Latest news with #BalfourDeclaration
Spectator
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Is the Met finally getting tough on pro-Palestine protests?
It was airily pleasant to walk round Parliament Square on Monday morning. I had come up to London to go to parliament and to interview Kemi Badenoch at a Policy Exchange event across the square. Palestine Action had announced a protest march against Donald Trump's and Israel's 'genocide' for that time. Although the Met had banned it from the area, I had recently witnessed so many ill-contained and threatening protests there – almost all for Palestinian causes – that I fully expected delay, disruption and occasional harassment. This time, however, it turned out that the Met meant business. The protest was well-contained in the designated streets round Trafalgar Square. May this mark the permanent change many of us have long been calling for. The delightful absence of trouble that day brought home to me how oppressive those past protests had become. The Met's blind commitment to 'the right to protest' effectively ceded control of the streets, public spaces and Tube stations, giving the extremists a preposterous media salience. That right kept cancelling more important rights – those of MPs, peers and parliamentary staff to get on with their work and of the ordinary public to attend parliament as they please or go about their normal business. The constant threat to the security of parliament has increasingly cut it off, created ugly physical barriers and intimidated the parliamentary authorities. By besieging parliament, you subtly delegitimate it. The Met Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, justified his new toughness by saying that Palestine Action is 'an organised extremist criminal group', as witness the expensive damage it claims to have done to RAF planes at Brize Norton. It is, but he could have said much the same 18 months ago of the endless semi-violent anti-Semitic elements which so often march against Israel without a word to say against Hamas's 7 October massacres or Iran's bomb. Theirs have not been what Sir Mark calls 'protests of a different character' from those of Palestine Action. They have been cut from the same keffiyeh. He says the charges against Palestine Action 'represent a form of extremism that I believe the overwhelming majority of the public reject'. What forms of extremism do the overwhelming majority not reject? Anyway, there is joy over the sinner that repenteth. If Palestine Action is to be proscribed, this is the time to pursue its other boasted achievements. In March last year, in my Cambridge college, Trinity, it claimed responsibility for the slashing and spray-painting of de Laszlo's portrait of Arthur Balfour, prime minister, chancellor of Cambridge University and author of the Balfour Declaration. The incident was filmed and posted by the perpetrators, but a year later the police said that 'the investigation has now been filed'. It is hard to believe that these outrages are untraceable, once you identify their Islamist/far-left political motivation and therefore know where to look. By chance, it is 50 years ago this autumn that I matriculated at Trinity. There is a half-century dinner there next month for all of us, but not for me, due to a clerical error in the college's email records. This error has now been corrected with a vengeance and I have since received eight invitations to the Trinity Giving Days in which alumni contribute to bursaries. What is more exciting, however, is that the period in question has also been marked in verse. Four years ago, I drew attention (see Notes, 10 July 2021) to The Examined Life, James Harpur's book of poetry about his time at Cranleigh, his public school in Surrey, which in its 160-year existence has achieved respectability rather than celebrity and is therefore a tricky subject for the muse. The book was a brilliant success, doing what good poetry does uniquely well – suggesting the general from the minutely observed particular. Now Harpur has done this again with Trinity, where he was a year below me, in a new volume called The Magic Theatre. Cambridge has been the subject of rather more poems than Cranleigh, so the bar is higher. But I think Harpur clears it. In my first year at Trinity, I was thrilled to hear that the set I was sharing with Oliver Letwin – G3 New Court – was the same to which Tennyson returns in 'In Memoriam'. It had been occupied by his beloved Arthur Hallam, whom the poem mourns: Up that long walk of limes I past To see the rooms in which he dwelt. Another name was on the door: I linger'd; all within was noise Of songs, and clapping hands, and boys That crash'd the glass and beat the floor; Where once we held debate, a band Of youthful friends, on mind and art, And labour, and the changing mart, And all the framework of the land; When one would aim an arrow fair, But send it slackly from the string; And one would pierce an outer ring, And one an inner, here and there; And last the master-bowman, he, Would cleave the mark.' That could have been an exact description of Oliver's debating prowess, displayed in those very rooms. The trouble with 'In Memoriam', however, is that such exactness is mostly absent. It is a great poem, but more about grief and 'the unquiet heart' ('in words, like weeds, I'll wrap me o'er') than one rooted in the specific. In this sense, I get more out of Harpur's Cambridge than Tennyson's. Whether he writes about revising or punting or amateur acting ('the tinnitus of humiliation') or lost love, he places his young self in those strange three years granted to you in that (then) small town where your life is more imagined than real, and the better for it. On one tiny point I must correct James Harpur. In a poem which turns out to be about me, I have 'a sleeve of navy velvet'. No; it was only corduroy. We were poor students, after all.
