Current Events: Saudi Arabia’s Emergency Defense Pacts Are Doomed to Fail

Current Events: Saudi Arabia’s Emergency Defense Pacts Are Doomed to Fail

    Wednesday, September 16, 2026   No comments

In the shifting sands of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the gradual erosion of unconditional United States security guarantees has left Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) rulers scrambling for alternatives. Recently, Saudi Arabia has sought refuge in new defense pacts with Pakistan and Turkey after it had signed one with just Pakistan. These agreements increasingly resemble the shade of a leafless tree: they offer the illusion of protection while providing no actual cover against the gathering storms. Unless these alliances are rebuilt on genuine, shared principles rather than reactive fear, they are destined to collapse.

The Seismic Shift: U.S. Engagement with Sanaa

The foundation of Saudi Arabia’s strategic anxiety lies in a profound shift in U.S. policy. According to recent reports, U.S. officials met directly with an Ansarallah (Houthi) delegation in Oman over the weekend (09/12/2026). The reported terms of this engagement are a stark departure from the past: the U.S. has reportedly promised the Houthis that it will not provide air support to Saudi-backed forces or strike targets in Houthi-held territories, in exchange for keeping the Bab Al-Mandab strait open to international shipping.

This marks a critical turning point. The U.S. administration is now engaging the Sanaa government in the same pragmatic manner it has approached the Julani-led government in Syria: recognizing them as the de facto rulers of the country. For Riyadh, this is a profound strategic shock. Saudi Arabia previously had opportunities to negotiate directly with Sanaa to end the war but refused, opting instead for prolonged military escalation. Now, as Washington bypasses Riyadh to deal directly with the Yemeni capital, the Kingdom’s leverage has drastically diminished.

The Illusion of the Pakistan and Turkey Pacts

In response to this perceived abandonment, Saudi Arabia has rushed to formalize defense pacts with Pakistan and Turkey. However, neither pact has been activated to defend Saudi Arabia against retaliatory strikes from Sanaa, revealing their inherent fragility.

Pakistan has historically maintained a cautious neutrality in intra-Gulf conflicts, acutely aware of the domestic and geopolitical costs of entangling its military in Yemen. Turkey’s position is even more fraught. Any assumption that Ankara will rush to defend Riyadh ignores the deep, unresolved wounds of recent history.

The Khashoggi Shadow

The idea that Turkey would risk its strategic standing to defend the current Saudi leadership is contradicted by the recent past. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has explicitly stated that the order to kill journalist Jamal Khashoggi came from the "highest levels" of the Saudi government. While Erdoğan initially stopped short of naming Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in official addresses, the Turkish state’s actions spoke volumes. In December 2018, the chief prosecutor’s office in Istanbul filed applications to obtain arrest warrants for Ahmad al-Assiri and Saud al-Qahtani, key allies and advisors to the Crown Prince, describing them as "among the planners" of the murder.

While Ankara and Riyadh have pursued a transactional diplomatic thaw in recent years, this relationship is built on economic and political convenience, not foundational trust. In a moment of genuine military crisis, Turkey’s strategic calculus will not prioritize the survival of a leadership it has previously accused of orchestrating extrajudicial killings on its soil.

The Backfiring Religious Narrative

Facing military vulnerability and diplomatic isolation, Riyadh has attempted to weaponize its geography. By framing Houthi missile and drone strikes as attacks on the sanctity of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia is attempting to galvanize sympathy from the broader Muslim world on religious grounds.

However, this narrative is fundamentally undermined by MBS’s own domestic trajectory. The Crown Prince has systematically curtailed the power of the religious establishment, sidelined traditional Salafi allies, and aggressively promoted a secular entertainment industry, including concerts and public events that were strictly barred on religious grounds just a decade ago. Attempting to rebrand a geopolitical conflict as a sectarian or religious war rings hollow to a regional public acutely aware of the Kingdom’s internal cultural revolution. The religious card is a bluff, and the Arab street is no longer buying it.

The Reality of Escalation

The consequences of this strategic miscalculation are already manifesting on the ground. The Yemeni Armed Forces recently announced qualitative military operations targeting Aramco facilities in Yanbu and the King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushait with dozens of ballistic missiles and drones. In their statement, the Yemeni Armed Forces affirmed they will continue to reinforce an equation of "blockade for blockade" and "escalation for escalation" until the aggression ends.

Concurrently, the vulnerability of the Kingdom has been underscored by the United States itself. The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh recently issued a Level 3 travel advisory, urging Americans to reconsider trips to Saudi Arabia due to the risk of drone and missile attacks. The advisory explicitly restricts U.S. government employees from traveling within 20 miles of the Yemeni border and imposes restrictions on travel to Qatif, Jizan, Asir, and Najran. When the primary historical guarantor of Saudi security is warning its own citizens to stay away, the message to the world is unmistakable.

Principles Over Panic

A defense architecture cannot be sustainably built on the shifting sands of fear and reactive panic. The pacts with Pakistan and Turkey lack the ideological cohesion, mutual trust, and strategic alignment required to withstand actual combat pressures.

As the U.S. normalizes relations with Sanaa and focuses on its own broader strategic priorities, Saudi Arabia must confront a stark reality: the era of blank-check security guarantees is over. The Kingdom had its chance to end the war through diplomacy and chose escalation. Now, it is reaping the geopolitical harvest of that choice. Unless future alliances are forged on genuine, shared principles rather than desperate reactions to a waning American umbrella, they will remain exactly what they are today—the shade of a leafless tree.

Malaysia’s Cargo Ban and the True Measure of Global Leadership

Malaysia’s Cargo Ban and the True Measure of Global Leadership

    Tuesday, September 15, 2026   No comments

 Principles Over Posturing

In an era where global supply chains are frequently weaponized and diplomatic alliances are dictated by profit margins, the true measure of a national leader is often found not in their economic opportunism, but in their moral clarity. This week, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim provided a masterclass in the latter. Announcing a strict directive that Malaysia will not allow its territory to be used as a transit point for shipments supporting Israel’s military capabilities, Anwar has drawn a stark line in the sand. It is a move that underscores a vital geopolitical reality: history’s most enduring leaders distinguish themselves by adhering to universal principles, rather than hiding behind the cynical veil of short-term "national interest."

