-Qaeda and warns that without an international intervention, terrorist groups operating under the protection of the Taliban could plan attacks even deadlier than 9/11, posing a dire global security threat. Bazgasht News posts contents content on Telegram, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other social media networks focusing on Afghanistan as well as regional news. Following is the complete translation of the article: "Pakistan, Which Once Supported The [Afghan] Taliban As A Strategic Tool In The Region, Has Now Become One Of The Group's Main Targets" "A Threat Greater Than 9/11 Is On The Way – Is The World On The Brink Of A New Terrorist Crisis? "Author: Arsh Azadeh "Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021, the group has not only created widespread domestic challenges but has also become a direct threat to the security of neighboring countries and, even beyond that, to global security. "By supporting like-minded terrorist groups, particularly the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Taliban have severely shaken the foundations of regional stability and placed neighboring countries on the edge of an unprecedented crisis. "Pakistan, which once supported the [Afghan] Taliban as a strategic tool in the region, has now become one of the group's main targets. After coming to power, [Afghan] Taliban strengthened their ties with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) [in Afghanistan] which has become a safe haven for the group. The TTP has openly stated that its goal is to overthrow the Pakistani government and establish an Islamic emirate in the country, similar to what the Taliban have established in Afghanistan. Since the Taliban's return to power, the group's attacks in Pakistan have increased sharply, undermining the country's internal security. "Iran is not immune from the [Afghan] Taliban threat. The Taliban's extremist and anti-Shi'ite policies have led to border tensions and military clashes with Iranian forces. Many reports indicate that the Taliban have provided a safe haven for terrorist groups such as ISKP, which have expanded their activities against Iran and other countries in the region. An article, titled 'Strange Indifference To The Threat' and published in the daily Jomhouri-e Eslami, clearly warned that the Taliban are a serious threat to Iran's security and that any inattention to this danger could have disastrous consequences." "The Taliban Have Always Had A Hostile View Of Tajikistan And Other Central Asian Countries" "The Taliban have always had a hostile view of Tajikistan and other Central Asian countries. Recently, there have been reports that the Taliban have threatened Tajikistan and even deployed forces on its borders. These threats could easily lead to a major crisis that would jeopardize the security of the entire Central Asian region. "In addition, the Taliban are trying to gain influence among extremist groups in Central Asian countries, which could lead to the growth and spread of Takfiri [associated with takfir, which is the practice of declaring a particular Muslim to be an unbeliever] ideologies in the region. If Afghanistan's neighboring countries remain indifferent to these threats, the likelihood of large-scale attacks in these countries will be very high. "Although the main focus of the Taliban's threats is on neighboring countries, the consequences of these threats can also be transferred to other countries of the world. The Taliban have become a global threat, especially in the areas of terrorist activities, human rights violations, and the strengthening of extremist and takfiri groups. "The group may act as a supporter and sponsor for other terrorist groups globally, spreading extremist ideologies that threaten global stability. An example of this risk is [some factions within the] Taliban's support for ISKP, which has executed widespread attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even other regions in recent years. "Given that Al-Qaeda also continues to have close ties with the Taliban, it is likely that these terrorist groups will plan attacks similar to or even larger than 9/11 in the future. If the Taliban continue to operate without any international control or pressure, the world may face terrorist attacks that are far more deadly and far-reaching than 9/11." Source: March 13, 2025. The full text of this post is available to subscribers. Please login or register to request subscription information from MEMRI .