The Hindu
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
What is behind the U.S.-Israel ‘special relationship': Explained
Israel started bombing Iran on June 13, three days ahead of a scheduled meeting between American and Iranian negotiators. They had already had five rounds of talks and U.S. President Donald Trump had said he wanted a deal with Iran over the country's nuclear programme. The Israeli attack practically derailed Mr. Trump's diplomatic push. Yet, he welcomed the Israeli strike, and demanded 'unconditional surrender' from Iran. Within a week, when Israel was struggling to intercept ballistic missiles from Iran, Mr. Trump, who built his political base railing against America's wars in the past, took the U.S. to war in Iran. American B2 bombers and missiles struck three Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — despite opposition from Mr. Trump's political base. This is not surprising given the history of the U.S.-Israel relations. Throughout Israel's war in Gaza, which was triggered by Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack, the U.S., under both Biden and Trump administrations, stood solidly behind the Jewish nation. And this has been a consistent policy of the U.S. administrations, at least since 1967. What explains this relationship? The origins The U.S. had supported the idea of a Jewish homeland even before the state of Israel was declared within historical Palestine in 1948. On March 3, 1919, two years after the Balfour Declaration, in which the British government declared its support for the creation of a 'Jewish homeland in Palestine', President Woodrow Wilson said, 'The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth.' In 1922 and 1944, the U.S. Congress passed resolutions endorsing the Balfour Declaration. The U.S. was the first country that recognised Israel in 1948. The recognition came in 11 minutes after the proclamation. Though the U.S. offered the state of Israel support right from the latter's birth, the initial two decades of their relationship had not been very smooth. The Eisenhower administration was unhappy when Israel, along with France and Britain, launched the Suez war in 1956. Washington threatened to cut aid to Israel if it did not withdraw from the territories it had captured. The Soviet Union also threatened to fire missiles unless Israel withdrew, and finally Israel had to pull back from the areas it seized. Similarly, in the 1960s, the Kennedy administration had voiced concerns about Israel's secret nuclear programme. However the 1967 war, in which Israel defeated Jordan, Syria and Egypt, all in six days, and captured swathes of territories, brought in a paradigm shift in the way Washington looked at the Jewish state. The U.S. at that time was bogged down in Vietnam. Israel defeated the Arab countries without any major help from the U.S., and the war was wrapped up quickly. Also, two of the Arab countries Israel defeated — Egypt and Syria — were Soviet allies. From then on, the U.S. started seeing Israel as a stable ally who can check the expansion of Soviet influence in West Asia. Exceptional ally Today, Israel is an exceptional ally of Washington. The U.S. offers practically unconditional financial, military and political support for Israel. Israel is an undeclared nuclear power but has never faced any global scrutiny or pushback, thanks to the protection offered by the U.S. Israel is also the largest recipient of America's aid — it has received $158 billion in aid from the U.S. since the end of the Second World War. Currently, Israel gets $3.8 billion in military aid every year from the U.S., which accounts for about 16% of Israel's total military budget. The U.S. is also Israel's largest trading partner, with annual two-way trade hovering around $50 billion. Both Israel and the U.S. also have a deep defence partnership, which involves joint research and development and weapons production. For example, the Iron Dome, Israel's missile defence shield, uses parts built in the U.S. and the system is financed in part by the U.S. With U.S. help, Israel has built a highly advanced defence manufacturing base, which has made the country the world's 10th largest military exporter. Since 1972, the U.S. has used its veto power over 50 times to strike down resolutions critical of Israel in the UN Security Council. From the 1973 Yom Kippur war onwards, the U.S. has also offered solid military support to Israel in its conflicts. In 1973, after Israel was taken aback by a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria, U.S. supplies proved vital for Israel to push back the enemy troops from the occupied Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. In 1982, the U.S. sent Multinational Forces to Lebanon