The Prime Minister’s declaration follows reports that Malaysian authorities intercepted and seized several Israel-bound shipments at one of the country’s largest maritime ports. Under Anwar’s new mandate, any suspicious cargo transiting through Malaysian waters will face rigorous inspection and investigation. Where violations of Malaysian law and international norms are found, the Prime Minister has promised "decisive action."

As Anwar Ibrahim recently articulated, Malaysia will remain non-aligned in global power struggles, but it will "never be neutral on Palestine sovereignty or Islamophobia." The latest port seizures and the subsequent tightening of maritime transit laws are the tangible manifestations of this doctrine. Malaysia is actively refusing to allow its logistical infrastructure to become complicit in what the Asian News Network reported Anwar calling "Israeli atrocities."

To understand the weight of this decision, one must contrast it with the standard operating procedure of modern statecraft. Too often, the term "national interest" is deployed by political leaders as convenient code for short-term economic and political gains. In the context of global shipping, turning a blind eye to military cargo transiting through a nation's ports generates lucrative transit fees, bolsters port authority statistics, and maintains frictionless trade relations with powerful Western allies.

A leader driven solely by this narrow definition of "national interest" would quietly allow the cargo to pass, rationalizing that the geopolitical friction is not worth the economic cost. But principled leadership requires looking past the immediate ledger. By prioritizing universal principles—namely, adherence to international humanitarian law, the sovereignty of oppressed nations, and the basic preservation of human life—Anwar Ibrahim is demonstrating that true sovereignty means having the power to say "no" to the global military-industrial complex, regardless of the immediate financial sacrifice.

However, Malaysia’s unapologetic stance also casts an uncomfortable spotlight on its traditional allies, particularly the Gulf states. Historically, nations across the Arabian Peninsula have positioned themselves as staunch defenders of the Palestinian cause, wielding their economic and diplomatic weight in support of Arab and Islamic solidarity.

However, in recent years, the foreign policy of several Gulf states has increasingly drifted toward pragmatism, prioritizing economic diversification, tech transfers, and security pacts over universal human rights. They frequently engage in political posturing—issuing strong diplomatic condemnations of violence while simultaneously maintaining quiet, lucrative backchannels and trade routes that indirectly sustain the status quo.

Herein lies the risk: Malaysia may soon find itself losing the support of Gulf state allies who shy away from taking similar principle-driven positions. A coalition built merely on rhetorical solidarity is fragile. If Gulf nations continue to retreat into "national interest" and diplomatic posturing while Malaysia takes concrete, disruptive actions to choke off military supply lines, a profound ideological rift will emerge. Gulf states risk losing their moral authority and their credibility as genuine supporters of the Global South, reducing their solidarity to mere lip service. When push comes to shove, nations that refuse to weaponize their own economic logistics for the sake of human rights will inevitably find themselves isolated by those who are willing to do so.

Ultimately, the seizure of military cargo at Malaysian ports is more than a logistical hurdle for arms suppliers; it is a philosophical challenge to the international community. It asks every head of state whether their governance is defined by the transient pursuit of political survival and quarterly economic gains, or by the enduring pursuit of justice.

Leaders who govern by universal principles accept that their nations may face short-term diplomatic or economic pushback. But they also understand that moral consistency builds a different, more resilient kind of capital: the unshakeable trust of the global populace and a legacy that outlasts election cycles. By shutting its ports to military aid destined for conflict zones, Malaysia has proven that while "national interest" may balance a budget, it is universal principle that secures a nation's soul.

A New "Sunni Axis" and the Search for a Post-American Security Umbrella

A New "Sunni Axis" and the Search for a Post-American Security Umbrella

    Friday, August 07, 2026   No comments

 The Mecca Pact

In a landmark event following prayers at the Great Mosque of Mecca, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif formalized a trilateral defense agreement. This pact arrives at a critical geopolitical juncture, as the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran has fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the Middle East. The conflict has not only destabilized the region but has also cast severe doubts on Washington's long-term security guarantees, prompting traditional US allies to seek alternative, indigenous security architectures.

The Subjectivity of "Defense" and "Legitimacy"

The formation of this alliance raises immediate questions: Is this newly forged "defensive" pact directed against Iran, or is it a hedge against another regional power—perhaps even Israel? To understand the nature of this alliance, one must first examine how "defensive" interventions and state "legitimacy" have been historically interpreted by the pact's signatories.

State narratives in the Middle East are highly subjective and heavily dictated by geopolitical convenience. For instance, Saudi Arabia launched its devastating war in Yemen under the pretext of "restoring the legitimate government" after Ho

uthi rebels took over the capital, Sana'a. Yet, this narrative clashes starkly with the actions of both Riyadh and Ankara in Syria. In Damascus, the Saudi and Turkish governments actively participated in the overthrow of the internationally recognized, "legitimate" government, throwing their weight behind rebel factions led by Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Joulani, a figure with historical ties to al-Qaeda). Today, the rebel government in Syria is increasingly recognized and legitimized, while the Houthi authority in Yemen—which achieved a nearly identical military feat by capturing the capital—remains in pariah status. This glaring double standard reveals that "legitimacy" and "defense" are not objective legal terms in regional politics, but flexible instruments used to justify intervention against perceived adversaries while supporting identical tactics when aligned with strategic interests.

The "Sunni Axis" and the Nuclear Umbrella

Given this fluid approach to regional security, the trilateral pact strongly resembles the very "Sunni axis" that Israeli strategists have long warned against. The most telling aspect of this new alignment is the inclusion of Pakistan—the only Muslim-majority nation to possess nuclear weapons.