Memri
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Columns In Afghan Daily Analyze Trump's Gaza Plan: 'If Trump Seeks The Complete Elimination Of The Palestinian Issue, He Will Still Call It A Pursuit Of Peace'
On February 7, 9 and 11, 2025, an independent Dari-language Afghan daily Hasht-e-Subh published three columns by writer Shujauddin Amini examining U.S. President Donald Trump's proposals for Gaza, including making it a tourist attraction and moving Gazans to Egypt and Jordan, and the likely repercussions the proposals will have on the region and Israel. "It is well known that Amman and Cairo harbor deep resentment toward Hamas. If two million Hamas-supporting Palestinians settle in the Sinai Desert, near Israel, the radicalization of the youth within this large population is inevitable, and the harm will not only affect Tel Aviv but will also extend to Egypt. The same scenario may repeat in Jordan," Amini wrote. The columns, titled "Decoding What Trump Said," argue that Trump's plan, which he said surprised even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is driven by personal ambition rather than strategic consultation. "When Gaza is emptied of its population, Israel, through relentless bombardment and perhaps even the use of 'bunker-buster bombs,' will ensure that no trace of Hamas, its members, or its military capabilities remains," the author wrote, while adding "the destruction of Hamas has not been achieved." Following are translated excerpts from the columns: "In Order To Guarantee The Continuation Of The Ceasefire And Present Himself As The Hero Who Ended The War, Trump Has No Choice But To Secure Netanyahu's Satisfaction – Something That Is Not Possible Without Granting Him Concessions" "Part One: Decoding What Trump Said "... [At his press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald] Trump, regarding Gaza, emphasized the relocation of the residents of this strip to other countries and stated that his goal is to rebuild this area and turn it into a tourist destination so that, in his view, the world can benefit from it. However, he did not stop there and announced the permanent ownership of the United States over Gaza, and for achieving this, he did not rule out the use of military force... "The Plan To Relocate Gaza's Residents: What Is Trump Pursuing? "1. What Trump stated regarding Gaza is the result of his personal opinion and, apparently, he has not consulted anyone about it. If we pay attention to Trump's character and personality type, we can recognize his unwillingness to seek advice. Trump likes to propose ambitious plans so that his name and legacy always remain on people's lips, and global media continuously invite top political analysts to analyze and decode his statements. When an audience is present during his speeches, he expresses controversial remarks more boldly. Had the press conference not been held and participants not asked their questions, he might not have framed the issue of Gaza with such sensationalism. It was in response to one of the questions that he raised the possibility of deploying military forces to Gaza. "Trump's plan is so ambitious that it has even surprised Netanyahu. Although Netanyahu is among Israel's far-right figures, not only has he not insisted on the forced displacement of Palestinians, but at one point, he even signaled approval for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. For this reason, in response to one of the questions, he said: 'I have always emphasized that Gaza should no longer be a threat to Israel; but President Trump has taken this matter to a much higher level...' "Even [Israeli far-right lawmakers Itamar] Ben-Gvir and [Bezalel] Smotrich, who are among the most extreme figures and advocates for the evacuation of Gaza and the West Bank by Palestinians, do not have a plan as dangerous as what Trump proposed. These two, along with others, have occasionally stated that if Gaza and West Bank residents could be persuaded [whether through incentives or threats] to leave their homes, it would be a good thing. That is all. "2. Netanyahu did not agree to sign the ceasefire agreement with Hamas until serious pressure was applied. Joe Biden and Trump, through joint efforts, managed to persuade him. Netanyahu is also facing dissatisfaction from his allies internally. For example, Ben-Gvir resigned from the cabinet, and Smotrich is also set to resign if the second and third phases of the ceasefire are implemented. With Smotrich's resignation, Netanyahu's cabinet will collapse. "Now, in order to guarantee the continuation of the ceasefire and present himself as the hero who ended the war, Trump has no choice but to secure Netanyahu's satisfaction – something that is not possible without granting him concessions. The plan to relocate Gaza's residents and the signing of the memorandum on Iran are the biggest concessions Netanyahu gains. Even if they are not implemented, they can silence his dissatisfied allies for a while." "Hamas Has Not Been Destroyed; On The Contrary, Some Of Its Military Centers Have Apparently Remained Intact – The Military Parade By This Group After 15 Months Of Relentless Bombardment By One Of The Most Powerful Armies In The Region... Is Unacceptable To Israeli And American Sides" "3. Hamas has not been destroyed; on the contrary, some of its military centers have apparently remained intact. The military parade by this group after 15 months of relentless bombardment by one of the most powerful armies in the region, with the full support of the world's superpower, is unacceptable to the Israeli and American sides. The complete destruction of Hamas was not only important