|By Alaa Alghamdi| One of the most powerful ways in which individuals can understand the worldview of another culture is through art. Even if economics, politics, and lifestyles may divide different nations, art can provide a common, sympathetic connection and remind others that similarities between human beings are greater than differences. This is one of the underlying rationales for Desert to Delta, an exhibition of art and cinema from Saudi Arabia. The exhibition will tour through a variety of major cities throughout the United States. One of the unique features of the show is that it will be paired with community outreach efforts where artists can talk about their work and offer a cultural context in their own voices.

The exhibition took place at the Art Museum of University of Memphis on October 8, 2017. This is the first exhibition of Saudi art in the city of Memphis and the selection of the city was deliberate, to stress the common and unexpected cultural connections between the southern American city and the work of the artists in the exhibition. Religion is very important to the city, just as it is in Saudi Arabia, although the dominant faiths are different. An ideal of community, mutual support, and shared values is also very important to both areas of the world. Memphis has historically been a hotbed of youth culture in the American South, particularly in regards to music, and the purpose of the exhibition is to demonstrate the vitality of the vision of young Saudi people using new media. The exhibition is a collaborative effort between the King Abdulaziz Center for World Culture, an institution which seeks to showcase Saudi art, and the Art Museum of Memphis, which is known both for its contemporary exhibits as well as its impressive collection of Egyptian and African antiquities.

The work encompassed within the exhibition spans from the purely beautiful and subtle to the proudly political. For example, the work of Arwa Al Neami openly criticizes the role of Saudi women in contemporary society. Her Never Never Land is a photograph of veiled Saudi women enjoying the lights and whirling rides of a fun fair. There is a sharp, ironic contrast between the supposed abandon which characterizes such a fair and the enforced dress code the women must obey to be able to attend. Postmodern art fusing Western and Arabic images are also common in the exhibit. For example, one of the works of Rashed Al Shashai depicts a traditional-looking Islamic design in which the images of Wild E. Coyote and the Roadrunner are embedded. These traditional enemies existing in harmony underline the artist’s evident wish that people of different faiths and West and East can find common ground. Ahmad Angawi’s Street Pulse is a black ball of microphones, all of which blast different voices recorded on a typical Saudi street, exemplifying the cacophony of voices which exists within the nation of different opinions.

The media of the artists is an eclectic mix, spanning from abstract performance art to more traditional painting. Some of the artists have formal art or graphic design backgrounds while others are self-taught. One of the artists, Ahmed Mater, is a physician whose work has been exhibited previously at the prestigious Freer Sackler in Washington D.C.  The uniting factor among all of these artists, both men and women, is the uniqueness of their vision of what it means to be Saudi. And by showcasing such a diversity of views, attendees of the exhibition can realize that Saudi Arabia is not a monolith but rather encompasses a diverse range of views and visions.

The article New frontiers in the world of Saudi Arabian art appeared first on Arabian Post.

|By Abdullah Aljunaid|The Alliance of Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda and the attacks of September 11th 2001 Judicial rulings have shown that the calamitous and tragic events of September 11 were bourn of a relationship between Iran and Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Will the coming days reveal a similar relationship with Daesh too?

Hezbollah is widely known for its support of terrorism, forinciting sectarian strife in the Arab countries, and for the cooperation of its members with drug dealers in Europe, North and South America, Africa, as a means to finance multiple activities, ease the burden on the Iranian treasury offering them substantial financial support, in addition to the logistical and intelligence support to the military that they already provide.

But what about the relationship that Iran and Hezbollah have with al-Qaeda? Did they have a role to play in the implementation of the September 11 attacks in 2001? Some journalists and some of the families of the victims of those attacks accused Saudi Arabia of supporting al-Qaeda, based on the fact that 15 out of the 19 who carried out the terrorist attacks were found to hold Saudi passports. But those attemptsto smear the Kingdom failed, with an American judge dropping any charges levied at the Kingdom.

However, this month US courts have proved that there is a relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, tying them alongside al-Qaida which began in the nineties and continued at least until the beginning of the millennium. On March 9, 2016, a federal court in New York fined Iran $10.5 billion due to the country’s involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the World Trade Center in New York. The court has allocated $7.5 billion to the families of the victims, alongside $3 billion to insurance companies.

After nearly 15 years of trials, the Federal Court found that Iran and Hezbollah forwarded ‘material support directly’ to al-Qaeda in order to help them to carry out the heinous attacks. They bear the legal responsibility for the damage done to hundreds of families, including the families of the victims of the World Trade Center and the pilots of the aircraft used by the terrorists in the attack.

The court condemned Iran in the ruling, which is located in a 53-page document. The report names Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Mohammad Khatami , President of Iran at the time of the attacks, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Hezbollah, who was described by the court as ‘Iran’s proxy for terrorism’.

