Latest news with #coexistence
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Sectarianism is in the eye of the beholder
I know it is never easy, but if we are about to have a reset then we should do the same with our perceptions of the region. Analysis of the Middle East has been dominated by two widely held beliefs: one is that conflicts are our fault because we are sectarian, and the other is that our problems are the West's fault because we have been divided into artificial states by colonialism. Both these myths belong to an era dominated by secular nationalist ideas that academia largely favored. For positive change to happen, we have to believe in ourselves and remind ourselves that, in our region, it is coexistence between sects that has been the norm and sectarian conflict the exception. We must also note that the Arab state system has been rather stable, especially if compared to that of Europe. Let me explain. First of all, sectarianism is often in the eye of the beholder. Some see it everywhere because they believe it is there. They look for it in situations that we consider mostly as normal politics. Of course, there are politicians who use sectarian speech and sometimes it works in their favor: they create the problems that they then offer to resolve. Some academics even study 'de-sectarianization' (my spellcheck insists that the word does not exist). It is as if there is a disease called sectarianism that can be treated by de-sectarianization. This blurred vision happens to people who expect complete homogeneity and do not understand coexistence. The Arab proverb that says 'me and my brother against my cousin and me and my cousin against the stranger' may be a source of confusion. This is often used to explain family and tribal solidarity, but in reality it is prescriptive rather than descriptive: it means you should stand by your brother against your cousin and stand by your cousin against a stranger, because it is often not the case. We all know that the most intense conflicts, since Cain and Abel, are between brothers. Family feuds or internal fights are driven by what Freud described as the narcissism of small differences. You do not really have to stand by your kin — in fact, this is how alliances and coalitions can develop across religious, tribal or ethnic boundaries. The debate over that proverb is also that, morally, you should stand by what is right, even if it is against your own kin. Moral sentiments, or what is culturally acceptable as a norm, are the product of numerous interactions between people. A feel for what is considered right in a society develops over time and through millions of daily exchanges. That is why societies differ — what is considered normal in one is an anomaly in the other. There are also traditional ways of resolving conflicts; sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. In a society where they do work, you will find a diverse population living together despite their sectarian, ethnic or tribal differences. They also share norms developed through long-term coexistence. In Europe, after centuries of conflict, it was resolved that people should adopt the religion of their prince, resulting in largely homogeneous divisions. In former Ottoman lands, it is diversity rather than homogeneity that is the norm — we are children of an empire that ruled over many nations. Someone coming from a society where homogeneity is the norm will find diversity abnormal and confusing; for them, everything becomes sectarian. We have to believe that diverse populations can coexist in states that cooperate, while respecting each other's sovereignty. Another misconception about the region is that the state system is artificial and therefore not viable — that we are not real nation states. This is based on the absurd notion that real states do exist and that there is a natural nation state. The whole idea of nationalism is in fact barely 150 years old and has been the cause of conflicts, rather than their solution. It is true that our borders were artificially drawn, mainly by Europeans, in the aftermath of the First World War. This was a messy affair and they did a bad job following a disastrous war and the collapse of three empires: Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian. The idea that the European state system is stable is even more of a myth than the one we are questioning about the Middle East. Nadim Shehadi The idea that three politicians, David Lloyd George of Britain, Georges Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson of the US, could get it right was absurd to start with. But they did a worse job in Europe and the result was another devastating war where the boundaries of Europe were again redrawn. They came to their senses after that and worked on creating what later became the EU, which now has 27 members. The idea that the European state system is a stable one is even more of a myth than the one we are questioning about the states of the Middle East being unstable. Since the rise of nation states in the 1870s, Europe has destroyed itself twice, while borders kept changing well into the end of the 20th century. By contrast, the borders of the Arab states have been far more stable. The League of Arab States was also created post-Second World War and it has now expanded to 22 members from the original seven signatories. The Alexandria Protocol of 1944 promised cooperation in economic and cultural matters, as well as respect for each other's sovereignty. The fall of the Assad regime promises that we can go back to that. A new beginning is possible thanks to the end of an era where Arab nationalist parties sought to suppress local identities, exploit tensions between them and claim an agenda of regional domination, while deriving legitimacy from their claim of leading the Arabs in the conflict with Israel.