for Israel but also for the United States and its Western allies. Western military aid to Israel was intended for the destruction of Hamas, not necessarily the massacre of Gaza's civilians. "Now that the destruction of Hamas has not been achieved, Trump wants to settle the matter permanently by relocating Gaza's residents. When Gaza is emptied of its population, Israel, through relentless bombardment and perhaps even the use of 'bunker-buster bombs,' will ensure that no trace of Hamas, its members, or its military capabilities remains, and that the possibility of rebuilding the strip does not exist. "4. If Gaza is to be rebuilt, a large portion of the cost will fall on the United States – even if Trump does not want it; he wants the entire burden of the cost to be placed on the Arab governments, especially the emirates of the southern Persian Gulf. [He says:] 'This project can be funded by wealthy neighboring countries...' "Even if that happens, Washington still cannot escape the financial strain of Gaza's reconstruction. For this reason, Trump does not want to rebuild an area with American money where Hamas-supporting Palestinians live and, in his view, pose a threat to Israel. He explicitly stated: 'The reconstruction and reoccupation process should not be carried out by the same people who have fought and lived there for years.'" "The Official Renouncement Of Hamas's Rule Over Gaza And The Handover Of Its Military Facilities And Equipment To Tel Aviv Or Other Countries Could Be An Even More Important Goal Than The First" "5. Trump may not be serious about implementing what he stated and might only want to use it as a tool for pressure. For example, trying to make Hamas back down in the later stages of the ceasefire and giving more concessions to the Israeli side could be one objective. More importantly, the official renouncement of Hamas's rule over Gaza and the handover of its military facilities and equipment to Tel Aviv or other countries could be an even more important goal than the first. "Now that Hamas has not been destroyed, Tel Aviv is seeking to prevent this group from regaining control over Gaza. If such an intention exists, Hamas will not comply unless a more serious effort than before is made to suppress it. "6. The complete removal of the Palestinian issue from the regional and global agenda could also be part of Trump's agenda. It should not be forgotten that he recognized Jerusalem as the permanent capital of Israel and moved the U.S. Embassy there, which he mentioned as his most important achievement in his press conference. Unlike other U.S. leaders, he has not supported the idea of an independent Palestinian state. Even when he has said something, it has been full of ambiguity. "If Trump seeks the complete elimination of the Palestinian issue, he will still call it a pursuit of peace; that is, in his view, if there are no Palestinians, there will be no war against Israel. To achieve this, relocating the residents of Gaza is an immediate option, and the excuse for it seems to have been provided." "If There Is To Be A Deal Concerning The West Bank, It Would Fall Into One Of Three Scenarios"; "The 'One State, Two Nations' Plan May Be Implemented, Meaning That The Residents Of The West Bank... Would Gain Israeli Citizenship" "On the other side, the West Bank remains with three million Palestinians, and it is unclear what Trump will do about it. However, in response to a question on this matter, he announced that his administration would clarify its position in the coming weeks. He also referred to the efforts of some Republican senators who are working to pass a bill that would obligate the U.S. government to refer to the West Bank by its biblical name: Judea and Samaria. "If there is to be a deal concerning the West Bank, it would fall into one of three scenarios: First, the current situation continues, but with an unprecedented expansion of settlement policies, recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the settlements, and the silence of the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas. Second, something called an independent Palestinian state is formed within this small area, but Israel will control its space, borders, and security. "Third, the 'one state, two nations' plan may be implemented, meaning that the residents of the West Bank, by merging into the Israeli state, would gain Israeli citizenship, though this option seems weak. While the implementation of any of the above options would benefit Israel, it would not lead to lasting peace." "In Trump's View, If The Residents Of Gaza Remain In This Strip, Peace Will Not Be Achieved... To Prevent His Plan From Causing Too Much Sensitivity, He Does Not Mention The Potential Future Occupation Of Gaza By Israel, Which Is An Important Point" "7. The expansion of the Abraham Accords is of utmost importance to Trump, and his goal includes involving Saudi Arabia and other countries in it. In his recent statements, he referred to the Abraham Accords as the 'Great Economic' plan and expressed concern that no country has joined it in the past four years [of the Biden administration]. Saudi Arabia does not reject normalizing relations with Israel, but it has demands, with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state being the most important one. Although Trump said that Riyadh is not pursuing this demand, the Saudi side, rejecting his claim, defended the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. "Therefore, before taking further action to expand the Abraham Accords, Trump is attempting to keep the Israeli side satisfied by presenting the plan to relocate Gaza's residents, so that in