Among the evidence mentioned by report were the accounts of witnesses who gave their testimony under oath. Three were involved in preparing the report of the Commission, two former American intelligence officers, journalists, and an expert on Iranian affairs and terrorism. There were also three former employees of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of intelligence and Security.

Some of means of support provided by Iran to Al-Qaidaincluded the smuggling of fighters, aiding their transition from Iran to training camps in Afghanistan, hiding their visits to Iran or Afghanistan itself, and facilitating their access to visas to the United States. After the 9/11 attack – according to the court’s ruling – Iran helped Al-Qaida leaders and members to escape from Afghanistan and gave them a safe haven in Iran to avoid falling into the hands of the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

In his testimony before the court, former employee of the Revolutionary Guards Abdal Kasem Mesbahi sai d he was part of the mission plan design team dubbed ‘the flames of Satan’. The targets included offensives on the Pentagon and the White House, and the World Trade Center using civilian aircraft. Mesbahi also testified that Iran bought a simulation of a Boeing 757-767-777 aircraft training system in 2000, the same quality of the planes that were later used in the attack.

The court saw internal official notes describing the knowledge of senior Iranian officials to those plans, and their emphasis on secrecy in dealing with al-Qaeda. These notes confirmedthe communication between Imad Mughniyeh, a senior Hezbollah leader, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command in Al-Qaeda. There were also documents from the German Public Prosecutor submitted to the court that the attack coordinator Ramzi Binal shibh was in contact with Iran from January 2001 during his travels to Afghanistan via Iran. The court ruling indicates that Imad Mughniyeh and his associates were responsible for coordination between the members of the attacks.

Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda began forming their alliance inthe early nineties, bypassing their differences and sectarianism. Iran and Hezbollah trained al-Qaeda in the use of explosives, especially those dedicated to the destruction of large buildings. This nefarious alliance has succeeded in implementing many large operations, such as the attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the US warship (USS Cole) among others.

The federal court ruling in this case comes after several cases in which US courts have ruled against Iran for its involvement in supporting terrorism. This includes another federal court ruling in 2014 which fined Iran $2.65 billion for compensation to the families of soldiers killed in the Hezbollah attack carried out in 1983, with support directly from Iran, against the force headquarters for US Marines in Beirut.

Some American official circles sometimes try to influence the courts for consideration in such cases because it may impede the process of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue, however, the courts have continued to work and sentenced for prosecutors to obtain compensation from frozen Iranian funds in US banks.

The present judicial ruling demonstrates t he close relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Can we expect thecoming days reveal a similar relationship with Daesh too? Only time will tell. Nevertheless with this latest ruling in mind, it does look increasingly likely.

First published in Makkah Newspaper;  Translated by: Alaa Alghamdi

The article Iran, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda appeared first on Arabian Post.

|By Alaa Alghamdi| Military force is the most extreme example of use of power. There are many alternatives. Soft uses of power, such as appeals, firmer uses that injure; and between these two there is a large space for diplomacy, media discussions, and more. Regardless of whichever tactic used, credibility comes from the ability to start a real confrontation. Simply the ability to resort to military tactics can be enough to dissuade, to prevent explosive situations and all-out war. Building this kind of power takes many forms, including access to armaments and training troops to the highest degree of skill. This is what ultimately balances and deters in power struggles.

The recent military manoeuvres ‘North Thunder’ took place in Hafr Al-Batin, Saudi Arabia. This was an example of building credibility for escalating threats in the region. These are twofold; Iran, Riyadh’s regional rival, and also the disturbing rise of terrorism, which has grown in four decades,starting from the intellectual-Qaeda ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, until we finally have arrived at the brutal forms of Daesh and Al-Qaeda. It is astonishing that, notwithstanding the widespread fear about the threat of terrorism carried out by Islamic extremists, no one has noticed that more than 95 per cent of its victims are Muslims.

North Thunder is taking place against a backdrop of many complex issues, including the disintegration in the region that followed the Arab Spring and the ensuing civil wars leading to the weakness of the states in the region; and the Iranian attacks which have increased in the wake of Iran’s western nuclear deal. North Thunder sends an important message at this stage, both in terms of location, on the western side of the Gulf, and the gate of the liberation of Kuwait; and in terms of ability; with twenty states, 350,000 soldiers, 20,000 tanks, 2450 aircraft, and 460 combat helicopters, for a period of twenty days. This constitutes one of the largest military exercises in the world, and certainly the largest in the Middle East. The manoeuvre here is not a show of force, but force is shown all the same, including countries known in modern and contemporary history to take substantive decisions concerning war and peace.

