Latest News from Al Sharq
Al Omana
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Omana
بيان صادر عن الوقفة الاحتجاجية لنساء الجنوب في محافظة لحج
نظمت نساء محافظة لحج، اليوم السبت 17 مايو 2025م، وقفة احتجاجية سلمية تعبر عن صمود المرأة الجنوبية وإصرارها على تحقيق حياة كريمة لشعبها، في ظل التحديات الاقتصادية والمعيشية التي تمر بها محافظات الجنوب. رافعت المشاركات شعارات تعكس مطالب واضحة وعادلة، تركز على ضرورة توفير الخدمات الأساسية التي تُعد العمود الفقري لاستقرار المجتمع، من كهرباء، مياه، صحة وتعليم، إلى صرف الرواتب في مواعيدها. وقد جاء في البيان الصادر عن الوقفة ما يلي: 1. ندين بشدة استمرار تدهور الأوضاع المعيشية والاقتصادية التي تثقل كاهل النساء والأسر في الجنوب، ونحمل الجهات المسؤولة مسؤولية إيجاد حلول عاجلة وفعالة. 2. نطالب بسرعة توفير الخدمات الأساسية في لحج وبقية محافظات الجنوب، وضمان صرف الرواتب بانتظام، لأن ذلك يشكل خط الدفاع الأول عن استقرار الأسرة والمجتمع. 3. نؤكد حق شعب الجنوب في تقرير مصيره واستعادة دولته المستقلة وعاصمتها عدن، وهو مطلب شرعي وحق لا يمكن التنازل عنه. 4. نطالب بضبط سعر العملة وخفض الأسعار، واتخاذ إجراءات جادة لاستقرار الاقتصاد، وحماية المواطنين من تداعيات التضخم وانهيار القدرة الشرائية. 5. نطالب بإدراج القضايا المعيشية والخدمية والاقتصادية على أولويات خارطة الطريق الأممية، لضمان الاهتمام الحقيقي بمعاناة الجنوب. 6. نؤكد على ضرورة تمكين المرأة الجنوبية سياسيًا واجتماعيًا، وتعزيز مشاركتها في كل مجالات الحياة العامة وصنع القرار، لأن تمكين نصف المجتمع هو أساس تقدم الوطن. وفي ختام البيان، نؤكد أن المرأة الجنوبية كانت وستظل شريكًا فاعلًا في النضال الوطني والإنساني، وصوتًا لا يُكتم، وستواصل مسيرتها حتى تتحقق لشعبها حرية وكرامة وعدالة. Statement Issued by the Protest of Southern Women in Lahj Governorate Lahj / Special Saturday, 17 May 2025 Today, Saturday, 17 May 2025, the women of Lahj Governorate organised a peaceful protest expressing the resilience of Southern women and their determination to secure a dignified life for their people, amid the economic and living challenges faced by the southern governorates. The participants raised slogans reflecting clear and just demands, focusing on the necessity of providing basic services — the backbone of societal stability — including electricity, water, healthcare, education, and the timely payment of salaries. The statement issued by the protest included the following: 1. We strongly condemn the continued deterioration of living and economic conditions that burden women and families in the South, and we hold the responsible authorities accountable for finding urgent and effective solutions. 2. We demand the swift provision of basic services in Lahj and other southern governorates, and the regular disbursement of salaries, as this constitutes the first line of defence for family and societal stability. 3. We affirm the right of the people of the South to self-determination and the restoration of their independent state with Aden as its capital — a legitimate demand and an inalienable right. 4. We call for stabilising the currency exchange rate and lowering prices, and for serious measures to stabilise the economy and protect citizens from the consequences of inflation and the collapse of purchasing power. 5. We demand that living, service-related, and economic issues be included as top priorities in the UN roadmap, to ensure genuine attention is given to the suffering of the South. 6. We stress the need to politically and socially empower Southern women, and to enhance their participation in all aspects of public life and decision-making, as empowering half of society is the foundation of national progress. At the conclusion of the statement, we affirm that Southern women have always been — and will continue to be — active partners in national and humanitarian struggle, a voice that cannot be silenced, and they will persist in their journey until freedom, dignity, and justice are achieved for their people.