negotiations with Saudi Arabia, Israel does not make concessions. That is, if any concessions are to be made to Riyadh, they would not be enough to guarantee the creation of a Palestinian state and would only involve granting minimal concessions to Mahmoud Abbas. "8. Trump, in order to gain the world's approval, has declared his goal to be humanitarian and benevolent. His argument is based on Gaza being destroyed and uninhabitable. He adds that the residents of Gaza have had nowhere to go, which is why they have remained in this strip. He speaks of his desire to ensure the well-being of the people of Gaza in other countries and to turn this strip into the 'Riviera of the Middle East' without considering the moral implications of forced relocation. "In Trump's view, if the residents of Gaza remain in this strip, peace will not be achieved, without addressing the real roots of the conflict. Ultimately, to prevent his plan from causing too much sensitivity, he does not mention the potential future occupation of Gaza by Israel, which is an important point. In response to a question on this matter, he confidently stated that with the implementation of his plan, Gaza would become an amazing place for the entire world, and even for the Palestinians." "The Continuation And Intensification Of The War, Along With Relentless Bombings – Regardless Of Who The Victims Were – Became A Tool For Israel To Force Gazans To Leave The Strip, Yet It Failed"; "After 15 Months, The Residents Of Gaza Have Not Taken Any Action That Would Indicate Their Dissatisfaction With Hamas" "Will The Residents Of Gaza Agree To Leave Their Homes? "In addition to its goal of destroying Hamas, Israel has also aimed to displace the residents of Gaza. For this reason, it repeatedly requested Egypt to host the inhabitants of the strip in the Sinai Desert, but Egypt refused. The previous U.S. administration, led by Joe Biden, opposed this plan; otherwise, serious steps would have been taken. The continuation and intensification of the war, along with relentless bombings – regardless of who the victims were – became a tool for Israel to force Gazans to leave the strip, yet it failed. "The people of Gaza endured immense destruction and massacres but never spoke of abandoning their land. Had they wanted to, the Rafah border crossing would have been opened for them to be transferred to Egypt or elsewhere. Gazans demonstrated such resilience that even some of them, in the midst of war and the ruins left behind, remained in northern Gaza instead of relocating to the south of the strip – something quite remarkable. A screenshot of the column "Another tool that Israel employed was the food blockade of Gaza. The United Nations repeatedly reported on the spread of widespread famine and the deaths of children due to starvation in this strip. Even these days, when a fragile ceasefire is in place, based on Hamas's claims, the number of humanitarian aid trucks entering Gaza is less than what was mentioned in the agreement with Israel. "Worse than that, Ben-Gvir, the resigned member of Israel's cabinet, called the food blockade of Gaza an effective measure, and his remarks were described by Josep Borrell, the former head of the European Union's foreign policy, as 'an incitement to war crimes.' Even so, the residents of Gaza preferred to stay among the ruins rather than go to a safe place. More importantly, the enthusiasm of the displaced people from northern Gaza upon returning to their destroyed homes caught the attention of the world's media, which indicates their deep desire to remain in the strip. "A more important point is the lack of opposition from the people of Gaza to Hamas, the group considered responsible for the current situation in the strip – regardless of its motivations. After 15 months, the residents of Gaza have not taken any action that would indicate their dissatisfaction with Hamas. Even if this does not mean support for the group, it also does not suggest opposition. Given this, implementing Trump's plan will not be easy." "While The Governments Of Egypt And Jordan Outwardly Portray Themselves As Supporters Of The Palestinian Cause, In Reality, They Do Not Have Good Memories Of The Palestinians And Cannot Host Them" "Will Egypt And Jordan Host The Residents Of Gaza? "Trump has stated that Egypt and Jordan are obligated to host two million Palestinians – a request that will seemingly not be accepted. While the governments of Egypt and Jordan outwardly portray themselves as supporters of the Palestinian cause, in reality, they do not have good memories of the Palestinians and cannot host them. Of course, public opinion in both countries is strongly in favor of supporting the Palestinians. However, for several reasons, the two countries do not want to comply with Trump's plan: "1. Both countries believe that Israel seeks the complete destruction of Gaza and its transformation into an uninhabitable area so that Palestinians permanently abandon any thought of returning. Even if reconstruction takes place, conditions for their return will not be favorable. Thus, if two million displaced and wounded Palestinians remain permanently in Egypt and Jordan, hosting them – if not impossible – will be difficult and fraught with numerous consequences and dangers, especially considering the economic difficulties and other challenges both countries face. "2. Egypt and Jordan fear that young displaced and wounded Palestinians may, in the future, become an uncontrollable radical force, endangering the security of both countries. This seems highly probable in the eyes of both countries, especially if they suspect that Hamas fighters are among