after Israel's invasion of the country. After the first intifada, the U.S. supported the Oslo process and the two-state solution, but without compromising its relationship with Israel. Now, the running theme in Washington (and other Western capitals) is that it supports 'Israel's right to defend'. The previous Trump administration recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moved America's embassy to the disputed city. The Trump administration also recognised Israel's annexation of Golan Heights, a Syrian territory it captured in 1967 and held under its occupation ever since. The U.S. continued to supply weapons to Israel after October 7 even as Israel faced allegations of genocide. The US rushed to Israel's defence in 2024 when Iran launched drones and ballistic missiles in response to Israel's attack. And now, the U.S. has directly joined the war Israel began against Iran. Special relationship While there were personality clashes between American Presidents and Israeli Prime Ministers, such clashes never led to a breakdown in what President John F. Kennedy called 'the special relationship'. In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter heaped pressure on Israel to make peace with Egypt and give concessions to the Palestinians. Israel would finally agree to sign the Framework for Peace Agreement as part of the Camp David Accords, which would set the stage for the Oslo process. During the second intifada, President George W. Bush pressed Israel to show restraint in the occupied West Bank. In 2002, Mr. Bush asked Israel to pull back from the West Bank and end a military operation 'without delay', but the Israelis never obliged. Sharon had Bush 'wrapped around his little finger', Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Adviser, said in October 2004. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had clashed over the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Mr. Netanyahu had visited the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress and attacked Mr. Obama over his Iran policy. But the same Mr. Obama vetoed all resolutions at the UN Security Council critical of Israel except one during his eight-year term. Mr. Obama, during his last months in office, also cleared a $38 billion aid package for Israel. The Biden administration had earlier criticised the Netanyahu government's plan to overhaul the country's judiciary. But after the October 7 attack by Hamas, the U.S. has thrown its full weight behind the Netanyahu government's war on Gaza. Mr. Trump seems to have thrown his full weight behind Israel. Power of lobby Why does the U.S. always back Israel? One explanation is that Israel's strategic value in a volatile yet critical region makes it appealing for Washington. During the Cold War, the U.S. saw Israel as a powerful bulwark against possible Soviet expansion in the Arab world. After the Cold War, when the U.S. started becoming more and more involved in West Asia, it continued to see Israel as a force of stability, along with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Strategic value explains a close partnership or alliance, like America's relationships with Japan, South Korea or Germany. A host of other factors, including America's public opinion, electoral politics and the powerful Israel lobby in the U.S., play a role in shaping the country's Israel policy. Historically, Israel has enjoyed near unanimous support in the U.S. Congress, and a vast majority of Americans have favourable views about Israel. American Jews and evangelical Christians are two powerful, politically active groups in the U.S. They are important constituencies for both parties and they are both pro-Israel. Then there's a powerful Israel lobby in the U.S., which according to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, heavily influences U.S. policy towards Israel. The lobby helps amplify pro-Israel voices, backs pro-Israel politicians and works toward playing down or neutralising voices critical of Israel, they argue in their 2006 essay 'The Israel lobby', in London Review of Books. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, hosts top leaders from both countries, including Presidents, Senators and Prime Ministers, for its annual gatherings. Pro-Israel groups also support both parties in the U.S. financially. Besides, there are strong ties between the military industrial complexes of both countries. Therefore, all these factors together — Israel's strategic value, America's domestic politics, the presence of the pro-Israel lobby and military-industrial interplay, make sure that there's an institutional consensus in the U.S. about its relationship with Israel, irrespective of which party or President is in power in Washington D.C.