For decades, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have relied implicitly on the United States' conventional and nuclear umbrella. However, recent escalations have shattered this illusion. The US security apparatus failed to protect Gulf infrastructure from Iranian-backed proxy attacks, and more pressingly, Gulf leaders are increasingly convinced that Washington would not risk its own security to protect them from a nuclear-armed Israel. In this new reality, Pakistan’s inclusion provides a crucial strategic asset: an independent, regional "Islamic nuclear umbrella." By integrating Islamabad into their defense matrix, Riyadh and Ankara are effectively insulating themselves against both Iranian retaliation and the unchecked military dominance of Israel.

A Pivot Away from Western Protection

This trilateral defense pact represents a profound strategic pivot for Gulf nations, born out of a deep-seated loss of faith in Western protection. The realization that American security guarantees are conditional and often unreliable has forced Saudi Arabia and Turkey to look inward and toward regional partners. Turkey brings formidable military industry and geopolitical weight, while Pakistan brings strategic depth, manpower, and nuclear deterrence. Together, they form a triad capable of projecting power independent of Western oversight.

Iran’s Warning and the Post-Abraham Accords Era

Tehran is acutely aware of this shifting paradigm. Responding to the Mecca agreement, Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei issued a stark reminder of the region's realities, stating that a "paper agreement" with Turkey and Pakistan will not guarantee Saudi security. Rezaei noted that years of "one-sided nursing" from the Americans failed to protect Riyadh, urging the Saudis to reform their policies rather than "beg for security from others."

Iran understands that the underlying driver of this pact is the Gulf’s loss of faith in Washington. Ultimately, the Saudi-Pakistani-Turkish trilateral is much more than a mutual defense treaty; it is a declaration of strategic autonomy. It signals a decisive step toward a regional security arrangement that operates entirely without Israel and serves as a direct repudiation of the US-brokered Abraham Accords. As the Middle East fractures under the weight of war and shifting alliances, the Gulf is quietly building its own fortress—one defined not by Western guarantees, but by regional, nuclear-backed deterrence.

Media Review: Geopolitics, Technology, and the US-Iran Tension

Media Review: Geopolitics, Technology, and the US-Iran Tension

    Monday, February 23, 2026   No comments

In recent weeks, heightened rhetoric around Iran's nuclear program has dominated headlines. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated on Fox News that Iran could be "a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material." However, credible reporting provides crucial context: following joint US-Israeli strikes in June 2025 that destroyed Iran's centrifuges and nuclear infrastructure, US and Israeli intelligence assessments currently place Iran "at least two years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon." This discrepancy between political messaging and intelligence assessments raises an important question: what truly drives the current escalation?

While non-proliferation remains a stated priority, a growing body of analysis suggests that US strategic concerns extend beyond the nuclear file to encompass the deepening alignment between Iran, China, and Russia—a convergence that could reshape regional power dynamics and challenge Western technological and diplomatic influence.

The foundation for this alignment was formalized in the 2021 China-Iran 25-Year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement. Recent reporting confirms the agreement is actively being implemented, with Iranian officials stating it is "progressing" and serving as a "cornerstone" of bilateral ties. While some analyses note implementation challenges, the strategic intent is clear: deepen economic, energy, and security cooperation.

China's Belt and Road Initiative positions Iran as a critical energy supplier and transit corridor. Beijing has repeatedly warned that military escalation against Iran would "destabilize the region and threaten its Belt and Road investments and energy security." This is not merely diplomatic posturing; it reflects tangible economic stakes.

Several reports describe China assisting Iran in reducing dependence on Western-controlled technology—a move with significant security implications:

• Satellite Navigation: Iran has publicly explored adopting China's BeiDou satellite navigation system as an alternative to US-controlled GPS. Iranian officials cited GPS disruptions during the 2025 conflict as a key motivator. While some niche outlets claim Iran has "fully replaced" GPS with BeiDou, broader reporting indicates this is an ongoing transition aimed at enhancing "digital sovereignty" and military resilience.
• Cybersecurity Cooperation: According to analysis from Modern Diplomacy, China has encouraged Tehran to strengthen digital infrastructure by adopting encrypted Chinese systems to counter intelligence penetration. While Modern Diplomacy is an independent analysis platform rather than a wire service, its reporting aligns with documented patterns of Sino-Iranian security cooperation noted by the Institute for the Study of War.
• Air Defense Capabilities: Multiple reports indicate Iran has deployed China's YLC-8B long-range anti-stealth radar. While these outlets are not mainstream wire services, the technical plausibility of such a transfer is consistent with the deepening military-technical cooperation between the two countries. Independent verification from major defense publications would strengthen this claim.

The convergence of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian interests presents a strategic challenge for Washington. As noted in analysis from the Critical Threats Project, "Iran likely seeks Chinese support to strengthen its domestic security and repressive capabilities." From Beijing's perspective, supporting Iran serves multiple objectives: securing energy flows, advancing BRI infrastructure, and creating a counterweight to US influence in a strategically vital region.

Some analysts argue that US pressure on Iran is partly motivated by a desire to prevent this trilateral alignment from solidifying further. A report in The Jerusalem Post contextualized Witkoff's nuclear comments within broader US efforts to establish "very hard red lines" regarding Iran's enrichment capabilities. However, the same reporting acknowledges ongoing diplomatic channels, with US-Iran talks scheduled to resume in Geneva.

China's position is unambiguous: it "categorically rejects" military threats against Iran and emphasizes diplomatic solutions. Beijing has warned that "military adventurism" in the Middle East would destabilize global energy markets—a direct reference to its own economic interests. This stance positions China as a potential mediator while simultaneously strengthening its partnership with Tehran.

Attributing US policy toward Iran solely to a desire to disrupt China-Russia ties would be an oversimplification. Legitimate non-proliferation concerns, regional security dynamics involving Israel and Gulf states, and domestic political factors all play significant roles. However, dismissing the geopolitical dimension would also be inaccurate.

The evidence supports several verified conclusions:

• Public claims about Iran's immediate nuclear breakout capability conflict with current intelligence assessments.
• The China-Iran strategic partnership is actively being implemented, with cooperation expanding in technology and security domains.
• Iran is actively seeking to reduce technological dependencies on Western systems, with China positioned as a key alternative partner.
• China views regional stability as essential to its economic interests and has explicitly opposed military escalation against Iran.