them. It is well known that Amman and Cairo harbor deep resentment toward Hamas. If two million Hamas-supporting Palestinians settle in the Sinai Desert, near Israel, the radicalization of the youth within this large population is inevitable, and the harm will not only affect Tel Aviv but will also extend to Egypt. The same scenario may repeat in Jordan." "Furthermore, History Has Shown That Wherever Palestinians Have Sought Refuge, They Have Not Remained Calm And Have Caused Difficulties For Their Hosts" "Furthermore, history has shown that wherever Palestinians have sought refuge, they have not remained calm and have caused difficulties for their hosts. For instance, when the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat, was based in Jordan, it clashed with the Jordanian government, leading to significant bloodshed, which became known as 'Black September.' When it moved to Lebanon, it did not remain quiet either; a factor that led to the start of the civil war in the country and Israel's invasion of Beirut. "3. Not only Amman and Cairo, but also other Arab governments are concerned that Trump's plan may be a prelude to the implementation of a bigger plan: the relocation of all Palestinians from the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Israel. Unconfirmed rumors are being passed around suggesting that Palestinians residing in these three areas are supposed to be transferred to Jordan, and this country would become a sanctuary for Palestinians, so that the dispute over the establishment of an independent Palestinian state would end forever, and Israel would achieve its long-held goal. "Regardless of how feasible this plan is, it is already reported that based on some statistics, one out of every five people in Jordan is Palestinian. Therefore, Arab governments have no choice but to resist; otherwise, by acquiescing to Trump's plan, while removing the issue of establishing a Palestinian state from the global agenda, they would also be accused of betraying the Palestinian cause. However, so far, they appear united and constantly demand Trump's retreat from his plan." "Egypt Is Already Hosting Over Nine Million African Refugees, And To Prevent Their Route To Europe, It Receives Billions Of Dollars From The European Union" "The Necessities Of Egypt and Jordan "Egypt is drowning in economic problems. Cairo's economic turmoil becomes more prominent when we consider its growing population and its hosting of millions of African refugees. It is true that Egypt has a great historical legacy, but it spends its days with money from countries that are less than a century old: the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar (which supported the government of Mohamed Morsi), and so on. "If it were solely reliant on financial support from the United States, it would not be surprising. Cairo receives billions of dollars annually from Washington in exchange for understanding peace with Israel. For this reason, the Trump administration's State Department made an exception for Egypt and Israel when halting foreign aid. "Given the above point, it is not unlikely that Trump will use the economic leverage to persuade Egypt, an approach whose effectiveness cannot be easily doubted. That is why he said, 'We have done a lot for them (Egypt and Jordan), they will accept our request.' Even Israel had previously announced that it would pay off Egypt's billions of dollars in debt in exchange for resettling Gaza residents in the Sinai Desert. Egypt is already hosting over nine million African refugees, and to prevent their route to Europe, it receives billions of dollars from the European Union. "Similarly, Jordan also has its own necessities. This country is referred to as a non-NATO ally of the United States in the Middle East. More importantly, it hosts U.S. military bases and depends on Washington's presence in the region for its security, while also receiving financial aid. The two countries could only say no to Trump if they have the support of other Arab governments; otherwise, it will be difficult." "[Egypt And Jodan] ... Also Have Tools Of Pressure: Withdrawal From The Peace Treaty And Turning To The People"; "If Trump Realizes That, Instead Of Expanding The Abraham Accords, He Is Doing Something That Reduces The Number Of Israel's Friends, He Is Likely To Reconsider His Decision" "The Tools Of Egypt And Jordan "While the two countries have their own necessities, they also have tools of pressure: withdrawal from the peace treaty and turning to the people. Egypt and Jordan have each separately signed a peace treaty with Israel and recognized it, but now they can emphasize the cancellation of these treaties and the severance of political relations with Tel Aviv. When they do this, the Abraham Accords are at risk; a plan whose completion is Trump's greatest concern. If Trump realizes that, instead of expanding the Abraham Accords, he is doing something that reduces the number of Israel's friends, he is likely to reconsider his decision. A screenshot of the column "Turning to the people and encouraging protests can also be useful for Egypt and Jordan. This is in case the two countries fail to satisfy Trump's demands. When people take to the streets in Arab countries, chanting support for the Palestinians and saying no to the United States' demands, it could somewhat shift the White House's perspective on the issue. "Furthermore, Arab rulers can shield themselves from Trump's wrath by hiding behind the protesters. Instead of severing ties with Israel, Arab governments prefer to turn to the people. However, they also fear street protests, fearing that such movements might give rise to