Scoop
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Sumud: The Unyielding Heart Of The Palestinian Cause In Gaza
The profound and unrelenting struggles endured by Palestinians should, by any rational expectation, have irrevocably concluded the Palestinian cause. Yet, the struggle for freedom in Palestine is at its zenith. How is one to explain this? Attempts aimed at the erasure of Palestine, the Palestinian people, and their cause go back well over a century. This encompasses the historical and ongoing impacts of the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent Mandate period, which ushered in an era of extreme violence, systemic suppression, and the imposition of harsh emergency regulations. The devastating Nakba - the catastrophic destruction of the Palestinian homeland - was followed by the enactment of new emergency laws and the widespread dispersal of several Palestinian generations into the Shattat (diaspora). A relentless cycle of constant war, new occupations, and persistent ethnic cleansing has been further compounded by a pervasive lack of international action and sustained Arab solidarity, exacerbated by the presence of corrupt Palestinian elites. This litany of suffering extends to countless Israeli massacres, escalating violence, the relentless expansion of settlements, widespread destruction, and the recurring demolition of homes. The protracted Gaza siege, marked by war after war, has now culminated in the ongoing genocide. Yet, despite this comprehensive and overwhelming accumulation of adversities, the Palestinian cause not only endures but persists with an unwavering spirit. This remarkable and enduring resilience is most profoundly understood through the concept of sumud. The Indomitable Spirit of Sumud Sumud transcends mere steadfastness; it represents a profound and deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon rooted in defiance, historical consciousness, unwavering faith, spirituality, the strength of family bonds, and the cohesion of community. The language of sumud is remarkably pervasive and rich, manifesting eloquently in poetry, intricate storytelling, Quranic verses, and the compelling terminology of revolution. Words such as sumud itself, Muqawama (resistance), Hurriyya (freedom), Thawra (revolution), Hatta Akher Nuqtat Dum (to the last drop of blood), and even the very word Falasteen (Palestine) are imbued with profound and multifaceted significance. For countless children growing up in Gaza, like myself, the simple, yet powerful, act of writing the word Falasteen on sand, in every text book, or on one's own hand serves as a foundational and deeply personal experience. Therefore, any truly genuine comprehension of Palestine must be meticulously shaped by the authentic language and the lived experiences of Palestinians themselves, with particular emphasis on those residing in Gaza. This imperative necessitates a deliberate shift in focus, moving away from historical documents like the Balfour Declaration or the Nation-State Law. Instead, understanding must authentically emerge from the narratives of pivotal figures such as Izz al-Din al-Qassam, Abdul Qader al-Husseini, Akram Zeiter, and Ghassan Kanafani, extending all the way to the fighting Palestinians in Gaza, their innocent children, their courageous journalists, their dedicated doctors, and their ordinary people. Gaza: The Unyielding Heart of the Palestinian Story One might be inclined to perceive this perspective as sentimental. However, it stands as a clear articulation of a long-held conviction that Gaza occupies the indisputable core of the Palestinian story, its historical trajectory, and its future destiny. This is not an emotional plea but a profound recognition of a harsh and unyielding living reality: Gaza has borne the brunt of the most severe manifestations of Israeli occupation, apartheid, siege, war, violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Crucially, it is also the place where resistance has never ceased, not for a single moment. This fact alone is sufficient to establish Gaza as the most critical and undeniable component in the entire intricate history of the so-called conflict. The Israeli genocide unfolding in Gaza is not merely an act of collective punishment. Rather, it originates from a deeply distorted and chilling Israeli perception of reality: that the Palestinian people themselves, and not a specific ideology, a particular group of individuals, or a defined organization, constitute the very heart and soul of the Palestinian cause. Consequently, the perceived sole method for thoroughly decimating the resistance is through the mass killing of the people and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of the survivors. If Israel, in its twisted and profoundly criminal way, has managed to grasp this horrifying understanding, then it becomes equally imperative that we, too, fully comprehend this fundamental concept. Forging a New Understanding of Palestine Therefore, a new and transformative understanding of Palestine is not just desirable but absolutely imperative. This understanding must unequivocally center Palestinian voices that genuinely reflect the sentiments, wishes, feelings, aspirations, and the authentic popular politics of ordinary people. It is crucial that not just any Palestinian voice will suffice, nor will any narrative do. This deliberate and focused approach will also help to liberate the word sumud, and all adjacent terminology, from being dismissed as merely fleeting sentimental language, thereby elevating it to the very heart of our collective discourse. Palestinians, like all native populations engaged in a just struggle for freedom, should be unequivocally entrusted with the custodianship of their own discourse. They are not a liability to that discourse; they are not marginal actors within it; they are, in fact, the undeniable main characters. Within an astonishing 600 days, Palestinians in Gaza, largely cut off, isolated, and targeted for extermination, have managed to expose Zionism more comprehensively and effectively than all the cumulative work undertaken over the course of an entire century. This monumental achievement, too, is a direct byproduct of their profound sumud. It is now time to critically revisit our language of solidarity with Palestine, consciously liberating it from our own ideological, political, and often personal priorities, and decisively reshaping it based solely on the authentic priorities of the Palestinians themselves. (Delivered by Ramzy Baroud at the Gaza Tribunal, Sarajevo, Bosnia, May 27, 2025) - Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ' Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out'. His other books include 'My Father was a Freedom Fighter' and 'The Last Earth'. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is
Asharq Al-Awsat
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Isn't it Time for Us Arabs to Rationally Think of the Future?