North Thunder did not suddenly appear, but is the natural product of more than a decade and a half of preparations and joint exercises between countries in the region. It dates back to the first manoeuvres Peninsula Shield, which included the members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab Gulf States. This then became the task force to liberate Kuwait and to prevent Iran from control of Bahrain. It went on to take part in the restoration of legitimacy in Yemen. The next sets of manoeuvres were the joint operations between Saudi Arabia and Egypt in 2000 under the name Tabuk. These involved the participation of units of the ground forces and took place on the territory of the two countries. These exercises have also included other Arab and Islamic countries under the same name. There has also been the Egyptian-Saudi naval exercise under the name Morjan, carried out by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and in cooperation with other countries at other times.

Joint exercises cannot happen without cooperation. They allow for the acquisition of joint expertise in intelligence, understanding and cooperation in the formation of a common experience among the leaders in the field, as well as political leaders.

The nature of North Thunder is based on the formations of armed forces that have been trained to deal with a particular theatre of operations; an attack on a regional party from east to west. The manoeuvre allows equality in the region, an economic and demographic entente with no bias against those who cannot afford conventional war beyond its borders. Such a war is no longer likely, but it opens the door to other types of wars, perhaps from the Iranian threat or a terrorist attack.

Through North Thunder the question of whether Iran can stage military intervention in the Gulf states is answered, at least by any of the countries participating in the manoeuvres. However, there still remains a real risk of breakthrough elements of the Revolutionary Guards or militias causing problems. We are seeing revolutions and counter-revolutions happening all the time.

When facing such dangers, there needs to be other forms of manoeuvres like North Thunder, to deter Iran from interfering in the affairs of Arab countries and to show strength to the terrorists plaguing the region.

What concerns us here is that the North Thunder is the embodiment of the system strategy, taking the form of a classic move in this manoeuvre – the show of strength. However, it opens the door to non-classical forms as a response in line with the new types of hazards we are facing.

There needs to be a political consensus. Frankly, the effectiveness of different strategies cannot achieve the maximum returns while there is a rift in relations between Egypt on one hand, and all of Turkey and Qatar on the other. Without going into the details of many wounds, the goal is to win and triumph in the face of deadly threats.

Alliances are more effective when they do not upset some of the countries involved, the opposition party or parties in the coalition. It is time to end all quarrels and the return of normal relations between all sides, because what is happening in the region is more important and dangerous.

The article North Thunder appeared first on Arabian Post.

|By Alaa Alghamdi| Judicial rulings have shown that the calamitous and tragic events of September 11 were borne out of a relationship between Iran and Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Will the coming days reveal a similar relationship with Daesh too?

Hezbollah is widely known for its support of terrorism, for inciting sectarian strife in the Arab countries, and for the cooperation of its members with drug dealers in Europe, North and South America, Africa, as a means to finance multiple activities, ease the burden on the Iranian treasury offering them substantial financial support, in addition to the logistical and intelligence support to the military that they already provide.

But what about the relationship that Iran and Hezbollah have with al-Qaeda? Did they have a role to play in the implementation of the September 11 attacks in 2001? Some journalists and some of the families of the victims of those attacks accused Saudi Arabia of supporting al-Qaeda, based on the fact that 15 out of the 19 who carried out the terrorist attacks were found to hold Saudi passports. But those attempts to smear the Kingdom failed, with an American judge dropping any charges levied at the Kingdom.

However, this month US courts have proved that there is arelationship with Iran and Hezbollah, tying them alongside al-Qaida, which began in the nineties and continued at least until the beginning of the millennium. On March 9, 2016, a federal court in New York fined Iran $10.5 billion for the country’s involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the World Trade Center in New York. The court has allocated $7.5 billion to the families of the victims, alongside $3 billion to insurance companies.

After nearly 15 years of trials, the Federal Court found that Iran and Hezbollah forwarded ‘material support directly’ to al-Qaeda in order to help them to carry out the heinous attacks. They bear the legal responsibility for the damage done to hundreds of families, including the families of the victims of the World Trade Center and the pilots of the aircraft used by the terrorists in the attack.

The court condemned Iran in the ruling, which is located in a 53-page document. The report names Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Mohammad Khatami, President of Iran at the time of the attacks, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and Hezbollah, which was described by the court as ‘Iran’s proxy for terrorism’.

Among the evidence mentioned by report were the accounts of witnesses who gave their testimony under oath. Three were involved in preparing the report of the Commission, two former American intelligence officers, journalists, and an expert on Iranian affairs and terrorism. There were also three former employees of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of intelligence and Security.

