A topic rarely dealt with in the press is the situation between Jewish and Arab (Christian and Muslim) Israeli citizens. On April 26, 2020, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics released official data on the Israeli population: 6.8 million Jews (74%), 1.93 million Arabs (21%) and 454,000 non-Arab Christians or followers of other faiths (5%). According to the most recent data (2018), the fertility rate is slightly higher in the Arab minority.
According to preliminary data from the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), updated to April 21, 2020 and regarding the compilation of the next Pluralism Index 2020, this year there has been a significant change in the way Arab citizens in Israel identify themselves.
According to the survey, conducted by Tel Aviv University, Israel’s minorities (26%) define themselves mainly as Israeli and half of them (51%) identify themselves as Arab-Israeli.
The share of non-Jews who define themselves mainly as Palestinian is around 7%, down from 18% of last year.
Furthermore, there has been a considerable increase in the number of Arabs who call themselves Israeli –up from 5% in 2019 to 23% this year.
This shows a significant change in the State identification of Israeli Arabs at the end of an election year (election of April 9, 2019), in which the issue of Israeli Arabs’ participation in the political arena and the social fabric of the State was discussed.
Another question of the survey asked respondents to assess how much they agreed with the statement: “I feel like a true Israeli”.
The majority of Arabs (Christians and Muslims) replied they fully agreed (65%) or in some way agreed (33%) with the identification of Israeli citizens.
Conversely, the majority of Muslim Arabs who feels Israeli stands at 61%, while almost one in five Muslim Arabs (18%) say the opposite.
The President of the Jewish People’s Policy Institute, Avinoam Bar-Yosef, has not talked about the impact of the previous election and has instead estimated that the results of the survey are due to the work carried out by Israeli Arabs in the medical field, especially during the fight against the challenge posed by the COVID-19 crisis, which has deepened the sense of collaboration between the two communities.
Exactly a year before, on March 28, 2019, a survey published by the Israeli webzine Sicha Mekomit found that the majority of Israeli citizens thought that positive relations existed between the Jewish and Arab populations of the country.
53% of the Jews interviewed said that the daily relations between Jews and Arabs were largely positive, with one third reporting negative relations based on personal experiences. Only 13% said they had not enough contacts with the Arab population to reply.
About 76% of the Arabs interviewed stated that, in their daily life, the relations between Jews and Arabs were largely positive. Only 6% underlined they had not enough contacts with the other population group to reply.
A survey prior to the above-mentioned Parliamentary elections of April 9, 2019, conducted by Dahlia Scheindlin and David Reis, revealed that most Jews and Arabs believe that cooperation between the two populations can advance various objectives, including environmental protection, workers’ rights and women’s rights.
In all the issues addressed, 55-58% of respondents said that Jewish-Arab cooperation would help to tackle and solve problems and only 10-14% thought it would be harmful. 72% of Arab respondents said that cooperation would be useful, compared to 54% of Jewish respondents.
Considering the above mentioned elections, almost half of the Arabs interviewed (47%) said they would be willing to vote for a Jewish party if their views were met, significantly more than the 15% of Arab voters who supported non-Arab parties in the 2015 election.
Only 4% of the Jews interviewed, however, did express their willingness to vote for an Arab party. Around 88% of Jews rejected the idea.
Although Arab parties have never been part of a coalition government, 87% of Arab respondents said they would somehow favour an Arab party joining the government. Only 4% of Arabs rejected that possibility. Among the Jews interviewed, however, only 35% said that an Arab party joining the government would be acceptable to some extent.
When Arab respondents were asked whether they recognized a Jewish people alongside the Palestinian people, 94% of Arabs responded in the affirmative and only 6% said there was only a Palestinian people.
Among the Jews interviewed, 52% acknowledged the existence of a Palestinian people while 48% said there was only a Jewish people.
The survey also asked Arab respondents how they defined themselves. Almost half (46%) called themselves Arab-Israeli; 22% said they were Arab; 19% said they were Palestinian-Israeli and 14% called themselves Palestinian only.
