Opinion Archives - Page 7 of 41

Trump, Maduro and Diminished Values

CrossFireArabia
January 6, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

The late British historian Eric Hobsbawm had an interesting theory that of long centuries and short centuries. In the first, no big transformations happens, consequently these centuries are counted them in terms of numerics, like 100 years, for instance.

In the second case however, so many big transformations occur, and so these centuries are counted not numerically, but by their effect on human life, progress and development.

To this one wishes to add, that throughout history, people moved habitually into the new century with old ideas passing through and tipping over. Consequently, the grasping of the new developments is always difficult, and our current situation in the 21st century is, in fact, no different.

We have entered this century with the values inherited from the past 100 years with examples being the truth, legality, international law, human rights, sovereignty, and many other norms. Now, this is not to say in any way the values of the past century were ideal, but at least there were norms that could be appealed to not necessarily punish transgressors, but to embarrass them.

However today, and with the latest debacles, we have now entered an age in which you can easily add the word “post-” to all the aforementioned values. In fact we are in the age of post human values, in which the logic of pure force, and the law of the jungle prevails and used with no compunction.

With the latest action on Venezuela, the US administration is providing a new paradigm to the world: That of the policy of the backyard to illustrate the point and as used by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain prior to World War II and in which he wrote after the annexation of Czechoslovakia by Adolf Hitler, as being the dictator’s new backyard.

What he meant of course is that any entity with enough strength is permitted to go into countries which it considers to be its own backyard. Flipping back, today this is how America sees its new role, acting to prevent harm to US interests but also is willing to negotiate on other issues important for the interests of America.

As the situation stands, Washington through the Trump administration, is clearly moving to revive the Monroe Doctrine and use it unashamedly and in accordance with the backyard theory.

And as for the international outlook, the current US strategy is to push for extreme right-wing governments to run Europe, seeing the continent as an economically powerful block but without military swing and/or political clout and willing to negotiate to end the war in Ukraine to Russia’s advantage.

Meanwhile, Washington wants also to push the Abraham Accords in the Middle East and get Arab governments, especially the Saudis, to negotiate with Israel to liquidate the Palestinian problem once and for all. In this paradigm, the fate of Taiwan remains to be seen, whether it becomes the sacrificial lamb for US-China Accords or not. This is how one sees the balance.

However having said all that, and in this formula, the allies of the US can be hurt in as much way as the detractors of America.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian historian living in Paris.

Opinion

Israel Versus Turkey in Africa

CrossFireArabia
December 29, 2025

By Prof. Dr. Yahya Amir Hagi Ibrahim

The strategic waters of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden have once again become a flashpoint, with recent actions suggesting a dangerous escalation that threatens to unravel fragile stability and deliberately target international investments. Israel has shifted toward a posture that uses access to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden as part of its broader regional strategy. At the same time, Türkiye is deepening its footprint in Somalia with long-term development projects spanning energy, infrastructure, and space technology. After Israel’s decision to recognize Somalia’s breakaway region, Somaliland, Somalian President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud pays a critical visit to Türkiye.

Houthis and Bab al-Mandab Strait

In response to Israel’s genocide on Gaza, Yemen’s Houthi rebels have launched drones, missiles, and maritime attacks targeting Israel and commercial shipping (toward Israel or flying the flag of Israel-supporting countries) in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and nearby waters. In response, Israel has conducted multiple airstrikes in Yemen.

More recently, Israel’s recognition of Somalia’s breakaway region, Somaliland, as an independent state in December 2025 marked a dramatic diplomatic shift. Israel became the first UN member state to formally recognize the breakaway region (situated near the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait), drawing strong objections from Somalia, Türkiye, Egypt, and others who view the move as a threat to regional stability.

Alarmingly, these actions appear to deliberately focus on areas where Türkiye has made significant investments in stability and capacity-building, signaling steps aimed not just at military objectives but at broader stabilization. This calculated targeting strikes at the heart of a pivotal and transformative partnership between Türkiye and Somalia. Over recent years, this alliance has moved far beyond diplomacy into tangible, nation-building projects designed to foster economic growth and regional security. To see them threatened is to see a blueprint for progress put at risk.

Over the past decade, Türkiye has built a deep, multi-layered partnership with Somalia, positioning itself as a key security and economic partner. Ankara’s long-term involvement began in earnest with high-level visits in 2011 and expanded through defense, economic, and development agreements.