Some of means of support provided by Iran to Al-Qaidaincluded the smuggling of fighters, aiding their transition from Iran to training camps in Afghanistan, hiding their visits to Iran or Afghanistan itself, and facilitating their access to visas to the United States. After the 9/11 attack – according to the court’s ruling – Iran helped Al-Qaida leaders and members to escape from Afghanistan and gave them a safe haven in Iran to avoid falling into the hands of the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

In his testimony before the court, former employee of the Revolutionary Guards Abdal Kasem Mesbahi said he was part of the mission plan design team dubbed ‘the flames of Satan’. The targets included offensives on the Pentagon and the White House, and the World Trade Center using civilian aircraft. Mesbahi also testified that Iran bought a simulation of a Boeing 757-767-777 aircraft training system in 2000, the same quality of the planes that were later used in the attack.

The court saw internal official notes describing the knowledge of senior Iranian officials to those plans, and their emphasis on secrecy in dealing with al-Qaeda. These notes confirmed the communication between Imad Mughniyeh, a senior Hezbollah leader, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command in Al-Qaeda. There were also documents from the German Public Prosecutor submitted to the court that the attack coordinator Ramzi Binalshibh was in contact with Iran from January 2001 during his travels to Afghanistan via Iran. The court ruling indicates that Imad Mughniyeh and his associates were responsible for coordination between the members of the attacks.

Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda began forming their alliance in the early nineties, bypassing their differences and sectarianism. Iran and Hezbollah trained al-Qaeda in the use of explosives, especially those dedicated to the destruction of large buildings. This nefarious alliance has succeeded in implementing many large operations, such as the attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the US warship (USS Cole) among others.

The federal court ruling in this case comes after several cases in which US courts have ruled against Iran for its involvement in supporting terrorism. This includes another federal court ruling in 2014 which fined Iran $2.65 billion forcompensation to the families of soldiers killed in the Hezbollah attack carried out in 1983, with support directly from Iran, against the force headquarters for US Marines in Beirut.

Some American official circles sometimes try to influence the courts for consideration in such cases because it may impede the process of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue, however, the courts have continued to work and sentenced for prosecutors to obtain compensation from frozen Iranian funds in US banks.

The present judicial ruling demonstrates the close relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Can we expect the coming days reveal a similar relationship with Daesh too? Only time will tell. Nevertheless with this latest ruling in mind, it does look increasingly likely.

The article 9-11 & alliance of Iran, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda appeared first on Arabian Post.

Saudi Arabia has for many years served Lebanon by financing various sectors of society in the country that divides it from Iran. However, this has become a point of contention between the governments. Now it has been announced that Saudi Arabia is stopping its aid program to the military in Lebanon as a protest against Hezbollah. Is this the breaking point in the relationship between the two countries for good?

With the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar –calling Hezbollah a ‘terrorist organisation’ couples of days ago, more sanctions are expected to be coming following Hezbollah entering the war in Syria in support of the Syrian President.

GCC Secretary-General Abdullatif al-Zayani said the council would now ‘take the necessary measures to implement its decision… based on anti-terrorism laws applied in the GCC and similar international laws’. What these measures are has not been confirmed but it is expected that further sanctions against Lebanese companies and people are to come in the upcoming weeks.

Shortly after the announcement from Riyadh cancelling the payment, the Lebanese justice minister Ashraf Rifi resigned,both angered by the release of a  former minister who had been charged with smuggling explosives from Syria, and blaming Hezbollah for the country’s politically deadlocked situation.

What has caused this relationship crisis?

The assassination of Lebanese President Rafiq Hariri on 14th February 2005 left a rift in the country’s power structure. While links to the assassination have apparently come from high up in the Syrian government, with possible ties to the phone of Bashar Assad, this rift has been filled with the insidious Hezbollah and its proponents, backed by Iran.

When Hezbollah entered the Syrian war, they caused the Saudis to reassess their views of Lebanon. As the war has continued for five years now, this has further dampened the kind regards that the Saudis formerly felt. This has been made clear to the people in Lebanon; with Saudi-backed media outlets letting the population know that their government is moving the country away from its former friends and into the arms of Iran.

Currently, there is little reaction from the people of Lebanon.  They seem complacent and this, to onlookers, could be taken as consensus from the population. The country is starting to reach a point of crisis and it is up to the Lebanese people to decide what they want – strategically, economically, and politically. The state has lost its free will;  have the people too? Are they going to side with Iran or with the GCC? It could be getting too late for them to make the right decision.

The article Are Lebanon and Saudi Arabia about to end relations? appeared first on Arabian Post.

This year, the fair extended its remit. There was more space for publishers, booths to educate people about foreign countries such as Greece and Japan, discussions on social activities and initiatives – a space where the community of the capital can learn and grow.

The Minister of Culture and Information Adel Al Turaifi opened the event at Riyadh’s International Convention and Exhibition Center with a call to all to grow their reading habits.