An interesting article by Umberto De Giovannangeli published on the issue No. 9/2018 of “Limes” which, however, is very topical, shows us a survey published by the Israeli section of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, concerning the programme for Jewish-Arab cooperation at the Dayan Center of Tel Aviv University, and by Keevoon, a research, strategy and communication company (declared margin of error: 2.25%).
“The number of people who agreed to respond positively to questions about State institutions is remarkably high and reflects a general aspiration to be integrated into Israeli society,” explained ItamarRadai, academic Director of the Adenauer program and researcher at the Dayan Center. At the same time, perceived discrimination was mentioned by respondents as a major cause of concern, with 47% saying they feel “generally treated unequally” as Arab citizens. The majority of respondents also denounced an unequal distribution of State’s fiscal resources. According to Michael Borchard, Director of the Israeli office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, one of the most significant results of the survey is the answer given to the question: “Which word describes you best?”. The majority (28%) replied Arab-Israeli; 11% replied simply Israeli and 13% called themselves Arab citizens of Israel. 2% responded Israeli Muslim. Only 15% called themselves simply Palestinian, while 4% called themselves Palestinian in Israel; 3% called themselves Palestinian citizens in Israel and 2% Israeli Palestinian. 8% of respondents preferred to identify themselves simply as Muslim.
In other words, according to the survey, 56% of Arab citizens define themselves in one way or another as Israeli, while 24% as Palestinian. Only 23% avoid any reference to Israel, while 9% somehow combine the word Palestinian with the word Israeli or the expression “in Israel”. “The basic fact”, says Borchard, “is that there is more sense of identification with Israel than with a possible Palestinian State: Arabs want to be recognized in their specific identity, but they have no problem being associated to Israel”. The survey also found that Israeli Arab citizens are more worried about the economy, crime and internal equality than about the Palestinian issue.
The data obtained from De Giovannangeli’s article and previous Israeli surveys lead us to believe that the traditional secularism of Palestinian Arab citizens is clearly shown. Therefore, the anti-Israeli complexity of the Middle East countries –including, “paradoxically”, many allies of the United States, an old friend of Israel – may be less felt by Arab-Israeli citizens the more their economic situation may improve.
MomiDahan, a member of the Public Policy faculty at the Hebrew University, told us on May 8, 2018 that the low per capita income of Arab citizens in Israel corresponds to the high poverty rate of Arab families – which is about three times that of Jewish families – but “we cannot hold the Arabs responsible for Israel’s leading position in the ranking of inequality in disposable income”.
As a result, the higher the level of well-being of a country’s population, the fewer the reasons for friction on which third parties blow to fuel the fire of discord.
Saudi Arabia and Iran cold war
After almost seven decades, the cold war has reached the middle east, turning into a religious war of words and diplomacy. As Winston Churchill says that “diplomacy is an art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they ask for the direction”. So, both the regional powers are trying to pursue a policy of subduing the adversary in a diplomatic manner. The root of the conflict lies in the 1979, Iranian revolution, which saw the toppling of the pro-western monarch shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi and replaced by the so-called supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. From a Yemini missile attack to the assassination of the supreme commander QassimSoleimani, the political, ideological and religious differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia are taking the path of confrontation. The perennial rivalry between the two dominant Shiite and Sunni power house ins an ideological and religious one rather than being geo strategic or geo political. Back to the time when Saudi Arabia supported Saddam Hussain against the united states of Americathe decline of Saddam and his authoritarian regime was made inevitable and with this, Iran and Saudi Arabia rosed as the powerful, strategic and dominant political forces in the middle east.it was from here that the quest for supremacy to be the prepotent and commanding political powercommenced. The tensions escalated or in other words almost tended to turn into scuffles when in 2016, the Iranians stormed the Saudi embassy as a demonstration of the killing of a Shia cleric. The diplomatic ties were broken and chaos and uncertainty prevailed.