Relations with Russia

After inking the agreement with China, Iran signed a similar strategic agreement with Russia that was finalized and ratified last year. The terms of that agreement are also being implemented now. It has been reported recently that Iran signs secret $589 million missile deal with Russia. According to the Financial Times, Iran has signed a secret $589 million arms deal with Russia to obtain thousands of advanced shoulder-fired missiles.

The agreement, reportedly signed in Moscow in December, obligates Russia to supply 500 man-portable "Verba" launch units and 2,500 "9M336" missiles over three years, the FT said, citing leaked Russian documents and sources familiar with the deal.

Deliveries are planned in three tranches from 2027 to 2029, according to the FT. The negotiations took place between Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport and the Moscow representative of Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, the FT reported. Tehran officially requested the systems last July, as indicated in a contract seen by the FT.

The current tensions around Iran cannot be reduced to a single motive. While the nuclear file remains central, the broader context of great-power competition adds layers of complexity. China's efforts to support Iran's technological sovereignty and security capabilities are documented, though the precise scope of some transfers requires verification from primary defense sources.

A fact-based approach acknowledges that US policy likely seeks to address multiple objectives simultaneously: preventing nuclear proliferation, maintaining regional alliances, and managing strategic competition with China and Russia. Similarly, China's engagement with Iran serves its own strategic interests in energy security, infrastructure development, and multipolar diplomacy.

As negotiations continue in Geneva, the path forward will require distinguishing between verified capabilities and political rhetoric, and recognizing that in an interconnected world, regional conflicts inevitably resonate across global power structures. Sustainable solutions will depend on addressing legitimate security concerns on all sides while preventing escalation that could destabilize the broader international order.

Trump’s “Mission Accomplished” Moment: I obliterated Iran's Nuclear Program

Trump’s “Mission Accomplished” Moment: I obliterated Iran's Nuclear Program

    Monday, February 23, 2026   No comments

In the annals of modern geopolitical theater, few phrases carry as much ironic baggage as "mission accomplished." Eight months after the United States launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities under the codename "Operation Midnight Hammer," President Donald Trump finds himself in a rhetorical loop: simultaneously claiming to have "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program while threatening new military action to destroy that same program. This cognitive dissonance is not merely a gaffe—it is a revealing symptom of a deeper pattern. The nuclear file, long wielded as the primary justification for pressure on Tehran, is increasingly exposed as a flexible pretext for objectives that extend far beyond non-proliferation: regime change, regional containment, and the coercion of a sovereign state into compliance with Western strategic demands.

> Read the article 

   

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

    Tuesday, November 25, 2025   No comments

In an apparent display of civility, former U.S. President Donald Trump met newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on November 21, 2025—two figures who, despite having branded each other in incendiary terms, posed for cameras with practiced composure. Yet beneath the handshakes and shared jokes, British journalist Michael Day argues in The Independent, lies a far more revealing story: Trump’s calm demeanor and wide, artificial smiles mask a profound unease—an anxiety rooted not just in personal pride, but in the existential threat Mamdani represents to the Republican Party’s political narrative.

Just weeks before the meeting, Trump had dismissed Mamdani as a “100% insane communist,” while Mamdani, an unapologetic democratic socialist, had once labeled Trump a “fascist.” Their ideological chasm could hardly be wider. Yet in Washington, the two avoided direct confrontation, instead exchanging platitudes about their mutual love for New York City and pledges to support its growth. To Day, this surface-level harmony is a carefully constructed illusion—“a mask worn for the cameras”—hiding a deeper tension.

At 34, Mamdani—a Muslim of Indian-Ugandan heritage—has achieved what many deemed improbable: defeating the politically entrenched Cuomo dynasty and capturing City Hall on a platform of bold progressive reform, including rent freezes, universal public services, and aggressive wealth redistribution. For Trump, a man who prides himself on winning and venerates winners, Mamdani’s meteoric rise is not merely impressive—it is unsettling. As Day notes, Trump himself acknowledged Mamdani had waged “an incredible race against very smart people,” a rare admission of respect tinged unmistakably with apprehension.

Why the anxiety? Mamdani’s success signals a new, viable path for the American left: a charismatic, digitally savvy, grassroots-driven socialism that resonates powerfully with younger, multiracial, and working-class voters—exactly the coalition the GOP has struggled to neutralize. His campaign, built around a laser-focused message of lowering the cost of living and leveraging innovative digital outreach, mobilized a broad coalition that defied traditional political expectations. To Trump, whose political dominance has long depended on framing Democrats as elitist, out-of-touch, or extremist, Mamdani’s authenticity and electoral potency disrupt that script. He is not a caricature Trump can easily ridicule—he is a winner, and that makes him dangerous.

Compounding Trump’s unease is a week of personal and political turbulence: although he recently secured massive Saudi investments, he was forced—amid renewed scrutiny of the Epstein case—to release previously withheld documents, a development that reportedly angered and unnerved him. In this fragile moment, Day suggests, Trump could not afford to appear weakened or reactive in front of Mamdani. Instead, he defaulted to deflection and dark humor. When a journalist asked whether he minded Mamdani calling him a fascist, Trump quipped, “I’ve been called worse than fascist”—a line that drew laughter but betrayed strategic evasion.

Yet the stakes extend far beyond Trump’s ego. Day warns that Mamdani’s ascent risks triggering a crisis of identity within the Democratic Party itself. While the progressive left celebrates his victory as vindication, the party’s moderate wing grows increasingly wary of his socialist agenda—fearing a backlash in swing districts and national elections. This internal rift was starkly illustrated the day before the White House meeting, when 86 House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution condemning “the terror of socialism.” To Day, this was a profound misstep: targeting Mamdani-style progressivism, he argues, while ignoring the very real threat of a second Trump term, reveals a party at odds with its own future.