This fair represents a bringing together of community, creating a platform where people can openly debate while still taking into account mutual respect. There is no need for classification or ridiculing others, instead, the literature stands as a gateway where people can communicate about that which they are passionate about without fear, helping to establish an effective dialogue and begin to meet the whole community’s needs.

The book fair allows us to embrace ideas, contemplate new hopes for the future, exercise the mind and criticise ignorant thought. Through engaging with literature, we can explore the notion of the Other. The growing popularity of events such as the book fair show a new Saudi Arabia – one which is embracing the country’s new role on the global stage.

The increase in cultural and heritage festivals in Saudi Arabia can only be a good thing, bringing together readers, encouraging growth and lively debate about all aspects of life.

Some critics have argued that the Riyadh book fair is nothing but a glorified market – but this is a very short sighted view indeed. It is through cultural events that the community can grow and change, shaped by participation, by reading, and by the ensuing dialogue, becoming more accepting and open. The Riyadh Book Fair is one of the most popular of its kind in the Arab world. Long may this tradition reign.

The article A fair to embrace ideas, hopes appeared first on Arabian Post.

Rather than name nations or groups in his historical rumination (in fact, they may be too remote in time to be named), Quinn refers to them as “Leavers” and “Takers”. His contention is, in fact, that there are only two types of peoples in the world: Leavers, who are content to limit their own power to the boundaries of their own territory, to live and let live, and Takers, whose drive is to expand indefinitely, turning those around them into copies of themselves. By definition, Takers take. They dominate a region, and then the region they have dominated expands and swallows other neighbouring regions. In this manner, Quinn asserts, agriculturally-based culture took over, bringing with it longer working hours, social hierarchy, disease, wars – any number of social ills. Why did the neighbouring ‘Leavers’, content in their hunting-gathering lifestyle, acquiesce? Because, of course, they had no choice. And because history is invariably written by the victors, we now view the takeover as inevitable and favourable.

I am not here to argue whether humankind ought to have adopted agriculture six thousand years ago. (If you are interested in that issue, historian Jared Diamond has some interesting things to say on the topic.) I would like, instead, to point out that Leavers and Takers still exist, though we have called them by various names throughout history – colonizers and colonized, for example. The actions and aspirations of truly committed Takers are nothing short of chilling. In our modern era, this would be a country whose drive to expand, both culturally and territorially, is checked by no appeal to law, propriety, or morality. A country whose assault on the peace of the region surrounding it is relentless, because chaos and dissent are the precursors or foreign control.

In our time, in our region, Iran is one such country. Its attempts to attain hegemony over the lesser powers in the region are well known. It is sensible to fear the lengths to which it is willing to go – including the encouragement of terrorism and the development of nuclear technology. If anyone has any thoughts that Iran may be a favourable influence over the region, one need only consider its abysmal domestic human rights record. A country that cannot do right by its own people has little chance of doing right by anyone else.

If Daniel Quinn’s speculative version of distant history is too obscure for serious consideration, one need not go back nearly that far to see the effects of Takers, and how the world has dealt and misdealt with them. The great folly of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy during the 1930s will suffice to convince most of us measures must be taken now to limit Iran’s power in our region.

The article Why Iran’s expansionist aspirations must be checked appeared first on Arabian Post.

The article Snapping of Iran ties an unfortunate necessity appeared first on Arabian Post.

The article Religious roots are an instrument, not cause of strife appeared first on Arabian Post.

Dear Mr. Friedman,

While I would like nothing better than to thank you for your concern for our youth and our country, as expressed in your Nov. 25 piece in the New York Times, I find I cannot in good conscience do so. You made certain observations during your stay in Riyadh, observations which no doubt may sound fresh and even enlightened to your readership. In truth, however, these observations are made with an authority you can scarcely claim, based upon your superficial knowledge of Saudi society. This renders many of your opinions at best, uninformed, and at worse, both patronizing and incendiary.

You inform the American public that Saudi Arabia, with its vast number of youth under 30, is in a unique position for development and transformation — and then, in the next breath, you express doubt regarding the opportunities for true transformation and the dearth of leadership for the youth. With some connotation of surprise, you note the huge number of Saudi youth who have studied or are studying abroad, the entry of women into various creative and professional sectors — and then, again, you express doubt as to whether these manifest changes are real or significant or enough.

The skeptic’s stance is, of course, popular for an intellectual. Hope itself may be viewed as naive, and the last thing a New York Times columnist and author could risk appearing as. To an extent, I understand that. However, through your skepticism, through your doubt, you are blinding yourself and your readers to more than half the story.

Saudi society is, indeed, in the midst of a sort of social revolution, a highly positive one — but it does not, perhaps, fit the narrow American definition of a revolution. It is peaceful and positive. The fact that we are becoming one of the best educated nations on earth, that our youth are educated globally, that social and gender barriers are being broken down daily and that we have many innovative and highly qualified minds looking beyond the predominance of the oil industry and into other markets — all of these facts somehow seem to have escaped you.