Al Omana
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Omana
حرائر أبين يعلنّ رفضهن للتهميش ويطالبن بالحقوق والخدمات الأساسية
أطلقت نساء محافظة أبين اليوم بيانًا قويًا تحت عنوان "ثورة حرائر أبين"، أعلنّ فيه وقوفهن في طليعة الحراك الشعبي ورفضهن القاطع لكل أشكال التهميش والاستبداد. وأكد البيان الصادر من العاصمة زنجبار أن قضية نساء أبين هي قضية وطنية عادلة، جوهرها الحرية والكرامة والمساواة. وأشارت "حرائر أبين" إلى أن طول الصمت والتجاهل لم يثنهن عن المطالبة بحقوقهن، مؤكدات أنهن لسن متفرجات بل صانعات للتغيير وشريكات في القرار. وطالب البيان بتوفير الخدمات الأساسية في أبين، بما في ذلك الصحة والتعليم والمياه والكهرباء والرواتب، لضمان حياة كريمة للمواطنين. كما دعون إلى تحسين مستوى المعيشة عبر خلق فرص اقتصادية عادلة ودعم النساء ببرامج تمكين حقيقية، بالإضافة إلى ضبط العملة وخفض الأسعار. وشدد البيان على ضرورة إقرار حقوق النساء في العمل والمشاركة السياسية وصنع القرار دون إقصاء أو تهميش، وتوفير بيئة آمنة خالية من العنف، بما يضمن دورهن الحيوي في بناء مستقبل الجنوب. وعلى الصعيد السياسي والمجتمعي، أدانت "ثورة حرائر أبين" كل محاولات تهميش المرأة الأبينية ورفض أي سياسات تخدم قوى تسعى لطمس الهوية والتاريخ. كما أكدن دعمهن للحراك الشعبي السلمي في أبين، والمطالبة بمحاسبة الجهات التي تحاول خنق الأصوات الحرة وفضح ممارسات الاستبداد ضد النساء في المحافظة. واختتم البيان بالتأكيد على مواصلة المسير بثبات حتى تتحقق العدالة وتستعيد أبين مكانتها المستحقة، مشددات على أن "لحرائر أبين صوتٌ لن يُسكت، وقوةٌ لن تُكسر". * Statement of the Revolution of the Free Women of Abyan * _ In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. _ To the free people of the South, to the living consciences that believe in justice and dignity, to all who reject oppression and tyranny... We, the women of Abyan, stand today at the forefront of the popular movement, drawing strength from our rich history, the patience of mothers, and the sacrifices of those who paved the path of struggle before us. Our cause is not an individual matter, nor solely a women's issue—it is a just national cause, rooted in freedom, dignity, and equality. Silence has lasted too long, and neglect has persisted, but Abyan does not forget, and the free women will never be defeated. Today, we declare our absolute rejection of all forms of marginalization and tyranny, affirming that we are not mere spectators in the theater of events—we are makers of change, partners in decision-making, and capable of shaping a brighter future for the generations to come. Our legitimate demands: First: Fundamental Services and Rights - Ensuring essential services in Abyan, including healthcare, education, water, electricity, and fair wages, to guarantee a dignified life for its citizens. - Improving living standards for all residents of Abyan by creating equitable economic opportunities and supporting women through genuine empowerment programs. - Stabilizing the currency and lowering prices to secure economic stability and shield citizens from the devastating effects of inflation and declining purchasing power. - Guaranteeing women's rights in employment, political participation, and decision-making without exclusion or marginalization. - Providing a safe environment for women, free from violence and discrimination, ensuring their vital role in shaping the future of the South with freedom and dignity. Second: Political and Social Demands - Condemning all attempts to marginalize Abyan's women and rejecting any policies that serve forces aiming to erase our identity and history. - Supporting the peaceful popular movement in Abyan, affirming women's role as key partners in shaping the nation's future. - Holding accountable those who attempt to silence free voices and pressing for the exposure of all oppressive practices against women in Abyan. We will continue on this path with unwavering determination until justice is achieved. Abyan belongs to its people, and the voices of its free women will never be silenced; their strength will never be broken. Today, and every day, we remain steadfast in our struggle until victory is won and Abyan regains its rightful place. Long live the free women of Abyan, long live Abyan—free, dignified, and independent! Issued by the Free Women of Abyan – Zinjibar, the capital
Al Binaa
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Binaa
Dismiss This Minister For the Sake of Lebanon and the Presidency
The President of the Republic, alongside the Prime Minister and the government, remains committed to the belief that a diplomatic solution can succeed in securing Israeli withdrawal from the occupied areas within the Blue Line and halting the continuous aggression against Lebanon. Such an achievement would amount to the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and the primary foundational part of Resolution 1701, thereby opening the path to reconstruction. The President, along with the Prime Minister and government, believes reconstruction can be supported through diplomatic efforts. Regardless of whether one is optimistic or sceptical about the possibility of Washington distancing itself from Israel in favour of its role as a guarantor and mediator of the agreement, the President's and government's plan suffers from a critical flaw, indeed, a fatal defect. Lebanon's diplomacy is crafted behind the scenes at the Foreign Ministry: in its dispatches to ambassadors, its daily communications, and the official correspondence sent by the Foreign Minister to his counterparts around the