This cold war also resembles the original one., because it is also fueled by a blend of ideological conviction and brute power politics but at the same time unlike the original cold war, the middle eastern cold war is multi-dimensional and is more likely to escalate .it is more volatile and thus more prone to transformation. This followed by several incidents with each trying to isolate the other in international relations. The Saudis and Iranians have been waging proxy wars for regional dominance for decades. Yemen and Syria are the two battlegrounds, fueling the Iran-Saudi tensions. Iran has been accused of providing military assistance to the rebel Houthis, which targets the Saudi territory. It is also accused of attacking the world naval ships in the strait of Hormoz, something Iran strongly denies. This rivalry has dragged the region into chaos and ignited Shia-Sunni conflict across the middle east. The violence in the middle east due to this perennial hostility has also dire consequences for the economy of the war-torn nations. In the midst of the global pandemic, when all the economic activities are at halt, the tensions between the two arch rivals will prove hazardous and will yield catastrophic results. The blockade of the shipping and navigation in the Gulf, attacks on international ships, and the rising concerns of the western powers regarding this issue has left Iran as an isolated country with only Russia supporting her.
A direct military conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran will have dire consequences for the neighboringcountries. A direct military confrontation might not be a planned one, but it will be fueled due to the intervention of the other key partners, who seek to sought and serve their personal and national intrigues. Most importantly middle east cannot afford a conflict as it is a commercial hub for the world. The recent skirmishes in Iraq sparked fears of wider war when Iraq retaliated for killings of QassimSoleimani. If the US president had not extended an olive branch, the situation might have worsened. The OIC, which is a coalition of 57 Muslim countries has also failed in bringing measures to deescalate the growing tensions. The OIC, where the Saudi Arabia enjoys an authoritarian style of dominance has always tried to empower her own ideology while rising the catch cry of being a sacred country to all the Muslims. Taking in account, the high tensions and ideological and the quest for religious dominance, the international communities such as UN and neighboring countries should play a positiveand vital role in deescalating these tensions. Bilateral trade, communications between the two adversaries with a regional power playing the role of mediator and extending an olive branch to each other will yield better results and will prove fruitful in mitigating the conflict if not totally subverting it.
First Aid: How Russia and the West Can Help Syrians in Idlib
Authors: Andrey Kortunov and Julien Barnes-Dacey*
The next international showdown on Syria is quickly coming into view. After ten years of conflict, Bashar al-Assad may have won the war, but much is left to be done to win the peace. This is nowhere more so than in the province of Idlib, which is home to nearly 3 million people who now live under the control of extremist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) with external Turkish protection and humanitarian assistance from the United Nations.
The question of humanitarian access into Idlib is now emerging as a central focus of new international politicking. In so doing, this small province could be pivotal to the future of the larger stalemate that has left the United States, Europe, and Russia locked in an unwinnable status quo.
Russia has said that it plans to veto an extension of cross-border UN aid delivered from Turkey, authorised under UN Security Council resolution 2533, which is up for renewal in July, potentially depriving the population of a vital lifeline amid desperate conditions. Moscow says that all aid should be channelled from Damascus via three new government-controlled crossing points to the northern province. Western governments, to say nothing of the local population, are sceptical, given the Syrian government’s hostility towards the province’s inhabitants. For its part, the UN says that cross-lines aid cannot compensate for a closure of cross-border access.
As ever, the two dominant players—the US and Russia—are talking past each other and are focused on countering each other’s moves—to their mutual failure. It is evident that US condemnation and pressure on Russia will not deliver the necessary aid, and also evident that Russia will not get its wish for the international recognition of the legitimacy of the Syrian government by vetoing cross-border access. While these will only be diplomatic failures for the US and Russia, it is the Syrian people who will, as ever, pay the highest price.
But a mutually beneficial solution to Idlib is still possible. Russia and the US, backed by European states, should agree to a new formula whereby Moscow greenlights a final one-year extension of cross-border aid in exchange for a Western agreement to increase aid flows via Damascus, including through Russia’s proposed cross-lines channels into Idlib. This would meet the interests of both sides, allowing immediate humanitarian needs to be met on the ground as desired by the West, while also paving the way for a transition towards the Damascus-centred international aid operation sought by Moscow.
This imperfect but practical compromise would mean more than a positive change in the humanitarian situation in Idlib. It would demonstrate the ability of Russian and Western actors to work together to reach specific agreements in Syria even if their respective approaches to the wider conflict differ significantly. This could serve to reactivate the UN Security Council mechanism, which has been paralysed and absent from the Syrian track for too long.
To be sure the Syrian government will also need to be incentivised to comply. Western governments will need to be willing to increase humanitarian and early recovery support to other parts of government-controlled Syria even as they channel aid to Idlib. With the country now experiencing a dramatic economic implosion, this could serve as a welcome reprieve to Damascus. It would also meet Western interests in not seeing a full state collapse and worsening humanitarian tragedy.
The underlying condition for this increased aid will need to be transparency and access to ensure that assistance is actually delivered to those in need. The West and Russia will need to work on implementing a viable monitoring mechanism for aid flows channelled via Damascus. This will give Moscow an opportunity to push the Syrian regime harder on matters of corruption and mismanagement.
For its part, the West will need to work with Moscow to exercise pressure on Ankara to use its military presence in Idlib to more comprehensively confront radical Islamists and ensure that aid flows do not empower HTS. A ‘deradicalisation’ of Idlib will need to take the form of a detailed roadmap, including that HTS comply with specific behaviour related to humanitarian deliveries.
Ultimately this proposal will not be wholly satisfactory to either Moscow or the West. The West will not like that it is only a one-year extension and will not like the shift towards Damascus. Russia will not like that it is an extension at all. But for all sides the benefits should outweigh the downsides.
Russia will know that Western actors will respond to failure by unilaterally channelling non-UN legitimised aid into the country via Turkey. Russia will lose the opportunity to slowly move Idlib back into Damascus’s orbit and the country’s de facto partition will be entrenched. This outcome is also likely to lead to increased instability as aid flows decrease, with subsequent tensions between Moscow’s allies, Damascus and Ankara.
The West will need to acknowledge that this approach offers the best way of delivering ongoing aid into Idlib and securing greater transparency on wider support across Syria. The alternative—bilateral cross-border support—will not sufficiently meet needs on the ground, will place even greater responsibility on Turkey, and will increase the prospect of Western confrontation with Russia and the Syrian regime.
Importantly, this proposal could also create space for wider political talks on Idlib’s fate. It could lead to a renewed track between Russia, the US, Turkey and Europeans to address the province’s fate in a way that accounts for Syria’s territorial integrity and state sovereignty on the one hand and the needs and security of the local population on the other hand. After ten years of devastating conflict, a humanitarian compromise in Idlib will not represent a huge victory. But a limited agreement could still go a long way to positively changing the momentum in Syria and opening up a pathway for much-needed international cooperation.
* Julien Barnes-Dacey, Middle East and North Africa Programme Director, European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
From our partner RIAC
Iran’s Impunity Will Grow if Evidence of Past Crimes is Fully Destroyed
No reasonable person would deny the importance of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. But that issue must not be allowed to continue overshadowing Iran’s responsibility for terrorism and systematic human rights violations. These matters represent a much more imminent threat to human life, as well as longstanding denials of justice for those who have suffered from the Iranian regime’s actions in the past.
The Iranian people have risen multiple times in recent years to call for democratic change. In 2017, major uprisings broke out against the regime’s disastrous policies. Although the ruling clerics suppressed those protests, public unrest soon resumed in November 2019. That uprising was even broader in scope and intensity. The regime responded by opening fire on crowds, murdering at least 1,500. Amnesty International has reported on the torture that is still being meted out to participants in the uprising.
Meanwhile, the United Nations and human rights organizations have continued to repeat longstanding calls for increased attention to some of the worst crimes perpetrated by the regime in previous years.
Last year, Amnesty International praised a “momentous breakthrough” when seven UN human rights experts demanded an end to the ongoing cover-up of a massacre of political prisoners in the summer of 1988.
The killings were ordered by the regime’s previous supreme leader Khomeini, who declared that opponents of the theocracy were “enemies of God” and thus subject to summary executions. In response, prisons throughout Iran convened “death commissions” that were tasked with interrogating political prisoners over their views. Those who rejected the regime’s fundamentalist interpretation of Islam were hanged, often in groups, and their bodies were dumped mostly in mass graves, the locations of which were held secret.
In the end, at least 30,000 political prisoners were massacred. The regime has been trying hard to erase the record of its crimes, including the mass graves. Its cover-up has unfortunately been enabled to some degree by the persistent lack of a coordinated international response to the situation – a failure that was acknowledged in the UN experts’ letter.
The letter noted that although the systematic executions had been referenced in a 1988 UN resolution on Iran’s human rights record, none of the relevant entities within that international body followed up on the case, and the massacre went unpunished and underreported.
For nearly three decades, the regime enforced silence regarding any public discussion of the killings, before this was challenged in 2016 by the leak of an audio recording that featured contemporary officials discussing the 1988 massacre. Regime officials, like then-Minister of Justice Mostafa Pourmohammadi, told state media that they were proud of committing the killings.
Today, the main victims of that massacre, the principal opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), are still targets of terrorist plots on Western soil, instigated by the Iranian regime. The most significant of these in recent years was the plot to bomb a gathering organized near Paris in 2018 by the MEK’s parent coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). The Free Iran rally was attended by tens of thousands of Iranian expatriates from throughout the world, as well as hundreds of political dignitaries, and if the attack had not been prevented by law enforcement, it would have no doubt been among the worst terrorist attacks in recent European history.
The mastermind of that attack was a high-ranking Iranian diplomat named Assadollah Assadi. He was convicted in a Belgian court alongside three co-conspirators in February. But serious critics of the Iranian regime have insisted that accountability must not stop here.
If Tehran believes it has gotten away with the 1988 massacre, one of the worst crimes against humanity from the late 20th century, it can also get away with threatening the West and killing protesters by the hundreds. The ongoing destruction of mass graves demonstrates the regime’s understanding that it has not truly gotten away with the massacre as long as evidence remains to be exposed.
The evidence of mass graves has been tentatively identified in at least 36 different cities, but a number of those sites have since been covered by pavement and large structures. There are also signs that this development has accelerated in recent years as awareness of the massacre has gradually expanded. Unfortunately, the destruction currently threatens to outpace the campaign for accountability, and it is up to the United Nations and its leading member states to accelerate that campaign and halt the regime’s destruction of evidence.
If this does not happen and the 1988 massacre is consigned to history before anyone has been brought to justice, it will be difficult to compel Tehran into taking its critics seriously about anything, be it more recent human rights violations, ongoing terrorist threats, or even the nuclear program that authorities have been advancing in spite of the Western conciliation that underlay 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Coronavirus: EU Strategy for the development and availability of therapeutics
The European Commission is today complementing the successful EU Vaccines Strategy with a strategy on COVID-19 therapeutics to support the...
Circular solution to Mosul’s conflict debris launched
Mosul – Iraq’s second largest city – suffered massive devastation during the conflict with the Islamic State in Iraq and...
Hydrogen in North-Western Europe: A vision towards 2030
North-West Europe has a well-developed hydrogen industry that could be at the edge of an unprecedented transformation should governments keep...
Trump Lost, Biden Won. Is Joe Biden’s presidency a signal towards Obama’s America?
Greek statesmen, Pericles once said, “Just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean the politics won’t take interest...
Climate Change Problem: an Emerging Threat to Global Security
Climate Change is one of the greatest challenges faced by humanity. The Greenhouse–gas emissions and over-exploitation of natural resources result...
Viet Nam’s mango industry: towards compliance with export market requirements
A Swiss-funded project, implemented by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), is helping mango value chain stakeholders in the...
Armenia After the Parliamentary Elections
On June 20, snap parliamentary elections will be held in Armenia. The move will ease tensions in the country but...
Reports3 days ago
Labour market disruption & COVID-19 support measures contribute to widespread falls in taxes
East Asia2 days ago
Kissinger Again Warns US, China Heading for Armageddon-like Clash
South Asia3 days ago
West Bengal Election: Implications for Indian Politics
Economy2 days ago
Role of WTO in Regularization of International Trade
Middle East1 day ago
Saudi Arabia and Iran cold war
Energy News3 days ago
Seven Countries Account for Two-Thirds of Global Gas Flaring
Intelligence2 days ago
The ‘Post-Covid-19 World’ Will Never Come
Intelligence2 days ago
Biological warfare: A global security threat