Of course, this is hardly surprising. Damning with faint praise the accomplishments of a Muslim society allows a writer such as yourself to appear enlightened while still functioning from within a framework of Islamophobia. The implicit suggestion that ISIS-based terrorism is linked to Saudi society is an ignorant one, in that it ignores a hundred years of history. In fact, Saudi Arabia has been the brunt of more terrorist attacks, and has done more to combat terrorism, than all the western countries combined.

Terrible events continue to take place in the world, such as the despicable attacks on Paris a couple of weeks ago. And, yes, over-reliance on the oil industry has environmental repercussions that affect the whole world. Over the next century, it is not a sustainable industry. But, Mr. Friedman, your assumption that Saudis are on the wrong side of these issues, or uninformed about them, is simply insulting. It is based on a superficial knowledge of our society.

My advice to you, then, would be to worry about industry, sustainability and social equality in your own country – surely there is enough to worry about there — and to give us the respect and trust one would give any ally. Or, failing that, to suspend any further visits to or commentary about our nation.

The article An open letter to Thomas Friedman appeared first on Arabian Post.

Tragedies such as these, with a high death count, are always difficult to accept and process. It is natural, perhaps, to look for someone to blame, as one does in almost any tragedy. In fact, this is human nature. I believe it to be one of the stages of grieving, as outlined by Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. When faced with a tragedy, we deny, we are angry, and we attempt to ‘bargain’ – to find ways for the tragedy to be reversed or undone, for it not to be so.

The tendency to lay blame is, I believe, a combination of the emotions inherent in both anger and bargaining. If we can find who or what is to blame, we can find a way, if only in our minds, that it could be not so. And, we tell ourselves we can absolutely prevent such things from occurring in the future, if only we can remove that faulty element, that thing that was to blame.

This is only partially valid. Of course, we should investigate tragic accidents, of any scale, to come to grips with what has occurred and to take reasonable measures to prevent a recurrence. To this end, an investigation of the events of September 24 is still taking place. I have no doubt that several measures will be put into place to prevent tragedies from ever happening again.

Beyond taking reasonable preventative measures, however, I also believe we must come to terms with the fact that tragic events are, to a certain degree, unpreventable and uncontrollable. When the disaster is natural, such as an earthquake or flood, we call it an Act of God – even insurance companies in the most secular societies use that terminology, simply because, to a great degree, it is true. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, it is undeniable that certain events are beyond human control.

Acts of God are not limited to elements of nature. They extend to accidents, of timing, of physics, of phenomena for which human or mechanical error is not the primary factor. When these accidents are tragic, it is natural that we grieve, and it is, perhaps, natural to want to lay blame. But we must accept that there are things that we have control over, and there are things that we don’t. There are things that we can change, and we have the responsibility to do so – and then there are things that we cannot. According to Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the final stage of grieving is acceptance, and with it comes healing. The tragedy at Mecca is still very recent, and perhaps we cannot expect to have reached that stage yet, but I hope we are moving closer to it.

The article Human tragedies require healing, not blame appeared first on Arabian Post.

Special to Arabian Post

|By Alaa Alghamdi| The controversy raging in the world media over the Mohammed bin Nayef Centre/ Care Centre for the rehabilitation of jihadi terrorists brings up basic questions regarding justice and the right course of action. It is perhaps not surprising that such polarization has occurred regarding opinions on this (by all accounts, successful) program. To accept its efficacy and its ethics involves nothing less than a profound paradigm shift regarding how we view justice. Yet, this is a shift that I believe is long overdue – not just with regard to the treatment of terrorists, but the role of punishment and rehabilitation in general.

Throughout much of the history of civilization justice has been retributive. You steal, you lose a hand; you take someone’s life, and you lose your own. In part, retributive justice aims to remove dangerous elements from society by force. But most of its function is as a deterrent. (It is not so much that one can’t steal with only one hand; it’s that losing a hand is a painful and devastating price to pay for small material gain.) While society in general has moved away from physical punishment, prison sentences serve much the same dual purpose – partly ensuring the safety of society by removing criminal elements, and partly a deterrent to committing crime.

The problem with this retributive model of justice is that it is only partly effective. It is a crude mechanism that has really done nothing to reduce crime rates, although, it may be argued, it has successfully removed some dangerous individuals from society. But it is limited. Imprisonment without education and rehabilitation does little but produce individuals who are unable to reintegrate themselves into society, and therefore have little choice but to continue a life of crime. In some cases, particularly when offenders are young, they are actually more likely to re-offend if imprisoned.

