Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

There is an opinion article on Middle East Monitor. Junaid S. Ahmad uses the word 'betrayal'. I think he is wrong. Every word has to be put beside its opposite when we look at life. Betrayal implies there was loyalty and faithfulness. That is misleading and no wonder there are still many people you see on the social media arguing for Arab unity and that Arab leaders should do something like building a united force, etc. Illusion is fundamental for the powerless . Arab regime have either used the Palestinian plight or ignored it altogether. Their interests and the interests of the Arab capitalists are so entangled with Western and Israeli interests. Then Ahmad frequently uses the phrase 'Muslim world'. There is no nuch a thing, as there is no such a thing as 'the free world'. There are different and very divided countries from Indonesia to Mauritania with not only different historical development, especially since the formal independence, but also even antagonist...

“Israel's colonial hubris regards having the  ability  to reshape the Middle East through mass violence being fed by the autocratic nature of the Arab states and the failure of the democratic movement in the region.” Egypt and Syria are singled out in the article.

A regional war led by the US and a hot of Arab regimes, UK, in defence of Israel Related “Though the U.S. created the conditions that may have encouraged Netanyahu’s gambit , it was reportedly Israel, acting on its own behalf, without coordination with its allies, that precipitated the latest grave escalation.”

 Why I support the ban

“The Arab regimes have used every opportunity to sell out Palestinian rights to advance their own interests”

 Do not reconcile Related I am with terrorism

  Pandemic, China, Israel, the US, the Arab uprisings ...

Excerpts “The ideological character of the uprisings went through a similar evolution. In the early stages, the revolutionaries fashioned themselves as belonging to a post-ideological movement. In reality, though, they were as ideological as any political movement — but their worldview simply mirrored international liberal norms, a doctrine so thoroughly internalized that it seemed like common sense. The movements for democracy were articulated through an individualistic, rights-based discourse, with a special emphasis on human rights. Among the revolutionary leadership, there was almost no talk of substantive equality, wealth redistribution, or property relations. The liberal revolutionaries appealed to the “international community,” which usually meant the Western powers. To understand what happened, we must grapple with the changing social structure in the Arab world over the previous four decades. Both liberal and left explanations fall short because they ignore the role of cla...