protests that, in addition to the Palestinian issue, would highlight domestic challenges that can only be resolved by the departure of the conservative Arab rulers." "Preventing The Delivery Of Humanitarian Aid To Gaza Can Also Be An Effective Tool In Trump's Hands – A Tool That Israel Has Used Over The Past 15 Months But Failed To Achieve Its Main Objective With"; " The Resumption And Intensification Of The War Is Another Tool That Israel Can Use With The Green Light From The United States" "Trump's Pressure Tool "So far, Trump appears serious about implementing what he has said regarding Gaza, and he may use the following tools to achieve his goal: "1. He can use the issue of Gaza's reconstruction as a tool, meaning that as long as the residents of this strip do not agree to leave their homes, no efforts will be made for debris removal and reconstruction. The scale of destruction is so vast that, according to reports, just clearing the rubble would take five years – let alone reconstruction, which would be left for later. "Given this situation, sustaining life amid ruins filled with bombs and unexploded ordnance seems permanently impossible. However, considering the resilience that Gaza's residents have demonstrated throughout the war, it is highly likely that they will once again embrace hardship but refuse to leave this strip. "2. Preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza can also be an effective tool in Trump's hands – a tool that Israel has used over the past 15 months but failed to achieve its main objective with. Of course, the Trump administration will not directly implement a food blockade plan, as it will at least outwardly consider the world's reaction. Therefore, in this regard, it will assign Israel to carry it out. Just a few days ago, he stated that Israel is set to hand over Gaza to the United States after the war ends. "3. The resumption and intensification of the war is another tool that Israel can use with the green light from the United States. Trump stated in his remarks that if necessary, his country will not refrain from deploying military forces to Gaza. This would, of course, be aimed at the complete eradication of Hamas, while also including the displacement of Gaza's residents. However, this contradicts Trump's main objective (of ending wars ) and undermines his campaign slogans. The tool of war may also prove ineffective, as it has not been successful since October 7. "4. Trump's promises that Gazans will have a bright future in other countries and that Gaza itself will be transformed into a dreamlike place may not be entirely unappealing for some. Of course, this would only be the case if the tools mentioned above have already been tested. Based on this, some residents of Gaza may perceive the prospect of life in this strip as bleak and agree to leave their homes, but this does not necessarily apply to all the inhabitants of the strip..." Source: February 7, 9, and 11, 2025.
Memri
31-01-2025
- Politics
- Memri
Afghan Author Fears U.S. Isolationism: 'Trump Is Strongly Opposed To Internationalism; He Believes That America's Main Priority Should Be Addressing Its Internal Issues'
On January 20, 2025, Afghan news website Rewayat published a Dari-language article by Afghan writer Abdul Shaheed Saqib marking the return of Donald Trump as the president of the United States for a second term and expressing concern that America will adopt a policy of isolationism. In the article, titled "Welcome To The Trump Era!" noted that Trump represents a reversal of the principle of internationalism started by Woodrow Wilson, and as a result the world may see the weakening and collapse of international institutions. Rewayat News and Analysis Website was established in 2022 to provide accounts of events related to the geography, history, and identity of Afghanistan and publishes content in Dari and Pashtu. Most of its articles and news focus on criticizing the Afghan Taliban. Following are transalted excerpts from the article: "The Trump Era Is The Era Of The Far-Right's Return To Power; The Far-Right Refers To Groups That Are Anti-Immigrant, Xenophobic, And Place Little Importance On Human Rights Or International Treaties" "Francis Fukuyama, the renowned American-Japanese theorist, stated in an interview that Trump's return in 2024 differs from his victory in the 2016 election. He explained this difference by saying that in 2016, most researchers believed that Trump was an exception in American history and a temporary deviation because, on the one hand he faced a weak opponent who did not take him seriously, and on the other hand he did not win the majority of the popular vote. "After Biden's victory, it was thought that this deviation had been corrected, and that American politics had returned to normal. However, according to Fukuyama, Trump's return in the 2024 election shows that he is not an exceptional or deviant phenomenon, but rather that we are at the beginning of a new era. "What is this new era? "I would like to call this new era the Trump Era. "What is the Trump Era and what are its characteristics? Are we prepared to enter this era? "I believe that for our generation (a generation that has grown up over the past two decades and has fought for democracy and human rights in Afghanistan), there is nothing more critical than asking these questions. If we do not understand the era we are living in and its demands, any political activism we undertake will be akin to shooting arrows in the dark. "What is the Trump Era? "The Trump Era is the era of the far-right's return to power. The far-right refers to groups that are anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and