So, all over the civilized world, new models are emerging, and everywhere that they emerge they encounter criticism from those still mired in that old retributive paradigm of justice. Why would we ‘reward’ criminals with ‘cushy’ facilities and counselling at the taxpayer’s expense? This is the most common argument that we hear.

I have yet to hear of a single case in which an individual commits a crime in order to gain access to ‘cushy’ surroundings or a counsellor. So the idea that these facilities function as a ‘reward’ is questionable at best.

Rather, rehabilitative justice considers the fact that criminal behaviour, including terrorism, did not emerge in a vacuum. Individuals have responsibility for their choices and actions, but we are all social creatures. The roots of wrongdoing are profoundly personal and psychological, and also, profoundly social. The young terrorist, typically, is a person who has not had effective parenting or a feeling of belonging to a cohesive group. He encounters a charismatic leader, usually while he is still young and immature, and is drawn to the sense of purpose and belonging that such a leader seems to offer. His susceptibility is directly related to his vulnerability and the lack of positive social structures in his life.

The above description is a generalization, of course. But what is consistently true is that individuals are not simply and inexplicably ‘evil’; rather, they, like all of us, are the result of a complex convergence of factors.

A program that attempts to unravel and address these contributing factors is, surely, a benefit to the individual and the society as a whole.

The article ‘Rehab’ of terrorists: Beyond the rhetoric appeared first on Arabian Post.

As the Ambassador points out, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom have been allies since 1932, the better part of a century. This relationship presupposes a certain amount of trust between the two parties. Yet lately, the spirit of this alliance has been broken through cancelled agreements and suspicious allegations against Saudi Arabia’s role in the war against Isil. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth than these ill-considered allegations. In fact, as the Ambassador also pointed out, Saudi Arabia is a valuable source of intelligence for Britain and the west.

That the special relationship we have enjoyed with Britain does not make us invulnerable to discrimination and rumours is, of course, hardly surprising. Human nature and the sense of the world that the mass media engenders ensure that civilized impulses are accompanied by their polar opposites. For the masses of people who refuse to differentiate between Arab nations and people, the tendency to distrust follows closely whenever there is discomfort or fear of something that is unknown.

That may be human nature, but we are not imprisoned by it. We always have the choice to move beyond polarized positions. I find that standby of game theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, an excellent thought experiment. The hypothetical prisoners, in ignorance of each other’s intention to betray one another, or not, must make that choice individually. If neither betrays the other, each receives a shorter sentence: that is the logical choice. But by betraying the other, a prisoner may be set free – that is, if he is not likewise betrayed by his counterpart, in which case the sentence is longer, the worst possible outcome.

Whereas the best and most reliable outcome hinges on mutual support, betrayal carries with it the promise of a bigger reward, or conversely a harsher sentence. It is impossible to tell what will be the result. Because of this, most people will move away from the logical and mutually favourable solution. Most people will ignore the fact that if each prisoner betrays the other, each will receive the maximum sentence. It is truly not to anyone’s advantage.

In just such a way, mutual distrust between countries will lead to the worst possible outcome. In order to attain the best, trusting the other, avoiding betrayal, is clearly necessary. The social philosopher John Rawls wrote about a “veil of ignorance” which prevents us from truly knowing the position of anyone else in society, including one’s own. If that is the case, if we are all behind that veil, then the only rational thing to do is to work to assure mutual benefit.

Fear and prejudice can also be the outcome of that same ‘veil of ignorance’; all too often, that is the case. Our ambassador is asking Britain to ensure that this does not occur. Just like individuals in a society, countries in the world have a complex positioning, the outcome of which we are often blind to. It may be counterintuitive that the rational position is trusting the other, but nevertheless it is true. Let us remember that we are mutually dependent and therefore benefit most from cooperation and trust.

The article Importance of removing ‘veil of ignorance’ appeared first on Arabian Post.

King Salman made a judicious decision. Perhaps he, like me, found Prince Mamdooh’s comments repellant; certainly, he was thinking of the public image of the royal family and our country. This in itself shows him to be not only a moral leader, but an effective guardian of the future development of our culture.

Racism is a global problem. Few would deny that; we can all come up with copious examples that span continents. In the US city of Baltimore, riots have almost closed down the city centre. The issue? Police brutality targeted disproportionately against African Americans. Almost 150 years after the abolition of slavery in that country, African Americans still struggle for equality – but not more so, I would argue, than ethnic and racial minorities in countries in Europe, in Africa, and, of course, here in the Middle East.

The global community today with its movement of both people and borders demands that we value equality and human rights over antiquated prejudices and grudges. Yet those very concepts, so pristine and incontrovertible in print, are contentious in practice. Norms and attitudes are never built in a single generation; they are laid down over much time, and woven into practices, culture and tradition. And that is why, to cite just one example, German president Angela Merkl declared a few years ago that multiculturalism had been a ‘failure’ in Germany.