When a nation's options are narrowed by dramatic developments, it is left with two choices: gloating or denial... Both affirm that this nation has resigned itself to a life on the margins of history. We Arabs currently constitute a strong majority in West Asia and North Africa. Our territories are home to some of the world's most significant natural resources; they are by most of the ancient world's seas, and are part of the most important trade and civilization routes known to humanity. After the First World War, as borders and the balance of power were shifting, ideologies shaped the equations of the next phase in the "game of nations," and it had been assumed that we would keep up with the transformations. We should have noticed, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had spanned most of the Arab region, from Iraq to the Algerian-Moroccan border, that new interests, circumstances, and priorities had emerged. However, neither we nor others managed to grasp these shifts in time. That is why the Second World War erupted, changing things and setting new rules for the game. As for us Arabs, we failed to process the implications of partitioning the Levant and the Nile Valley or what was happening in the Maghreb! We failed to grasp how the Balfour Declaration would change things on the ground, especially in the context of a global Cold War that divided the world into two camps. The conflict among the old European colonial powers, and later between them and the two rising giants - the United States and the Soviet Union - accelerated the Global South toward independence, and gave rise to "Third World socialism," beginning with China. Iran, for its part, underwent a remarkable transformation as Britain and Russia jockeyed for influence. In 1925, officer Reza Pahlavi overthrew the Qajar dynasty and established the Pahlavi state. He ruled until 1941, when the Russians and the British removed him because of suspicion that he had been sympathetic to Nazi Germany, replacing him with his son Mohammad. The son, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, understood the rules of the game with the major powers. He played well for a few years, before choosing to align with the United States and his difficult neighbor, Atatürk's Türkiye, during the Cold War. Despite their ancient rivalry, Türkiye shared with Pahlavi's Iran not only a commitment to secularism, but also a desire to join the West, as seen with the "Baghdad Pact." Likewise, Atatürk's Türkiye coexisted, for a while, with Zionist Israel, whose establishment fueled anti-Western sentiment in more than one Arab country. As we know, military juntas began emerging in the 1950s. The Soviet bloc backed their revolutionary policies. Thus, the rift widened, first within the Arab world itself, and second, between the Arab world and the "regional triad" that supported and was supported by the West: namely, Iran, Türkiye, and Israel. This state of affairs continued until Pahlavi's secular Iran was ousted by Khomeini's "clerical revolution", and until Atatürk's secularism in Türkiye was undermined by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who aspired to combine "caliphate rule" and Turkish nationalism. As for Israel, once defined by the Histadrut and cooperative socialism, it has become a model of racist, theocratic fascism. Currently, the Israeli-Iranian war, and Türkiye's silent, calculated role in the Fertile Crescent, seem to have caught the Arabs offguard. They find themselves powerlessly watching their region being "reassembled" before their very eyes. And today, the most that some of them - those who have conveniently forgotten the rabid belligerence of Benjamin Netanyahu - can do is gloat out of childish spite. Is cheering the army that destroyed Gaza and killed its children, merely out of spite toward Iran, not a reflection of paralysis and an utter disregard for the future? Conversely, denial has become a comfortable refuge for segments of the Iranian regime's support base, who turn a blind eye to its actions. Here, I claim that our duty is to think in terms of other - plausible this time - options. Personally, I am convinced that defeating Israel is virtually impossible: it is nothing more than a front for the United States. Until Washington is persuaded that aligning fully with Tel Aviv is not inevitable, the Israeli fascists and their allies will continue to choose America's "leaders" and drag the US into fighting their wars. Incidentally, the "marriage of convenience" between hardline Christian fundamentalists and Jewish communities was consolidated by Evangelicals like the pastor Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority movement, and extremist Jewish right-wing groups - both economically and religiously - toward the end of the Cold War amid Ronald Reagan's rise. At the time, their greatest common denominator was hostility to the Soviets and the global Left. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Samuel Huntington observed, they were united by their hatred of "political Islam." This tactical alliance reached its peak with the emergence - or fabrication - of ISIS-like movements. Now, these movements are about to expire. Meanwhile the fundamental contradictions - theological and ethnic - between the two opposing camps of arrogant extremists, Jewish and Christian, are surfacing, with each claiming a monopoly over religious truth, virtue, and salvation. Recognizing this fact, proceeding accordingly, and examining the implications and consequences would be a thousand times more useful than indulging in the negative, foolish reactions of a bygone past that will never return!
Arab News
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Isn't it time for us Arabs to rationally think of the future?