Ultimately, Day concludes, the cordial photo-op between Trump and Mamdani obscures a seismic political shift. Mamdani embodies a new generational energy—one that challenges both Republican hegemony and Democratic orthodoxy. His rise signals the emergence of a new political archetype: pragmatic yet radical, local yet nationally resonant, deeply ideological yet electorally effective.

As Trump watches this young mayor assume power in America’s largest city, he does so not just as a former president—but as a seasoned political predator keenly aware that the rules of the game may be changing. And for the first time in years, it’s not Trump setting the pace.

Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

Morocco's "Gen Z 212" Movement: A Youth-Led Uprising Against Corruption and Failed Services

    Saturday, October 04, 2025   No comments

A new, decentralized youth movement is shaking the political landscape of Morocco. Dubbed "Generation Z 212" — a nod to the country's international dialing code and its digitally-native leaders — the group has sustained protests for over a week in several cities, channeling widespread public anger over corruption, deteriorating public services, and a deep-seated political disillusionment.

The movement's core demands are starkly local: improved healthcare and education, a serious fight against corruption, and the resignation of Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch. However, its emergence reflects a global pattern of youth-led activism fueled by economic stagnation and a loss of faith in traditional institutions.

A Spark in Agadir, A Fire Across Cities

The immediate catalyst for the protests was a tragic incident in the southern city of Agadir. The deaths of eight pregnant women in less than a month at a public hospital ignited public outrage, serving as a grim symbol of a healthcare system in crisis. The protests that began there quickly spread to other urban centers.

The situation on the ground has been volatile. While "Gen Z 212" activists have called for and committed to peaceful demonstrations, their gatherings have been met with bans, violence, and mass arrests by the authorities. Some protests have devolved into riots, resulting in the deaths of three people and injuries to dozens. The movement's activists have been quick to disavow the violence, blaming it on opportunistic elements and reaffirming their commitment to peaceful dissent.

A Generation Filling a Political Vacuum

Analysts point to a profound vacuum in political and social representation as the bedrock of this unrest. The majority of Moroccan youth have lost confidence in established political parties, which they view as having lost their credibility. The traditional power of labor unions has also waned.

This void has been filled by young people organizing through social media and digital networks, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. The movement is leaderless and organic, making it both resilient and difficult for the government to engage with through conventional channels.

The economic backdrop is bleak. According to the High Commission for Planning, Morocco's overall unemployment rate stands at 12.8%, a figure that skyrockets to 35.8% among young people and 19% among university graduates. This lack of opportunity for a highly educated generation is a primary source of frustration.

A "Ticking Time Bomb" No Longer Silent

Experts had long warned that this combination of factors was a recipe for social explosion.

Professor Mohamed Al-Merrani Boukhabza, a political scientist at Abdelmalek Essaâdi University, highlighted the demographic reality: "There is a demographic shift whereby a third of the population pyramid in Morocco is made up of young people between the ages of 15 and 35." He noted that the socioeconomic reality, coupled with declining public services and weak trust in traditional institutions, formed a "ticking time bomb" that has now detonated.

Echoing this sentiment, Ahmed Al-Bouz, a professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law, stressed the need for "urgent and tangible reforms, especially in education, health, and employment, while guaranteeing freedom of expression and the right to protest." He warned that in the absence of such reforms, any government dialogue with the youth would be seen as merely a tactic to buy time.

A Government in Response Mode

Faced with the growing momentum, the government has stated that it "understands the demands of the movement" and has expressed its readiness to open a dialogue with the protesting youth. However, for a generation that feels it has been repeatedly promised change without seeing results, mere words are no longer enough.

The "Gen Z 212" movement represents a critical juncture for Morocco. It is the voice of a disenfranchised, connected, and impatient generation demanding not just dialogue, but demonstrable action to address the deep-rooted economic and social crises that define their daily lives. The government's next steps will determine whether this energy can be channeled into meaningful reform or if it will further fuel the flames of discontent.

On this Day in History, May 19, Malcolm X, an icon for resisting injustice by “any means necessary”, was born

On this Day in History, May 19, Malcolm X, an icon for resisting injustice by “any means necessary”, was born

    Monday, May 20, 2024   No comments

On May 19 of every year, many Americans celebrate “Malcolm Day,” the anniversary of his birth, to honor one of the most prominent defenders of black rights in the United States during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. This day is not a federal holiday, although some are. American states and cities have made it a holiday, so who is Malcolm X?

Malcolm was born on May 19, 1925 as Malcolm Stuart Little, the fourth of eight children, in Omaha, Nebraska, and died on February 21, 1965, in New York. He was a prominent figure in the Nation of Islam. After his assassination, his life story spread widely and he became a hero among black youth.

After his birth in Nebraska, baby Malcolm moved with his family to Lansing, Michigan. During his early childhood, he and his family were exposed to racist abuse from the Ku Klux Klan, and they had to move frequently to avoid harm from this violent racist group.

When Malcolm was six, his father, Reverend Earl Little, a supporter of black leader Marcus Garvey, died after being hit by a streetcar, sparking speculation that he had been the victim of white murder.

The family was so poor that Malcolm's mother, Louise Little, resorted to cooking dandelion greens from the street to feed her children. After being admitted to a mental institution in 1939, Malcolm and his siblings were sent to foster homes or to live with family members.

Malcolm excelled in school, but after one of his teachers told him in eighth grade that he should become a carpenter instead of a lawyer, he lost interest and soon finished his formal education.

Malcolm moved from a foster home in Michigan to live with his half-sister, Ella, in Boston. There he became involved in petty criminal activities in his teenage years, becoming a street hustler, drug dealer, and leader of a gang of thieves in Roxbury and Harlem (in New York City).

While in prison for robbery from 1946 to 1952, he underwent a conversion that eventually led him to join the Nation of Islam. His decision to join the Nation was also influenced by discussions with his brother Reginald, who had become a member and who was imprisoned with Malcolm in the Norfolk Colony. In Massachusetts in 1948.