world. Yet, this minister openly and repeatedly declares his rejection of the diplomatic strategy pursued by the President and the government, and he translates that rejection into practice by refusing to adhere to it. Not only that, he actively promotes a diametrically opposed strategy. At the heart of this alternative strategy lies the dangerous logic of instrumentalising continued occupation, ongoing aggression, and the suspension of reconstruction funding as levers of pressure to force Hezbollah's weapons onto the negotiating table. The Minister openly states his 'understanding' of the occupation's persistence, of the aggression, and of the withholding of funds, as long as Hezbollah has not surrendered its arms. But in truth, his statements amount to nothing less than incitement, encouraging the continuation of occupation, aggression, and financial strangulation. In any government, the Foreign Minister is the head of diplomacy and the official spokesperson for the state's foreign policy. His words carry the same weight as those of the President and the Prime Minister. In Lebanon's case, however, Israel, and likely the United States and certain Arab states, will not hesitate to treat the Foreign Minister's statements as the official Lebanese position, relegating the words of the President and Prime Minister to mere political rhetoric meant for domestic consumption. Just as dangerously, while a Foreign Minister may personally disagree with a government's foreign policy, the nature of the role demands institutional discipline, a capacity to silence personal opinion in favour of conveying the state's unified stance. But in our case, we are dealing with a Minister who not only defies this obligation, but insists on publicly displaying his dissent and marketing it as policy. He has become a threat to any diplomatic endeavour championed by the President. The Minister's latest achievement, widely reported by the media, is his alleged intention to summon the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, in protest over a tweet concerning disarmament. At first glance, one might assume the ambassador interfered in a purely Lebanese matter, and that his tweet addressed Hezbollah's disarmament or, as the Minister claims, the notion that arms should be held exclusively by the state. But I seriously doubt the Minister even read the tweet. I therefore urge everyone who commented, or plans to comment, on the Minister's announcement to summon the Iranian ambassador on grounds of interfering in internal Lebanese affairs, violating diplomatic norms, or insulting the President (who holds the monopoly over arms as a constitutional principle), to first read what the ambassador actually said. Here is Ambassador Mojtaba Amani's tweet: 'The disarmament project is a clear conspiracy against states. At a time when the United States continues to supply the Zionist entity with the latest weapons and missiles, it prevents other countries from arming and strengthening their armies, and pressures others to reduce or destroy their arsenals under various pretexts. Once these countries yield to the demands of disarmament, they become vulnerable to invasion and occupation, just as happened in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We in the Islamic Republic of Iran are fully aware of the dangers of this conspiracy and its threat to the security of the region's peoples. We warn others not to fall into the enemy's trap. Maintaining a deterrent capability is the first line of defence for sovereignty and independence, and it must never be compromised.' A brilliant tweet by the Iranian ambassador on the importance of regional states maintaining their military capabilities, generally referring to their national armies, and of pursuing further armament, because surrendering weapons invites occupation and humiliation. He provides examples, and points out that the very America pushing for disarmament is the same America arming Israel to the teeth. He adds that Iran, which is being pressured over its missile arsenal, will not submit. There is no harm in taking this as advice addressed to Lebanon and other states in the region, especially since the tweet mentions neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah, nor the issue of exclusive state control over arms, nor any other matter the Minister seeks to exploit. The ambassador's message is clear: 'Arm your armies. Enhance your deterrent power. Do not fall for the disarmament trap.' If the Lebanese Army were to arm itself and benefit from the capabilities of the Resistance, would that violate the concept of exclusive state control over arms that the President defends? When Morgan Ortagus stood at the presidential podium and thanked the enemy, the Minister felt no diplomatic sensitivity. In a TV interview, she even mocked Lebanon, asking sarcastically, 'Where is Lebanon?' When questioned about the President's refusal to engage in negotiations proposed by Washington, she said, 'That's not what the President tells us', an obvious attempt to undermine the President's credibility. Just days ago, she made a deeply offensive remark about a major Lebanese leader, former head of the Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt. Yet the Foreign Minister did not once feel the need to formally address Washington to say: Your envoy is disrespectful, kindly replace her for the sake of our bilateral relations.