LBCI
a day ago
- Politics
- LBCI
Lebanon's President Aoun concludes official visit to Algeria with high-level meetings and cultural stops
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun concluded his two-day official visit to Algeria with a series of symbolic and high-level engagements that highlighted the depth of Lebanese-Algerian relations and reaffirmed mutual cooperation. On Wednesday morning, President Aoun visited the historic Cathedral of Notre-Dame d'Afrique in Algiers, where he was received by clergy and toured the site, describing it in the guestbook as a "symbol of coexistence and cultural dialogue." He emphasized the message of shared humanity and interfaith respect embodied by the cathedral, which dates back to 1872. Later, President Aoun visited the Grand Mosque of Algiers, the largest mosque in Africa and one of the largest globally. Welcomed by Sheikh Mouhammad Mamoun Al-Qasimi, Aoun praised the mosque as a monument to Islamic tolerance and spiritual unity. In his message, he noted how the mosque represents 'true faith that inspires love and peaceful coexistence.' During the visit, Sheikh Qasimi presented President Aoun with a replica of the mosque's emblem. Aoun also noted the presence of Lebanese-made chandeliers and doors inside the mosque, underscoring the cultural exchange between the two nations. In addition, Aoun met with Lebanon's outgoing ambassador to Algeria, Mohammad Hassan, thanking him for his role in enhancing bilateral ties and organizing the presidential visit. President Aoun's visit culminated in a summit with Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, who awarded him the National Order of Merit (Athir Class), Algeria's highest state decoration for foreign heads of state. During their talks, both leaders agreed on concrete steps to bolster bilateral cooperation. These included the resumption of direct flights by Air Algérie to Beirut starting August 14, the renewal of political consultations through a long-dormant joint committee, support for Lebanon's reconstruction and renewable energy projects, and the signing of a series of upcoming bilateral agreements covering finance, culture, and the media sector. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the Lebanese and Algerian information ministers to support Lebanon's struggling state media institutions. In a joint press conference, President Tebboune expressed Algeria's continued solidarity with Lebanon and reiterated his country's commitment to advocating for Lebanese sovereignty at the U.N. Security Council. He also pledged to revive economic ties through a joint business council. President Aoun, for his part, thanked Algeria for its long-standing support, calling Arab solidarity 'vital for Lebanon's unity and sovereignty.' He reaffirmed Lebanon's desire to engage with its Arab neighbors through cooperation, not interference. The visit concluded with an official farewell ceremony at the Algiers airport, where military honors were rendered and the Lebanese national anthem played.
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Why the world is treating the new Syria differently from the new Lebanon, and what Beirut can learn from that
The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are pressing ahead to encourage Syria to become a model for much of the Middle East. That involves co-existence with Israel, the containment of extremist movements and engagement with minorities, all within the framework of the state. The issue of the state's monopoly on the possession of arms remains a major hurdle. Some of Syria's minority groups insist on retaining their weapons until it becomes clear how the new government will handle their rights and to what extent it will rein in extremist militants. There is also the issue of federalism and decentralisation, which the state opposes. But despite the massacres and atrocities committed in Sweida and on the coast, those investing in President Ahmed Al Shara's project and the new Syrian model are forging ahead. When it comes to the future of Lebanon, however, western countries – namely the 'European three' (E3, which comprises the UK, France and Germany) and the US – are wavering on several fronts. In dealing with Lebanon itself, the E3 has chosen to take a backseat to US diplomacy, led by Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Lebanon and Syria Thomas Barrack. But Iran is a hugely important part of what happens in Lebanon, and the E3 limited recent discussions with representatives from Tehran solely to nuclear issues. Iran's nuclear programme must be addressed, but that should not prevent Europe from raising other concerns, like Tehran's proxy network. Succumbing to Iran's traditional insistence that neither the US nor Europe discuss its regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, is a strategic error. It fails to prevent Iran's ongoing erosion of Lebanese sovereignty its use of Lebanon as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the West. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms instead of handing them over to the Lebanese state. This is dangerous, especially given how confused and contradictory US positions have become towards both Iran and Lebanon. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms Mr Barrack's three visits to Lebanon have drawn criticism because at times he wielded the stick and at others, he expressed understanding of the 'complexity' of disarming Hezbollah. One moment, he described Hezbollah as a political party and the next a terrorist organisation. He appears to have emerged from meetings with Lebanese officials more influenced by their appeasement tactics than persuasive in moving them towards sovereign decision-making. The contradictions in the American position in Lebanon may be intentional, as part of a strategy to alarm Lebanese officials and the public, or unintentional, the result of Mr Barrack's frequent gaffes, only to be followed by retractions. Mr Barrack says he understands the 'difficulties', and that 'everyone is doing their part and trying to settle things in Lebanon, but the situation is complex, both for Lebanese leaders and for all of us'. Such statements devalue American prestige and seriousness. They are not so much the words of a serious emissary carrying US President Donald Trump's demand that Lebanon's leaders enforce a monopoly on arms as they are those of a local-style politician who 'understands' the difficulties but cannot guarantee how Israel might react to Hezbollah's outright refusal to disarm. Nor has Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy to the Iran negotiations, insisted that Iran cease using its grip over Lebanon through Hezbollah as a negotiation card with Washington. All of this will cost Lebanon dearly when Israel inevitably destroys its infrastructure in response to Hezbollah's rebuilding of its military capabilities, including Iranian missiles on Lebanese soil. The Trump administration does not want Israel to open multiple fronts. But it also cannot restrain Israel in Lebanon if Israel deems Hezbollah's refusal to disarm a security threat. Yet in Syria, Mr Trump wants Israel to act with restraint. Iran has lost its staging ground there, a devastating blow to its regional axis. And while Washington recognises the persistence of extremism and the survival of ISIS, it believes that containment of these factions is possible through co-optation, offering them a slice of the cake instead of a bloody conflict. In return, Israel gains a buffer zone and security guarantees along its border with Syria. The message to Israel is that even if ISIS remains dominant in some areas, security arrangements can contain its threat as long as it remains within isolated pockets that pose no danger to the Syrian state structure. In other words, Syria will not be a threat to Israel. Gulf states have quickly moved to encourage Syria's re-integration into the Arab fold. Despite all the challenges, the Gulf is a key partner in backing Mr Al Shara and rebuilding Syria. This was reflected last week in the Saudi-Syrian Investment Forum, a watershed moment that signalled a long-term strategic partnership between Riyadh and Damascus. Forty-seven agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed, worth about $6.4 billion. They included the construction of a medical city as well as deals in agriculture, industry, transport, gas, water, electricity, infrastructure and real estate development. Syria is being placed on a new track, and should indeed be congratulated for this strategic leap towards realism that embraces investment as the basis of policy. One hopes Lebanon's leaders take a lesson from their new counterparts in Damascus and abandon their arrogance towards eager assistance from fellow Arab states, hiding behind the excuse of being unable to rein in Hezbollah. They ought to demand the US, Europe and the Arab world also pressure Iran and not just offer security guarantees via Israel, because the two issues are inseparable. One hopes they also cease dodging political accountability under the guise of protecting Lebanon's safety. Perhaps Arab states will consider taking a calculated risk in supporting Lebanon, as they did in Syria. Both countries suffer from instability. Just as Hezbollah and Israel are playing havoc with Lebanon, extremist fundamentalism continues to trouble Syria. May the international partnership playing a constructive role in Syria inspire those involved to think outside the box in order to rescue Lebanon from regional war and ruin. Lebanon, too, deserves to be rebuilt and invested in to defy those who want it destroyed.