Malcolm quit smoking, gambling, and eating pork in 1948. In order to educate himself, he spent long hours reading books in the prison library. In accordance with Nation of Islam tradition, he replaced his surname "Little" with an "X", a custom among Nation of Islam followers who considered their family names to have originated from slave-owning whites.

In the early twentieth century, some Muslim religious leaders in the United States asserted that Islam was the natural religion of blacks, relying largely on accounts of African Muslims being kidnapped centuries ago and sold into slavery in the Americas.

The Nation of Islam, a movement and organization of black Americans, was founded in 1930 by Elijah Muhammad and is famous for its teachings that combine elements of traditional Islam with black nationalist ideas.

The Nation of Islam also combines religious ideas with those that denounce the suffering suffered by blacks at the hands of whites.

Malcolm rose so quickly through the ranks of the Nation of Islam that Elijah Muhammad, who had a special affection for Malcolm, appointed him spokesman for the group, second only to Muhammad himself. Under Malcolm's leadership, the Nation of Islam claimed half a million members.

Malcolm was an articulate public speaker and charismatic figure who expressed the pent-up anger, frustration and bitterness of African Americans during the civil rights movement from 1955 to 1965.

He delivered speeches in the streets of Harlem and spoke at major universities such as Harvard and Oxford. His penetrating wit and passionate radicalism made him a formidable critic of American society. He also criticized prevailing civil rights movement concepts, challenging Martin Luther King's views on coexistence and nonviolence.

Malcolm argued that issues of black identity, integrity, and independence for black people were more important than the civil right to sit in a restaurant or even to vote. In contrast to King's strategy of nonviolence and civil disobedience, Malcolm urged his followers to defend themselves "by any means necessary."

He also disagreed with Martin Luther King's ambition for America to be a place where blacks and whites lived together, as Malcolm did not believe in this vision and wanted a separate nation for blacks only.

...

Racial segregation ended throughout the United States thanks to the efforts of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of which Malcolm

Civil rights include the right to liberty, the right to education, the adult right to vote, and the right to a fair trial.

For a long time in the United States, African Americans were denied their civil rights.

Black Americans suffered from slavery and were bought and sold for money. Their life as a slave was very difficult and difficult to imagine now. Most of them were treated horribly by their white owners and had no rights at all. Many of them were forced to change their names, sometimes to the name of their owner.

Although slavery was abolished in England in 1833, and in America in 1865, blacks were still treated fairly due to segregation laws - or rules - that separated blacks from whites.

Racial segregation in the United States meant that, by law, non-white people were kept physically separated and treated poorly compared to white people.

Things like housing, hospitals, schools, transportation, and workplaces were segregated, based on the color of a person's skin.

For example, black children were not allowed to go to the same schools as white children, blacks had to sit separately on buses, and were not allowed in whites-only areas.

Media review: The West is losing “liberal Muslims” because of the Gaza War

Media review: The West is losing “liberal Muslims” because of the Gaza War

    Wednesday, February 21, 2024   No comments

The American magazine "Foreign Policy" saw that what it described as "Western indifference towards Palestinian suffering in the Gaza Strip" alienates what it calls "liberal Muslims" throughout the Islamic world, and "distorts the appeal of liberal democratic values," as it described it.

In an analytical article it published, the magazine highlighted the presence of an unprecedented level of anger towards the United States of America and its Western allies throughout the Middle East and the broader Islamic world, warning that this matter could have “long-term consequences.”

She warned that the current reality “could be much worse than the impact of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003,” because the massacre, committed by the Israeli occupation, is worse than anything that happened during the American wars in the Middle East.

Foreign Policy attributed this anger to millions watching horrific scenes from Gaza every day, explaining that this is often done via live broadcast on television, showing the bombing of entire neighborhoods, and the bodies of children and infants emerging from under the rubble.

The magazine also pointed out the martyrdom of Palestinian civilians by occupation bullets in the West Bank, which is relatively calmer.

Here, it should be noted that the pace of Israeli incursions into various cities and towns in the West Bank has increased since the 7th of last October, and this was accompanied by an increase in the number of Palestinian martyrs who were killed by the bullets of the occupation forces.

When Muslims listen to what Western leaders, such as US President Joe Biden, say about what the occupation is committing in occupied Palestine, all they hear is about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” as the magazine reported.

Moreover, all they see is “granting more American dollars and weapons” to the Israeli government, so that it can continue its war on Gaza, according to what the magazine continued.

In view of this, a number of people, especially in the Islamic world, believe that the lives of Israelis are, for Western leaders, “more important” than the lives of Palestinians, according to what Foreign Policy reported.

The magazine also saw that the West is practicing a “historical denial” of the liberal values that its governments have adopted and defended since the end of World War II, with regard to “universal human rights.”

In this context, the magazine explained that some say that “these noble ideals were never fully achieved,” as national interests, alliances, and hypocrisy led to “double standards.”

The “loss of faith” in Arab standards does not affect people who tend to oppose the United States, or criticize the Western-led global order, and among these Muslims are those with liberal tendencies, which leads to “discrediting the West and its liberal narrative, in the eyes of the rest of the world.” According to Foreign Policy.

In light of all of this, the magazine borrowed the satirical political principle of the German thinker, Carl Schmitt, which states that “sovereign powers are able, according to their desire, to determine exceptions to their rules,” in reference to the West’s disavowal of the responsibility it has shouldered for itself, and which it has used as an excuse to fight its wars. It claimed the lives of millions around the world and the Middle East.

What is the value of the life of a Muslim person compared to the life of a Westerner?

What is the value of the life of a Muslim person compared to the life of a Westerner?

    Monday, February 12, 2024   No comments

1/25, that is the value.

At the peak of the "war on terror" and the during the course of Israel’s assassination campaigns in the last two decades, a media commentator and former US military official was asked about what would be an acceptable collateral damage. He said: if killing a "high-value" terrorist or conducting an important security operation results in the deaths of 25 civilians or less, then, such collateral damage is acceptable. That is 25-to-1 ratio.