Al Binaa
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Binaa
Yemeni Missiles Hit Ben Gurion Airport as Resistance Inflicts Losses on Occupation Forces in Rafah
The political editor wrote Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Presidential Envoy Steve Whitkoff are set to return for a second round of indirect negotiations, following a successful first round according to statements from Washington, Tehran, and Muscat, which hosted the talks. Iran's Foreign Ministry indicated that even if the venue shifts, Muscat will continue playing the role of mediator. The positive tone from both American and Iranian officials exceeded the expectations of observers, while Washington's allies, who had viewed negotiations with Tehran as an arena for dictating terms of surrender, were left stunned. They heard Iran insist that the talks be limited to the nuclear file, a stance the U.S. did not contradict, but rather American officials described the discussions as constructive and positive, and President Donald Trump even publicly expressed his readiness to make concessions in pursuit of an agreement with Iran. Tehran, for its part, made any transition to direct negotiations contingent on two conditions: that discussions remain exclusively focused on the nuclear issue, and that within that scope, they revolve solely around guarantees to reassure the international community that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and not military in nature. Many observers linked this shift in the American stance to Washington's broader need to calm tensions in the Middle East in order to focus on its trade war with China. Others pointed to the U.S.'s failure in Yemen, particularly in altering the situation in the Red Sea or halting Yemeni attacks on ships bound for the occupying entity, as well as the inability to stop missile strikes deep inside the occupying entity. On the Yemeni front, U.S. airstrikes continued across various regions, with the most prominent target being the capital, Sanaa, struck last night. In response, the Yemeni Armed Forces announced they had downed a sophisticated U.S. drone, while Yemeni missile barrages continued to strike deep into the occupying entity. These attacks triggered air raid sirens in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and the Gush Dan region, and included a new strike on Ben Gurion Airport. Meanwhile, in Rafah, the occupying army suffered further losses as it shifted to ground operations, as its airstrikes were no longer sufficient, even as its warplanes, late last night, struck the Baptist Hospital, rendering it out of service. Resistance operations disabled military vehicles and killed or wounded several of the entity's soldiers, according to official statements from the occupying army, which had already reported multiple officer and soldier casualties in recent days. In Lebanon, the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the civil war on April 13, 1975, was marked with official commemorations. President General Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam both addressed the occasion, joined by statements from various political leaders. A central theme in their speeches was the unanimous recognition of the failure of relying on foreign powers, and the assertion that the national state is the only viable solution. Yet, as often happens in Lebanon, consensus on words does not reflect consensus on meaning. For some, building a national state requires disarming the resistance; for others, it means adopting federalism. Meanwhile, another camp sees the essence of a national state in its defense of the land in the face of aggression and the undertaking of liberation from occupation. This view holds that efforts to build a national state have failed precisely because of the contradiction between the concept of a unified state and the sectarian structure of Lebanon's political and social systems. They call for implementing the reforms envisioned in the Taif Agreement, particularly the abolition of political sectarianism, the adoption of a non-sectarian electoral law, and the formation of a Senate where sects are represented.
Al Binaa
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Binaa
Trading Direct Talks for Nuclear Exclusivity?
This Saturday, American and Iranian delegations head to the Sultanate of Oman to begin negotiations. While the Americans insist the talks will be direct, the Iranians maintain they remain indirect. The U.S. National Security Advisor has stated that the negotiations will address Iran's missile program, but Tehran firmly asserts that it will only discuss the nuclear file, specifically its peaceful nature, and will offer guarantees sufficient to restore confidence in that regard. As of last night, U.S. President Donald Trump was still speaking of a military solution if diplomacy fails. But he knows that military action, if ever effective, would only be so before negotiations, not after, and that its exclusion is not a gesture of goodwill, but a calculation of risks, consequences, and potential returns. According to Benjamin Netanyahu, the objective is the dismantling and destruction of Iran's nuclear programs by American hands. Some U.S. officials also demand that Iran fully halt uranium enrichment. Meanwhile, all messaging from Washington continues to emphasise Iran's agreement to end its support for resistance movements, what they call its 'regional proxies.' Iran, however, speaks in firm and unequivocal terms: there will be no negotiations beyond the nuclear file and the guarantees required to instill trust. Its senior military commanders also declare openly that any attack or threat will be met with decisive and forceful retaliation. Given the long and hostile history between the two nations, it is unlikely either side would enter talks merely to 'see where they lead.' Serious, detailed exchanges, through Omani mediation, have already been ongoing for months. Each side has likely mapped out the limits the other is willing to reach. Without this groundwork, entering negotiations with the risk of failure would be worse than not negotiating at all. A potential trade-off may emerge during this first indirect round: Iran may agree to move toward direct negotiations, while the U.S. agrees to limit the talks strictly to the nuclear issue. If a deal is eventually reached, it could open the door for further coordination, communication, and preparation for a separate set of parallel negotiations addressing the broader unresolved issues.