When a nation's options are narrowed by dramatic developments, it is left with two choices: gloating or denial. Both affirm that this nation has resigned itself to a life on the margins of history. We Arabs currently constitute a strong majority in West Asia and North Africa. Our territories are home to some of the world's most significant natural resources; they are by most of the ancient world's seas and are part of the most important trade and civilization routes known to humanity. After the First World War, as borders and the balance of power were shifting, ideologies shaped the equations of the next phase in the 'game of nations,' and it had been assumed that we would keep up with the transformations. We should have noticed, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had spanned most of the Arab region, from Iraq to the Algerian-Moroccan border, that new interests, circumstances and priorities had emerged. However, neither we nor others managed to grasp these shifts in time. That is why the Second World War erupted, changing things and setting new rules for the game. As for us Arabs, we failed to process the implications of the partitioning of the Levant and the Nile Valley or what was happening in the Maghreb. The Arabs find themselves powerlessly watching their region being reassembled before their very eyes Eyad Abu Shakra We failed to grasp how the Balfour Declaration would change things on the ground, especially in the context of a global Cold War that divided the world into two camps. The conflict among the old European colonial powers, and later between them and the two rising giants — the US and the Soviet Union — accelerated the Global South toward independence and gave rise to Third World socialism, beginning with China. Iran, for its part, underwent a remarkable transformation as Britain and Russia jockeyed for influence. In 1925, officer Reza Pahlavi overthrew the Qajar dynasty and established the Pahlavi state. He ruled until 1941, when the Russians and the British removed him because of suspicion that he had been sympathetic to Nazi Germany, replacing him with his son Mohammed. The son, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, understood the rules of the game with the major powers. He played well for a few years, before choosing to align with the US and his difficult neighbor, Ataturk's Turkiye, during the Cold War. Despite their ancient rivalry, Turkiye shared with Pahlavi's Iran not only a commitment to secularism, but also a desire to join the West, as seen with the Baghdad Pact. Likewise, Ataturk's Turkiye coexisted, for a while, with Zionist Israel, whose establishment fueled anti-Western sentiment in more than one Arab country. As we know, military governments began emerging in the 1950s. The Soviet bloc backed their revolutionary policies. Thus, the rift widened, first within the Arab world itself and, second, between the Arab world and the regional triad that supported and was supported by the West: namely, Iran, Turkiye and Israel. This state of affairs continued until Pahlavi's secular Iran was ousted by Ayatollah Khomeini's so-called clerical revolution and until Ataturk's secularism in Turkiye was undermined by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who aspired to combine 'caliphate rule' and Turkish nationalism. As for Israel, which was once defined by the Histadrut and cooperative socialism, it has become a model of racist, theocratic fascism. Currently, the Israeli-Iranian war and Turkiye's silent, calculated role in the Fertile Crescent seem to have caught the Arabs off guard. They find themselves powerlessly watching their region being reassembled before their very eyes. And today, the most that some of them — those who have conveniently forgotten the rabid belligerence of Benjamin Netanyahu — can do is gloat out of childish spite. Is cheering the army that destroyed Gaza and killed its children merely out of spite toward Iran not a reflection of paralysis and an utter disregard for the future? Conversely, denial has become a comfortable refuge for segments of the Iranian regime's support base, who turn a blind eye to its actions. The fundamental contradictions between the two opposing camps of arrogant extremists, Jewish and Christian, are surfacing Eyad Abu Shakra Here, I claim that our duty is to think in terms of other — plausible this time — options. Personally, I am convinced that defeating Israel is virtually impossible: it is nothing more than a front for the US. Until Washington is persuaded that aligning fully with Tel Aviv is not inevitable, the Israeli fascists and their allies will continue to choose America's leaders and drag the US into fighting their wars. Incidentally, the marriage of convenience between hard-line Christian fundamentalists and Jewish communities was consolidated by evangelicals like the pastor Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority movement, and extremist Jewish right-wing groups — both economically and religiously — toward the end of the Cold War amid Ronald Reagan's rise. At the time, their greatest common denominator was hostility to the Soviets and the global left. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Samuel Huntington observed, they were united by their hatred of political Islam. This tactical alliance reached its peak with the emergence — or fabrication — of Daesh-like movements. Now, these movements are about to expire. Meanwhile, the fundamental contradictions — theological and ethnic — between the two opposing camps of arrogant extremists, Jewish and Christian, are surfacing, with each claiming a monopoly over religious truth, virtue and salvation. Recognizing this fact, proceeding accordingly and examining the implications and consequences would be a thousand times more useful than indulging in the negative, foolish reactions of a bygone past that will never return.