Central to this is hydrocarbon exploration: under agreements granting rights across some 15,000 square kilometers of Somali offshore blocks, the Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) has conducted seismic surveys and plans to begin oil drilling by 2026, potentially harnessing significant reserves.

Beyond energy, Türkiye desires to include cutting-edge technological infrastructure. Ankara is planning a space launch facility in Somalia, leveraging the country’s equatorial advantage for satellite launches and potentially missile testing. The project (part of broader cooperation agreements signed in 2024) is expected to strengthen Türkiye’s aerospace capabilities and deepen strategic ties.

Turkish capacity-building

Türkiye’s footprint also extends to security and capacity-building. The Turkish military operates Camp TURKSOM, its largest overseas base, which trains Somali forces and enhances naval and coastguard capabilities. Joint agreements signed in recent years include maritime security cooperation to patrol Somali waters for a decade, protecting both regional stability and economic activities. Additionally, Turkish infrastructure investments include modernization of airports, hospitals, fishery programs, and diplomatic compounds.

Türkiye’s strategy is structural, aimed at building Somali capabilities and mutual economic stakes. Whether through oil, space technology, or infrastructure, Ankara’s footprint in the Horn of Africa is designed for sustained impact.

The author who has contributed this piece to Anadolu, is the deputy chairman of RAAD Peace Research Institute, a Somaville University Mogadishu board member and lecturer on economic development.

Opinion

Making Arabic The Future Language!

CrossFireArabia
December 18, 2025

By Ali Abu Hablah

On December 18, 2025, the world celebrates World Arabic Language Day, an occasion that transcends mere celebration to touch upon the core of cultural and intellectual conflict in a rapidly changing world. This day commemorates the 1973 United Nations General Assembly resolution adopting Arabic as an official and working language of the UN system, in recognition of its historical and cultural significance.

This year’s celebration, organized by UNESCO at its headquarters in Paris, carries the theme:

“Innovative Pathways for Arabic: Policies and Practices for a More Inclusive Linguistic Future.” This theme reflects a growing awareness that the future of Arabic can no longer be secured through emotional rhetoric or historical glorification, but rather through public policies, educational strategies, and serious investment in technology and innovation.

Arabic is not simply a means of communication; it is the language of the Holy Quran, the language of the Prophet’s sayings (Hadith), and a repository of poetic, intellectual, and philosophical heritage. It is also a liturgical language for several Eastern churches. It is spoken today by more than 400 million people and is widespread throughout the Arab world and its surrounding regions, as well as in the diaspora across five continents. It is also one of the most influential languages in the history of world languages.

For centuries, Arabic played a pivotal role as the language of science, politics, and administration. It contributed to the transmission of Greek and Roman knowledge to Europe and served as a bridge for dialogue between cultures along land and sea trade routes. However, this historical leadership is now met with a worrying paradox: Decline of Arabic’s presence in scientific research, higher education, and digital content, in favor of other global languages.

This decline is due to a complex set of factors, most notably the dominance of foreign languages in universities, weak Arabization policies, a decline in translation activity, and the digital revolution, which Arabic has not adequately kept pace with. The widespread use of local dialects, especially through media and social media platforms, has also contributed to weakening the presence of Standard Arabic in the public sphere. This does not mean that the dialects themselves are responsible for the crisis, but rather that it reflects the absence of a balanced linguistic vision. In this context, the 2025 slogan acquires strategic significance, linking the future of Arabic to three fundamental paths:

First, language policies, as no language can be protected without clear legislation guaranteeing its presence in education, administration, and media.

Second, innovation and technology, given that the survival of a language today depends on its presence in artificial intelligence, software, search engines, and the digital content industry.

Third, linguistic inclusivity and equity, by making Arabic accessible to multilingual societies, supporting low-income groups, and promoting linguistic justice without compromising the integrity of the language or politicizing it ideologically.

UNESCO’s celebration of World Arabic Language Day constitutes a platform for global cultural dialogue, but at the same time, it places a heightened responsibility on Arab states and their educational and cultural institutions. The problem does not lie in a lack of international recognition, but rather in the absence of a comprehensive Arab linguistic project that restores Arabic to its role as a language of knowledge and production, not merely a language of heritage and celebration.

Ultimately, the Arabic language does not face an existential crisis, but rather a crisis of management and awareness. It must either be integrated into the core of the civilizational and developmental project, as a language of science, law, and technology, or it will remain confined to occasions and speeches. On World Arabic Language Day 2025, the question remains: Do we want Arabic to be the language of the past, or the language of the future?

Ali Abu Hablah originally wrote this article for the Arabic Addustour newspaper.

Opinion

Netanyahu’s Middle East Vision

CrossFireArabia
December 15, 2025

By the end of December, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to visit Washington to meet US President Donald Trump, marking his fourth visit in less than a year since Trump assumed office. Unlike previous visits, this one comes after President Trump imposed his vision for ending the war in Gaza and outlined his broader concept of regional peace—giving the visit a distinctly political dimension.

At the core of the discussions will be the transition to the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, the appointment of an American general and a monitoring center, and the mechanism for administering Gaza ahead of the arrival of an international peace force. The visit is also expected to address Israel’s relations with its regional surroundings, particularly Egypt. Reports suggest the possibility of a simultaneous visit by the Egyptian president to Washington, reflecting a clear American desire to initiate direct engagement and promote the concept of “economic peace,” along with major regional projects that Trump views as the backbone of future relations, especially in the energy and gas sectors.

Yet even as President Trump speaks of a regional peace vision, the days preceding the visit remain open to further escalation. Indicators point toward a qualitative Israeli escalation across four fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. These fronts have been deliberately kept open, transformed into continuous theaters of operation where Israel calibrates the level of military activity according to its security assessments.

Lebanon remains the most prominent arena of this escalation. Ongoing discussions about Hezbollah’s efforts to rebuild its capabilities coincide with Israel’s continued direct targeting of the group’s positions and operatives. This comes amid growing American pressure on the Lebanese government and army to take concrete steps toward disarming Hezbollah.

While the group is fully aware of its inability to engage in a comprehensive regional war, and the need to avoid providing direct justifications for escalation, it nevertheless finds itself compelled to use the weapons issue domestically to reshape internal power balances. At the same time, Hezbollah seeks to secure the future framework of its relationship with Syria, particularly if the Syrian-Lebanese border shifts from being merely a site of interdiction to a direct target zone.

This reality severely constrains Hizbollah’s response options while granting Israel continued latitude to strike the group’s infrastructure, capitalising on the absence of a decisive resolution to the weapons issue and on Lebanon’s institutional confusion over how to address it, whether through phased timelines or alternative formulas such as placing weapons under army control. From Israel’s perspective, this ambiguity justifies continued targeting until a decisive moment is reached.

Within this context, Israel’s strategy of imposing a new reality across its border fronts aligns closely with the transition to the second phase of President Trump’s plan. This approach corresponds with Israel’s efforts over the past two years to redraw geographical and security realities in Syria, Gaza, Lebanon, and even the West Bank. While the Trump administration opposed a formal declaration of annexation in the West Bank, it did not object in practice to Israel’s on-the-ground measures, allowing these changes to solidify as irreversible facts.

Security measures taken today may therefore establish realities that will be difficult to reverse in the future. From Washington’s perspective, redrawing borders may be seen as laying the groundwork for what it terms “regional peace,” treating the new border realities as spaces for potential economic or developmental investment.

Netanyahu’s visit to the White House thus represents a pivotal moment. He will seek to position himself as a central actor in the next phase, consolidate new realities along Israel’s immediate borders, and secure U.S. backing in addressing non-adjacent fronts, most notably Iraq, and above all Iran.

Iran is left to grapple with an increasingly severe internal reality marked by mounting economic, social, service-related, and security challenges, and is simultaneously categorized as part of the camp of “obstructors of regional peace” in Trump’s framework, opening the door to intensified pressure and varied forms of targeting in the period ahead.

Dr Amer Al Sabaileh, a professor in the University of Jordan contributed this analysis to the Jordan Times.

Opinion

The Olive Tree Defies Israel

CrossFireArabia
November 10, 2025

By Ali Osman Karaoglu

A lesser-known dimension of Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine since 1967 is the systematic destruction of the Palestinian people’s economic resources and means of livelihood. One of the most important sources of income for Palestinians is olive cultivation – so much so that the olive tree is regarded as one of Palestine’s national symbols. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish captured this symbolism in his famous words: “Here we remain, as long as thyme and olives remain.”

Beyond its symbolic value, the olive tree is the main source of income for nearly 80,000 Palestinian families. According to UN data, about 48% of the agricultural land in the West Bank and Gaza is covered with olive trees. Olive production contributes around 14% to the Palestinian economy. About 93% of harvested olives are used for olive oil production, while the remainder is used to make soap, table olives, and pickles.

Usurpation of olive trees: Israel’s assault on nature and identity

Recently, Israeli settlers in the West Bank prevented Palestinians from harvesting olives, an essential source of livelihood, and destroyed 13,000 olive trees. Such actions, either directly committed or condoned by Israeli authorities, are known and documented as systematic practices.

According to various international reports, Israel has destroyed around 800,000 olive trees over the past 20 years, and more than 2.5 million trees since 1967.

Palestinians face great difficulty in harvesting and protecting their olive trees. Since the Oslo Accords, Israel has exercised full control over 60% of the West Bank and requires Palestinians entering these areas to obtain a “permit issued by Israeli authorities.”

Farmers are therefore forced to secure permission to access their own land, but this permit system is largely arbitrary. There are no clear criteria specifying what conditions Palestinian applicants must meet to obtain a permit.

Even when they provide ownership documents and pass “security” checks, permits are often issued only to the person named on the deed, excluding other family members from entering the land. The permits are typically short-term, and each time they expire, farmers must reapply without any guarantee of renewal.

According to UN data, nearly half of permit applications are rejected on arbitrary grounds, turning the system into a policy of harassment and attrition. The same restrictive policy applies to bringing in agricultural necessities such as tractors, equipment, and fertilizers.

Over time, many Palestinians who once cultivated other crops have converted their land into olive groves, since olive trees can survive even without intensive care.

How Israel’s seizure of olive trees violates international law

The destruction of olive trees in the occupied Palestinian territories occurs almost every year. Thousands of trees are destroyed annually during Israeli military operations or through attacks by settlers. Such incidents are rarely taken seriously or investigated by police or other public authorities.

Israeli soldiers frequently fail to protect Palestinians from settler attacks and, in many cases, act against the Palestinians themselves when they try to defend their land and trees.

In fact, the destruction of Palestinian farmlands and olive trees violates international law. Even Israel’s own Supreme Court has recognized the illegality of arbitrary practices in the “Morar v. IDF Commander” case.

In that case, Palestinian farmers appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court after a military commander denied them access to their farmland. The commander claimed the closure was intended to “protect Palestinian farmers from settler harassment.” The plaintiffs argued, however, that Israeli settlers systematically harass, assault, and damage the property of Palestinian villagers, while the Israeli army fails to intervene to stop this violence or take necessary measures to protect Palestinians and their agricultural products.

The court ruled that the army must take steps to prevent settler violence, stating that the proper way to protect Palestinian farmers from harassment is for Israeli military authorities to implement necessary security measures and impose restrictions on the settlers responsible for unlawful actions. Nevertheless, Israeli authorities continue to disregard their own court’s ruling and persist with arbitrary practices.

Under international humanitarian law, causing environmental damage as a military tactic is prohibited. The law stipulates that “care shall be taken to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term, and severe damage during armed conflict.” This protection includes prohibiting methods or means of warfare that are intended – or expected – to cause such damage, as these may endanger the health or survival of the population.

Palestinian territories have been under Israeli occupation since 1967. This ongoing occupation constitutes a “continuing act of aggression,” and under the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, imposes obligations on the occupying power.

The occupying power is responsible for ensuring a secure environment that allows the local population to meet its daily needs, and must protect civilians against looting and destruction of property.

Moreover, the damages caused by Israel – an apartheid regime – to the environment and to olive trees are considered war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute.

UN Security Council resolutions also emphasize that Israel must refrain from harming the environment and is obligated to prevent settler provocations. Israel has repeatedly violated these obligations and continues to act in breach of international law.

It is known that Israel’s policy of destroying olive trees aims both to make its occupation permanent and to clear land for the establishment of future settlements. Therefore, Israel’s environmental crimes should be added to the cases currently being pursued against it at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The author who contributed this piece to Anadolu, is a faculty member in the Department of International Law at Yalova University’s Faculty of Law.