According to a study by Brown University, the US-led global war on terror, that took place mainly in Muslim-majority countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, “nearly 1 million people” have been killed. Adding all persons of all Western countries killed by acts that could be categorized as “foreign terrorism” (a category coined to designate acts carried out by persons who might Muslim) as well as troops killed in battle fields (including US and NATO troops), the 25/1 ratio becomes a very aspirational figure. The data shows that for every one Western person killed in any incident involving Muslim actors, 100 Muslims--mostly civilians--were killed. 

This formula for revange establishes that the life of non-Westerners as being worth less compared to Western lives. The dehumanizing formula was crudely, yet illustratively articulated by Trump last year. Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference on Oct. 28, 2023, the former US president declared: “If you spill a drop of American blood, we will spill a gallon of yours.”

To add to the body of evidence of dehumanizing people from non-Western nations, Israel just acted on that equation, killing 100 civilians to rescue just two Israelis. During this conflict alone, comparing the reported total of 1,139 Israelis killed since Oct. 7 (695 Israeli civilians and 373 security forces and 71 foreigners), and comparing it to the 29,000 Palestinians killed thus far, produces a ration of exactly 25 Palestinians killed for every 1 Israeli--the formular still holds--though the killing is still ongoing and likely to reach the 50-for-1 ratio should the war on Gaza lasts for another five months.

In the light of the above data and the comments by US officials that the civilian toll in Gaza “remains too high”, one must ask Israeli officials: How many Palestinian civilians must die for every Israeli death before this revenge war comes to an end? And one must ask US officials: what is an acceptable “toll of civilian deaths”?

The lack of awareness of how bigoted the view that there is an acceptable “toll of civilian deaths” that can be excused and justified when every single Western life is avenged by unimaged level of destruction and death is confounding. When one adds the number of children killed thus far in Gaza, such callousness becomes cruelly mind-bending.

 Acceptance of some level of civilian toll destroys Western rhetoric about their commitment to universal rights. It clearly shows that there is no universal right to life; that some lives are superior and worth saving at any cost and some lives can be destroyed to avenge the loss of the superior lives. The troubling part is that, now, US officials acknowledge that the military operation is "over the top" and that too many civilians have been killed and displaced, yet the US administration blocked every UN intervention that could have stopped the war.

Biden’s phone call with Netanyahu comes a few days after the president offered one of his sharpest rebukes to date of Israel’s military conduct in Gaza, saying the operation to go after Hamas had been “over the top.”

 “I’m of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza – in the Gaza Strip – has been over the top,” Biden told reporters at the White House on Thursday, describing his own efforts to open up Gaza so more humanitarian aid could flow in.

 Last week, Blinken told Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials that the civilian toll in Gaza “remains too high” as violence continues in the region.

“Nearly 2 million people have been displaced from their homes. Hundreds of thousands are experiencing acute hunger. Most have lost someone that they love. And day after day, more people are killed,” Blinken said at a news conference after meeting with top Israeli officials.

Media review: The Gaza war creates a new Islamic front and threatens American influence--Foreign Affairs

Media review: The Gaza war creates a new Islamic front and threatens American influence--Foreign Affairs

    Saturday, February 10, 2024   No comments

The American magazine Foreign Affairs published a long article dealing with the impact of the Gaza war on the Islamic and Arab worlds, saying that this war created a new Islamic front that may be the greatest challenge facing America.

The article, written by Toby Matthiesen, a senior lecturer in global religious studies at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, explained that the Gaza war is no longer limited to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Israel.

He pointed out the extension of this war and the participation of the so-called “Axis of Resistance” that includes Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen in it, and it has gone beyond that until it has now become, 4 months after its beginning, a strong unifying force for Sunnis and Shiites and has awakened a comprehensive Islamic front that includes the Sunni Arab masses, who are opposed by a majority. Overwhelming, Arab normalization.

The article added that for the United States and its partners, this development constitutes a strategic challenge that goes far beyond confronting the Iraqi factions and the Houthis with targeted strikes. By bringing together a region long divided, the war in Gaza threatens to further undermine American influence and, in the long term, could make many American military missions untenable.

He said that this new rapprochement also raises major obstacles to any US-led efforts to impose a top-down peace agreement that excludes Palestinian Islamists.

The writer reported that Arab opinion polls and social media show great Arab support for the Hamas movement and its strategy of armed resistance, and a significant decline in support for the United States and the regimes closely associated with it.

The same opinion polls now show, according to the article, that an overwhelming percentage of the population - more than 90% - opposes establishing relations with Israel, adding that the Arab Opinion Index for last January, a survey conducted in Doha that included 16 Arab countries, shows agreement. More than 3 quarters of respondents said their views of the United States had become more negative since the war began.

Matthiesen advised the pro-Western Arab countries to seek to bridge the widening gap between their policies and the sympathy of their citizens, saying that after years of neglect, these masses will urgently press for a just solution to the Palestinian issue, which threatens to spark a new wave of Arab uprisings.

He stressed that it is increasingly clear that it will be impossible for Washington to stop the regional escalation unless it is able to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, end the occupation, and finally establish a viable Palestinian state, adding that in the absence of concrete, credible steps in this direction, the pressure will continue. Popular influence on governments in the region.

Matthiesen concluded his article by emphasizing that without a just and broad solution to the Palestinian issue, the Middle East will never achieve lasting peace or the kind of political and economic cooperation that many have long dreamed of, indicating that the alternative is an endless cycle of violence, the decline of Western influence, and the integration of the region. In a way that is completely different from what the West wants, and even fundamentally hostile to it.

Biden denounces anti-Arab rhetoric after an article described Dearborn as “the jihad capital of America”

Biden denounces anti-Arab rhetoric after an article described Dearborn as “the jihad capital of America”

    Sunday, February 04, 2024   No comments

US President Joe Biden on Sunday denounced anti-Arab rhetoric following an opinion article published by the Wall Street Journal that pointed the finger at the city of Dearborn, Michigan, and described its mayor as “fanatic” and “anti-Islam.”

The newspaper published the article on Friday entitled “Welcome to Dearborn, the jihad capital of America.”