Arab News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Israel's democracy robbers seek to silence Palestinian opponents
For those of you who are not familiar with the Palestinian member of the Knesset Ayman Odeh, he is a rare combination of a thinker, a passionate politician and an extremely affable person. He can also be sharp-tongued and unsparing of rivals from his opinions, including his fellow Palestinian citizens of Israel, but especially those among Israeli society whose idea of coexistence is of Jewish supremacy on either side of the Green Line. Above all, he is a man of peace and great integrity who believes in Israeli-Palestinian coexistence as equals, of which a two-state solution is a key element. Odeh has rattled the political system to the extent that a right-wing Likud MK, Avichai Boaron, initiated his impeachment for writing on X in January that 'I am happy about the release of the hostages and the prisoners. We must now free both peoples from the burden of occupation. Because we were all born free.' Not a sentiment that was particularly harsh, and surely not an incitement to violence. It is difficult to know whether this was a case of an anonymous member of parliament trying to get some attention or whether, as Boaron claimed, Odeh was equating the hostages with Palestinian 'terrorists' and if the call to free people from 'the burden of occupation' constituted a legitimization and call for violence. Obviously, mentioning both the hostages and the prisoners in the same sentence does not mean equating them, and in any case there is nothing illegal about that. Worse, one MK who fails to understand the difference between calling to end the occupation and calling to do that by using force is unfortunate. But for 70 MKs, of whom at least 10 are from the opposition, as the law requires, to sign a petition asking the Knesset House Committee to open impeachment proceedings is a collective eclipse of democratic judgment. And in the Orwellian atmosphere of today's Israeli politics, the Knesset House Committee decided, while brushing aside the recommendation of the Knesset's legal adviser to the contrary — for lack of legal grounds to justify such an extreme step — to advance the impeachment of Odeh to a vote in the Knesset plenum, citing his 'support for the armed struggle of a terrorist organization against the state of Israel.' Although not part of the original accusations against the leader of Hadash, his cause was not helped by his own recent statement at a rally that 'Gaza won and Gaza will win.' This was more a case of simply hoping that the people of the Strip would prevail despite the mass killings and devastation inflicted on them for many months, and the attempts to force Gaza's residents into to a tiny part of the territory and then possibly out of it, and for good — not for them to militarily defeat Israel. The only reason Odeh is still an MK is that 90 MKs are required to support this bluntly antidemocratic measure and 'only' 73 out of 120 supported this shameful motion in a vote in the Knesset. The very fact there was such a big majority in favor of expelling a lawmaker for expressing his views — which admittedly many might find offensive but do not meet the criteria of inciting to violence or endangering the country's security — is more a testimony to the sorry state of Israeli democracy than Odeh's alleged threat to the state. And it is especially in times of war that the pluralism of ideas should be maintained and minorities should not be excluded from expressing their ideas. After all, many of the Palestinian citizens of Israel have relatives in Gaza, of whom thousands have been killed in the war. However, the story is not only about Odeh, but also his detractors questioning the legitimacy of the entire Palestinian population of Israel, who are citizens and, in principle, enjoy equal rights to their Jewish fellow countrymen, although reality is very different. It would be naive to harbor any expectations that the current members of Israel's governing coalition would respect democratic procedures if they did not suit them. For nearly three years, they have repeatedly demonstrated a destructive mixture of utter ignorance of the very fundamentals of a liberal democracy and sheer contempt for them. However, the fact that several so-called more liberal-minded members of Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid party supported the motion to impeach Odeh — while Lapid and the rest of his party's MKs, along with those of Benny Gantz's Blue and White-National Unity party, boycotted the vote — is beyond disappointing and concerning. With the exception of the left-wing Democrats led by Yair Golan, who voted against impeaching Odeh, the other Zionist parties' behavior illustrates that, for them, championing freedoms does not extend to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, exemplifying the constant retreat of Israeli democracy from the Israeli Declaration of Independence. In the middle of a truly existential war, its founding fathers included a commitment that the country 'will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.' The founding fathers understood that there is no partial democracy; it either applies equally to everyone, or it is not a liberal democracy. It is especially in times of war that the pluralism of ideas should be maintained and minorities should not be excluded. Yossi Mekelberg And there is also the tragic irony, or just the shamelessness, that many of those who voted to oust Odeh for supporting political violence nevertheless encourage the use of unabated violence against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Among them are settlers who illegally live in the West Bank, a minister of national security who was convicted of supporting a terrorist organization, and those who repeatedly say that there are no innocent people in Gaza, support starving and expelling them and, given an opportunity, would do exactly the same in the West Bank too. Yet, no one even suggests reprimanding them, let alone impeaching them, because their discourse has been normalized and legitimized over recent years. Also normalized is the exclusion of parties that represent the Palestinians citizens of Israel, preventing them from serving in government as legitimate partners. Odeh was not impeached. However, this saga has left the bitter taste of a country whose lawmakers persecute their political opponents and especially target a minority through very dubious legal procedures. In Odeh's case, the Knesset's blushes were spared, but only thanks to the wisdom of yesteryear's legislatures, which set the bar very high for ousting an MK. But this is hardly any consolation. As long as Benjamin Netanyahu and his democracy robbers hold on to power, it is just a matter of time before they seek to water down this too in order to eliminate their political rivals.