place little importance on human rights or international treaties. "Today, the far-right has swept across the globe, from the United States to Europe and beyond. Trump in the United States, the Brexit movement in Britain, Marine Le Pen's movement in France, the Alternative party in Germany, Erdoğan in Turkey, and the Hindu nationalist party in India, etc., are all part of this ideological faction." "Far-Right Parties Are The Ideological Heirs Of Fascist Regimes In Germany And Italy"; "Far-Right Parties Not Only Spread Lies In Their Propaganda But Also Promote Fake News To Discredit Journalism And The Media, Blurring The Line Between Truth And Falsehood" "The characteristics of the Trump Era, in my opinion, are the same as those of far-right parties. Here, I will highlight three characteristics of this era: "Xenophobia and Identity Conflicts "Far-right parties are the ideological heirs of fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. One of their most prominent features is intense xenophobia and the creation of an extreme 'we' versus 'them' dichotomy. By exaggerating differences among individuals, nationalities, and ethnicities, these parties portray immigrants and foreigners as existential threats to the cultural identity of nations. "A key manifestation of this xenophobia is their staunch opposition to immigration. Today, far-right parties have made up dozens of conspiracy theories against immigrants, using them to fuel anti-immigration sentiment across Europe and the United States, and advocating for the expulsion of migrants from these countries. "The Post-Truth Era "Another characteristic of far-right parties is their reliance on lies and propaganda akin to Goebbels-style lies. Goebbels, a German Nazi politician, served as the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime from 1933 to 1945 and assumed the position of Prime Minister following Hitler's death. "Goebbels initially worked as an ordinary journalist, but his exceptional ability to manipulate the truth propelled him to the position of Minister of Propaganda in Hitler's regime. He was so adept at lying that he could convincingly present falsehoods as truths, even making black appear white. "Goebbels pioneered a technique in lying that is referred to in political literature as Goebbels-style lies. He believed that the bigger the lie, the more believable it is. While he often accused Hitler's opponents of lying, it is said that no politician utilized lies in political propaganda as extensively as Goebbels did. "Far-right parties, inheritors of fascism and Nazism, rely heavily on lies in their political propaganda. In an investigative report published by the Washington Post, it was revealed that Trump told 30,000 lies in the first four years of his administration. Far-right parties not only spread lies in their propaganda but also promote fake news to discredit journalism and the media, blurring the line between truth and falsehood, and leaving no one capable of distinguishing between the two." "Another Characteristic Of This Era Is The Transition Of Countries From Internationalism Or Globalization To Isolationism"; "Trump Is Strongly Opposed To Internationalism – He Believes That America's Main Priority Should Be Addressing Its Internal Issues" "The Era Of Isolationism "Another characteristic of this era is the transition of countries from internationalism or globalization to isolationism. Internationalism in the United States began with [Woodrow] Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, whose principles are known as Wilson's Fourteen Points. However, Trump is strongly opposed to internationalism. He believes that America's main priority should be addressing its internal issues. "Far-right parties, including Trump's administration, are opposed to unions, organizations, and international agreements. With their rise to power in Europe and the United States, international unions and organizations face significant threats of weakening or collapse. A screenshot of the article "The Era of Belligerence and Polarization of Societies "Every republican order requires two types of safeguards for its stability and survival: "1. Hard Safeguards: These include principles like the balance of power and other institutional arrangements enshrined in the constitution. 2. Secondary or Subtle Safeguards: These encompass a spirit of mutual tolerance and self-restraint. "The spirit of mutual tolerance refers to an attitude where political groups view each other not as enemies but as competitors. This perspective requires leaders to seek competition in serving the nation rather than eliminating their opponents. On the other hand, the spirit of self-restraint pertains to the exercise of legal authority by an institution or leader. For example, while constitutions grant certain powers to presidents, this spirit encourages them to exercise restraint in using their authority and to engage with political opponents through compromise and dialogue. "Political scientists refer to the full utilization of legal authority as legal obstinacy. These scholars consider mutual tolerance and self-restraint as the subtle safeguards of democracy. They believe that if the political elite of a society lacks these two attitudes or fails to adhere to these two norms, the principle of democracy and republicanism will be weakened, leading to dangerous polarization in the society to the extent that it results in the collapse of political consensus and endangers the principle of republicanism. Far-right parties, by ignoring these secondary safeguards, transform competition into enmity and polarize societies." Source: January 20, 2025.