She was only stating a fact as she perceived it, not a recommendation. Yet I strongly feel we don’t have the liberty of declaring multiculturalism a failure, and leaving it at that.  Cultures will continue to blend, in every country in the world, and it is to our own very great detriment if we can’t find ways of living together civilly.

But it will take more than laws to make that happen. It takes an examination of our values, assumptions, and preconceptions, and a willingness to correct them when they are found to be not in tune with what we aspire. We must hold ourselves and our family members to the standard that we wish to see in the world – and that is exactly what King Salman was doing. His action sends a powerful message, and I applaud him for it.

(Dr. Alaa Alghamdi is a Saudi-based academician, who contributes regularly to the Arabian Post.)

The article Racism has no place, affirms King appeared first on Arabian Post.

In addition to labelling the situation as such, the UN has begun imposing arms embargoes on the rebels. This is a good moment to consider the role of an overarching, extra-governmental body such as the United Nations. Conceived in the years following World War II, in the interest of preventing further global conflict, the UN has become an unparalleled institution – a body whose authority extends beyond that of the governments of sovereign states. This was a concept relatively unknown with regard to the modern nation state. One might argue that in Medieval Europe, the Catholic Church held such power, both overseeing and superseding that of the individual sovereign. The UN was the first secular body to do so, and its power is, at least in theory, collective rather than simply superior.

It is not without its failings, of course. One might say that the UN has certain imbalance of power and authority. On the one hand, the fact that the permanent members of the Security Council enjoy the privilege of veto power means that, most likely, they will always be immune from sanction, unlike the rest of the world. At the same time, once a resolution is made, there is no guarantee that the member states will provide the troops, equipment or specialized personnel to get the job done. For this reason, there have been several occasions on which the UN has failed to prevent or stem a humanitarian crisis that it was monitoring or attempting to address. Finally, there have also been examples, in the past few decades, when states have acted without or even securing the authority or decision of the UN.

For the most part, however, we can acknowledge that the world is safer with the contribution of the UN than it would be otherwise. Criticism of the actions of a ruling body, especially when they affect a sovereign state, is inevitable, but there are positive and constructive ways to present that criticism.

What we may be sure of, however, is the need to protect ourselves as well as elicit support from the higher governing body. The confluence of responsive global and local action offers the best chance of a speedy resolution.

(Dr Alaa Alghamdi is an academic and political commentator based in Saudi Arabia. He is a regular contributor to the Arabian Post)

The article Cooperation needed to resolve Houthi crisis appeared first on Arabian Post.

For example, the notion that terrorism arises out of poverty is a popular one, not least because it is in keeping with the goals and strategies of global peacekeeping. If one can improve the standard of living in a society, advocates argue, the toxic discontent that gives rise to the instigation of terrorist acts can also be avoided. People will feel content and empowered, particularly if they also live within a system that offers the opportunity for civil and political participation.

The idea has a certain logic. Unfortunately, it is far from being borne out by evidence. As Saad Eddin Ibrahim pointed out, the roots of terrorism are primarily political rather than economic. In fact, a large number of terrorist leaders have been wealthy or middle class rather than impoverished.

It is sometimes tempting to apply a psychological model to a group or political dynamics, with the individual acting as analogy for a group. Of course, to do so has only a limited validity, as group dynamics are inherently different from individual responses. However, if one may propose such an analogy for terrorism, it is clear enough that the terrorist group acts as a ‘bully’ to the rest of the society, employing violence and fear-based tactics to impose their will.

A bully, to be sure, is hardly likely to hold a privileged position in the community. More likely, he is a neglected or abused individual, who takes his anger out on others. Some teachers and parents, dealing with a school bully, assume that it is low self esteem and a feeling of disenfranchisement that cause him to act that way; psychological research, however, gives a different account.

Rather than feeling powerless, poor and small, the bully is far more likely to be a person with an inflated, though fragile, ego. When his megalomania is challenged, he reacts in anger, often with violence.

Might not the same dynamic contribute to terrorist acts? Of course, individual circumstances vary. But my suggestion would be that we keep an open mind regarding the various causes of terrorism, and not go quickly to the easy conclusion that disempowerment and poverty are the issue. Infusions of economic aid may simply not touch the issue of poverty; in the worst case scenario, where systems are most corrupt, funds and resources may even be funneled in the direction of terrorist groups. Raising living standards is an honourable cause, but we must accept that we don’t know whether it will fan the flames of terrorism or douse it. And it is, certainly, no substitute for routing out the fundamental societal causes.

(Dr Alaa Alghamdi is an academic and political commentator based in Saudi Arabia.)

The article Poverty and terrorism: A dangerous assumption appeared first on Arabian Post.