Al Bawaba
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Bawaba
Druze leader denies involvement in revenge attacks as Israeli-backed militias seize control in Suwayda
Published July 17th, 2025 - 03:30 GMT In a video statement coinciding with a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Al-Hijri emphasized the Druze community's commitment to coexistence and rejected collective blame. ALBAWABA- Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, the Israel-backed Druze spiritual leader in Suwayda, has publicly denied that his armed followers committed retaliatory acts against Bedouin tribes following the withdrawal of Syrian government forces from the governorate. Also Read Israel strikes near Damascus palace amid Druze protection pledge In a video statement coinciding with a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Al-Hijri emphasized the Druze community's commitment to coexistence and rejected collective blame. ⚡️🇮🇱BREAKING: Israel's PM Netanyahu vows to never allow the militarization of Southern Syria:'I want to update you on what we have done in Syria—and what we will do in Syria. We established a clear policy: the demilitarization of the area south of Damascus—from the Golan to… — Suppressed News. (@SuppressedNws) July 17, 2025 'Despite the painful attacks our community has suffered, we continue to uphold the values of tolerance,' Al-Hijri stated. 'Anyone committing acts of sabotage or provocation represents no one but himself. We reject sectarianism and any call for fragmentation.' ⚡️🇸🇾JUST IN: Israel-backed Druze militias under Hikmat al-Hijri killed Bedouin civilians, including women and children, looted homes, and forced many to flee after the Syrian army withdrew from Suwaida. — Suppressed News. (@SuppressedNws) July 17, 2025 His remarks follow widespread reports and video footage circulating on social media that show members of Bedouin tribes fleeing Suwayda amid claims of targeted violence by armed Druze factions. These events come after Syrian forces pulled out of the region as part of a local ceasefire agreement reached in Yestrday between Suwayda community leaders and state officials. The deal granted local forces authority over internal security in the province. Following the withdrawal, Druze fighters aligned with Al-Hijri reportedly took control of key areas in Suwayda. They raised the Druze flag, bearing the Star of David, a symbol increasingly used by pro-Israel Druze militias, over the governorate building, declaring their rejection of any renewed Syrian military presence south of Damascus. According to local sources, initial reports indicate that armed militias affiliated with Hikmat al-Hijri have carried out field executions resulting in the deaths of approximately 100 Bedouin tribespeople, including women and children. As-Suwayda, SyriaThursday, July 17, 2025 On July 17, 2025, disturbing reports emerged from As-Suwayda, Syria, alleging that militias affiliated with Hikmat al-Hijri, a prominent Druze leader, committed severe human rights violations 👇#السويداء #HekmatAlHajriMilitiaMassacre — Roba Alhakiem (@RAlhakiem) July 17, 2025 'What the regime did was send troops to kill our Druze brothers,' Al-Hijri said in his speech. 'So I instructed our forces to retaliate. The ceasefire came through force, not through negotiations.' Israeli support for Al-Hijri's forces appears to have intensified in last few days. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have reportedly provided air cover for Druze militias, targeting Syrian military convoys and blocking reinforcements near and inside Suwayda. Over the last 48 hours, IDF airstrikes have hit Syrian armored vehicles and convoys, while also targeting the gate of the Syrian military headquarters in Damascus in what sources describe as a 'warning shot.' Also Read Israeli forces strike Syrian tanks amid clashes in Suwayda Analysts describe the conflict as a key test for Ahmad Al-Shara's leadership, as Syrian forces face mounting casualties and growing regional pressure. Military analysts suggest Israel may escalate its air campaign further, potentially targeting government institutions, military headquarters, and launching selective assassinations against key regime figures, while continuing to back proxy militias on the ground. Reports of Bedouin families fleeing Suwayda toward Daraa have raised alarms over what some are calling an emerging ethnic cleansing campaign, as retaliatory violence intensifies. Despite the denial from Al-Hijri, the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, with the fragile ceasefire hanging by a thread, and Suwayda increasingly becoming the epicenter of a regional showdown between Syrian forces and Israeli-backed militias. © 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba (
