Oslo: Strangling The Dove

Dr Khairi Janbek
May 10, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we do a recap of the Oslo Agreements, they were a series of accords between Israel and the PLO signed in 1993. It was a process meant to lead to a permanent settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within five year, including decisions on borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem and settlements.

But right from the start, voices were divided over the process, while for others, the whole idea had a built-in mechanism for failure from the start. The Palestinians started seeing that the Oslo Agreements were neither ending the establishment of Israeli settlements nor the end to occupation, while for the Israelis it didn’t seem to end their security concerns.

Indeed, it is pointless to think which comes first, the chicken or the egg, because two different fears and logistics persisted from the start. But also, it is important to think about the circumstances which brought about the idea of launching the process, and which did put the PLO in a tough position for being perceived as supporting the wrong side which lost; Iraq.

The room for manoeuvre for the late Yasser Arafat was very tight as he stood to lose the legitimacy of the PLO.

What one is trying to say is that, right from the start, outside official circles, many on the Palestinian side were against Oslo probably as many as was the case on the Israeli side.

The gradual erosion of Oslo mainly through the continued Israeli actions kept feeding extremism on both sides. Nevertheless, the concept was not revoked by any Israeli government because of its effect on Arab public opinion, pressure which is likely to block any peace initiative. Moreover, the international atmosphere was not conducive for such an initiative.

Having said that, one cannot claim that the international atmosphere is currently more indifferent to the abrogation of the Oslo, rather Israel seems to have more leeway in undertaking unilateral actions with more impunity.

Of course, it is not international law that can be counted on in this respect but rather, at least for the time being Donald Trump’s disapproval of the idea of annexing the West Bank by Israel. This is despite the fact that all the Israeli actions of dividing the West Bank from north to south first and currently from west to east, goes unnoticed. But the important thing has been till now, and don’t say the magic word, end of Oslo.

However, the recent development is that Israeli political parties, the partners in Netanyahu’s government are all pushing openly, for the abrogation of the Oslo agreements and cancelling out all the Israeli obligations towards it.

One can only say such an open declaration is a matter of principle by the Israeli government, because the changes on the ground are there for all to see. One supposes all parties are playing for time to see the end of the Palestinian national aspirations.

The columnist is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Opinion

How Trump Burned Western Friendships

CrossFireArabia
May 7, 2026

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.

Opinion

US-Iran: Who Will Blink First!

Dr Khairi Janbek
April 24, 2026

One would say that our main inheritance from the Covid period is the term, new normal, which has been since used, conveniently, in any circumstance we found baffling to our senses.

So one wonders if the stand in Hormuz will not be our current new normal, which will mean putting up with the economic consequences of the blockage and trying at the same time to find different routes for trade. Here, one is talking economics and trade simply because the loss of life and destruction doesn’t more matter in comparison to budgets and the flow of goods.

In fact each time anyone finds an intelligent reason for this ongoing conflict, the rediculous actions of the protagonists proves the impossibility of saying an informed or otherwise opinion. For all intents and purposes, all what can be reasonably said, is that for now, the war is supposed to be inconclusive despite the threats flying around, because essentially no one wants a regime change in Iran because no one can predict the consequences.

Therefore, back to economics again, the strategy seems, who will blink first and accept the conditions of the other to return to Islamabad. Iran with its enormous financial and economic problems which fears a new uprising in the streets once the stalemate with the US becomes the norm, or the USA with the mid term elections looming, rising inflation and higher energy prices, as well as volatility in stocks and shares prices in Wall Street.

When it comes to the situation in Lebanon, clearly the link with Iran is in fact Hizbullah; which is by its own admission the Party of Veliyati -Fatih in Lebanon, under the current circumstances, with the Israeli invasion of the south of Lebanon, for the first time in the history of Lebanon, not a sect, religious community, or power group, but in fact the official state representatives are talking about direct negotiations with Israel for peace, and in fact negotiating directly with each other in Washington.

For the Lebanese state, the situation now is legitimacy over the whole geography of the country, and limiting the possession of arms only in the hands of the Lebanese army and security. However, here also we face the scenario of whether the egg comes first, which is for Hizbullah Israeli withdrawal first, or the chicken, for the Lebanese government to negotiate the withdrawal of Israel.

Leaving the devil out of the details, would it mean ultimately, that a diplomatic agreement between Lebanon and Israel makes Hizbullah the enemy of both Israel and the Lebanese state together?, and what would the Lebanese state do as a next step, if Hizbullah decides to keep its weapons?

Then of course, there is the festering wound of Gaza and the West Bank which hardly warrant any news considering the scale of what is going on in the Gulf and in Lebanon. For Gaza, the vision fluctuates between lost peace, Israeli occupation withdrawn yellow lines, and Hamas with its show of force, amidst refugees, squalor, destruction and whether aid can go in or not, while on the other hand AI generated images of its rise beach resorts which no one is likely, from now on, be able to think about even if they can afford and realize them.

Future? What can one say save for bleak.

As for the West Bank, one has to apologise for saying that the Arabs, before anyone else, are reconciled with idea that the PNA is no longer there, apart from of course, moneymaking, here and there, and that what is termed as Palestinian territory will become a Bantustan in the sea of expanded Israel. Thus where do we go from here, well, there are people with paid salaries to think about!

Janbek is a Jordanian columnist based in Paris

Opinion

Trump: Tunes, Ceasefire and Hormuz

Saleem Ayoub Quna
April 23, 2026

Saleem Ayoub Quna

The latest ceasefire by Trump reminded me of an aspiring young violinist, who every time she started playing her own written piece, the tunes of her instrument would go havoc!

Last move, the declaration of a ceasefire with no deadline, by President Donald Trump on the Hormuz virtual chessboard with Iran, did not lack the usual element of surprise. Still, it was a relief for some, annoying for others and revealing for a third group!

While at it in the White House, the Pakistani host intermediaries in the other side of the hemisphere, were stood up for the arrival of the negotiation teams, who seemingly were hindered by other conflicting schedules, while pilots of the jet fighters, in the air bases and on board destroyers, and the launchers of missiles, drones and anti–missile batteries, were all getting itchy over the delay of orders from their commanders, which left TV anchors and other commentators, boringly speculating and redundant!

After the two rounds of exchanging intensive missile and rocket attacks, between Iran and the US-Israeli axis, in less than a year, using the open skies over the Middle East from the Mediterranean to the Gulf area, as a last resort to make each party’s views clearer to the other, President Trump, the man who happens to hold most of the important cards in his hands, seems today, to have come to the conclusion, that neither his message, nor his tools, or even his sheer luck have helped making his message loud and clear enough to his opponents and to the rest of world!

Luck in this context can be associated with the totality of internal, regional and world unanticipated reactions to this complicated conflict, in terms of rising oil and gas prices for the average consumer, whether in Europe, North America or in Eastern Asia. It is highly suspected that these instruments in the hands of Trump, started producing tunes that were not written or desired by Trump himself, and if they did, it was just a kind of dissonance!

It is also very probable that Trump’s tactics as a deal maker, continuously changing his tone and vocabulary, made his listeners lose track of his true original storyline, if there was one! But more seriously, weighing and counting the odds that have befell Trump in the aftermath of the breakout of the war, some of which were

of his own making, and other developments that came out as natural by-products of the original move!

Following is a rundown of those unexpected unpleasant by-products, or side-effects, some of which might turn into chronicle headaches*, of the whole initiative which Trump had closely coordinated with his persistent ally, Netanyahu, the first in June 2025, when the two of them orchestrated the “Midnight Hammer” surprise operation against sensitive Iranian targets, and the second round “Epic Fury” on Feb28 this year, while negotiators were in session:

1. Rise of oil and gas price in world markets

2. Drop of share prices in stock markets

3. Fracture with NATO*

4. Decline in Republican Party ratings ahead of the midterms congressional elections in November

5. Resurgence of Trump’s friendship with Epstein’s scandals.

6. Firing key US generals in the midst of crisis, culminated by ousting Navy Secretary, John Phelan.

7. Emulating Jesus Christ in a replica image!

8. Personal row with Pope Leo who stands as the most respectful living figure in the Western civilization.*

9. Lebanon and Hezbollah’s connection.*

10. The Strait of Hormuz new strategic entanglement*

None of the above problems or symptoms of problems, except for point 5 and 9, existed before Trump made up his mind to go into war against Iran last year. Even back in 2018 during his first term, Trump shocked the world by tearing up the Iran-nuclear deal approved by Obama’s Administration after being endorsed by the rest of the Western powers. No one expected that Trump would go this far in his second term, except the Prime Minister of Israel!

All things considered, the whole world, minus Israel, was shocked by the magnitude of the bombings to finish Iran’s potentials to own its own nuclear knowhow and capabilities. All of which leaves me wondering if this latest ambiguous ceasefire, and the way it was presented and its timing, will prove to be a real turning point in the ongoing strife in the Middle East, or just another boring maneuvering tactic by Trump!

As for the fate of young aspiring violinist, it was said that after she had discovered that her violin was not authentic but a replica, she decided to become a soprano!

Opinion

An Unholy War!

CrossFireArabia
April 23, 2026

By Robert Stephen Ford

Presidents and popes have disputed wars in the past. Pope Paul VI criticized the American war in Vietnam, saying that America was losing its moral standing. Pope John Paul II called the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 unjust and illegal. However, the clash between US President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, who are the two most influential Americans in the world, about the war against Iran is without precedent.

The rift that preceded the war

The relations between the Vatican and the Trump administration were difficult even before the Iran war. Before the appointment of Pope Leo, Pope Francis in 2025 criticized Donald Trump’s restrictions against immigration and the treatment of refugees and immigrants in American detention centers. In January 2026, three top Catholic Church leaders in the United States issued a report stating that American foreign policy was immoral. They pointed to reduced assistance to world health programs that have harmed tens of millions of people worldwide.

The American surprise attack on Iran on February 28 sharpened the dispute between the Vatican and the White House. The Trump administration portrays the war as a kind of holy crusade blessed by God. In his April 7 social media message threatening to destroy Iranian civilization, Trump exclaimed, “Glory to God!” while also saying that God ensured the success of the mission to rescue an American pilot whose plane was shot down over Iran. On March 26, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a press conference that military strikes against Iran enjoyed protection from God, and at a religious service in the Pentagon on April 1, he quoted from the Old Testament, asking God to “break the enemy’s teeth.”

The Pope responded on April 6 that Jesus called for peace and reconciliation, and he rejected politicians using God to justify war. His rebuke generated sharp counterattacks from Trump and some Republican Party leaders. Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said the pope appeared not to understand the Catholic Church theory of just war. Several American bishops close to Pope Leo responded that it was ridiculous to suggest that the pope did not understand the theology and the theory of just war since Leo himself is from the branch of the Catholic Church founded by Augustine, the Christian thinker who, 1,600 years ago, first set down the principles of a just war. The surprise American attack in the middle of negotiations, the American failure to avoid striking civilian targets and the ambiguous American government goals of the Iran war did not meet the standards of a just war, they noted.

Politics dressed as theology

Trump and the Republicans are politicians, not theologians. They portray the war against Iran as holy because they understand that the war is unpopular in the United States and they need the support of Christian conservatives in their political base. Notably, most Catholics, who are about 20% of the American population, voted for Trump in 2024. Opinion polls since late March have shown that most Americans doubt the war is in America’s national interests. After Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure and civilization on April 6-7, the pope called the threats “unacceptable” and would violate international law. He even urged American citizens to contact their representatives in Congress to demand that the war stop. It was unprecedented for a pope to urge Americans to mobilize this way, and it directly touched a big part of the Republican Party base. Trump responded five days later with his social media message alleging that the pope appears to accept that Iran can have nuclear weapons and does not understand foreign policy. No American president had attacked a pope so personally. With economic damage from the Iran war and opinion polls indicating Democratic Party victories in the November congressional elections, the White House and Republicans are especially sensitive to criticisms towards their war policy.

The pope enjoys a big advantage over Trump in opinion polls in the United States, and Trump over the past four days has retreated a little. He said on April 16 that while he respected the pope’s right to say what he thinks, Trump insisted that he would continue to say and do what he thinks is right. The pope, meanwhile, said on April 18 that he did not want to debate the president. The pope’s role in the end is not to descend to politics but rather to stay on a high level focused on how people should live according to the principles of Christianity. This round of arguments has been winding down, but the Trump administration’s use of Biblical scripture and symbols to justify controversial policies will trigger new fights with the Catholic Church in the months ahead, especially if the war escalates.

The writer is a former US Ambassador to Algeria and Syria and contributed this article to Anadolu