The city's mayor and human rights advocates at the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee denounced this article as anti-Arab and racist because it suggests that city residents, including religious and political leaders, support the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and extremism.

Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud described the Wall Street Journal article, written by Steven Stalinsky, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, as “reckless, fanatical, and anti-Islam.”

“New procedures will be effective immediately,” the mayor said. “Dearborn Police will intensify their presence in all places of worship and major infrastructure sites.” “This is a direct result of an inflammatory opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that has led to an alarming increase in bigoted and anti-Islamic rhetoric on social media targeting the city of Dearborn.”

Biden, without mentioning the newspaper or the author of the article by name, said on the X platform that it is wrong to blame “a group of individuals based on the words of a very few of them.”

He added, "This is exactly what can lead to Islamophobia and Arab hatred. This should not happen to the residents of Dearborn or any (other) American city."

Dearborn is one of the American cities in which a majority of people of Arab origin live, as census figures show that about 54 percent of its population are Arab Americans.

The Islamic Center of America, Dearborn. 

Media review: Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times: What can we tell the children of Gaza?

Media review: Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times: What can we tell the children of Gaza?

    Sunday, February 04, 2024   No comments

Nicholas Kristof, in his column in the New York Times, started by the story of a 10-year-old girl in Gaza. Her father was an X-ray technician. She was smart and spoke English well. She was accepted into an international exchange program, and had to travel to Japan to meet... A bright future awaits her, but now she lies in a hospital bed with a severe wound to her thigh and part of her femur bone missing as a result of a bomb explosion.

Dr. Samer Al-Attar, the orthopedic surgeon who cared for the girl and told me about it, says Nicholas Kristof, says the girl needs to have her hip amputated to save her life, and her father is struggling to come to terms with how his life and the life of his daughter have collapsed.

Nicholas Kristof mentions that he covered many bloody wars, and wrote scathingly about how governments in Russia, Sudan, and Syria recklessly bombed civilians, but this time the matter is different, because “my government stands by what President Joe Biden referred to as indiscriminate bombing, and because I am this... "This time, I'm helping pay for the bombs as a taxpayer."

While the writer understands Israel's reaction, the military response is not just one of two options without a third. Israel chose to respond with bombs weighing about two thousand pounds, destroying entire neighborhoods, and allowing a small amount of aid to enter the region, which is now teetering on the brink of famine. The result is This does not appear to be a war against the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), but rather against the entire population of Gaza.

Nicholas Kristof wondered how Americans, with their conflicting views due to the war, could confront their friends from Gaza, pointing out that they might remain silent, or look away, instead of entering into a bitter and polarizing debate that might cost friendships, but “indifference is the most insidious danger.” Not at all,” says writer Elie Wiesel, who also said that “human suffering anywhere concerns men and women everywhere.”

The writer warned that the suffering of children - and half of Gaza's population is children - "should raise our particular concern," noting that estimates by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) indicate that there are at least 17,000 children in Gaza who are unaccompanied or separated from their families. In the midst of the chaos of war and displacement.

Some will blame all of this on Hamas, but - for Nicholas Kristof - this seems to be an evasion of moral responsibility, because Israel and America have the ability to act, and “the atrocities suffered by Israeli civilians” do not justify leveling Palestinian neighborhoods to the ground.

The writer wondered how Biden criticizes Russia for bombing civilians and undermining the rules-based international order, while he himself supplies Israel with bombs that wipe out neighborhoods in Gaza, and how he gives diplomatic cover to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when the residents of Gaza are facing famine, especially since he suspended funding for His country to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Refugees (UNRWA), which is responsible for providing assistance to them.

The writer concluded that decisions related to waging war are painful, because innocent civilians always suffer, stressing that a smart 10-year-old girl in Gaza is as valuable as the life of any American or Israeli child, “and therefore we Americans must bear responsibility.” “We are complicit in its tragedy and the tragedy of Gaza as a whole.

To date, the Ministry of Health in Gaza announced that 27,365 people were killed, more than 70% are children and women; 66,630 Palestinians were injured, since October 7.

The ministry added that the occupation army committed 14 massacres against families in the Gaza Strip, claiming 127 deaths and 178 injuries, during the past 24 hours.

A number of victims are still under rubble and on the roads, while the occupation army prevents ambulance and civil defense crews from reaching them..

As a global superpower, US foreign policy can sink presidential elections, Should Biden worry given his stance on Gaza war?

As a global superpower, US foreign policy can sink presidential elections, Should Biden worry given his stance on Gaza war?

    Saturday, February 03, 2024   No comments

A 1-2% segment of the population might be insignificant in national elections. In the US however, there is no national elections even for the president. A candidate must win elections in each state, and each state they would win will provide the candidate with electors needed to secure a win which is 270. 

This structure gives power to the so-called battleground states more than it give power to most populous states that tend to be reliably for one party or another. For these reasons, the presence of Muslim and Arab Americans in the swing state of Michigan is bringing attention to community there ahead of the 2024 presidential elections. This article sheds some light on the attention given to the Muslim and Arab communities and their allies.

Read the article...

 

Sam Altman of OpenAI: “I am Jewish… I see a lot of people in our industry sticking up for me... while that support for Muslims is comparatively lower"

Sam Altman of OpenAI: “I am Jewish… I see a lot of people in our industry sticking up for me... while that support for Muslims is comparatively lower"

    Saturday, January 06, 2024   No comments

 OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said Thursday that he felt members of the Muslim and Arab communities in the technology industry were uncomfortable talking about their recent experiences, in an apparent reference to the impact of the ongoing war in Gaza, according to a Reuters report.

“Muslim and Arab colleagues (particularly Palestinians) in the tech community I spoke with feel uneasy about their recent experiences, and often do not speak out out of fear of retaliation and harming their career prospects,” Altman wrote on the social media network X.

The prominent president of the company that developed ChatGPT, which is supported by Microsoft, urged: Urge technology makers to treat members of those communities with empathy.

One X user asked Altman how he felt about the experiences of the Jewish community and he responded: “I'm Jewish, and I think anti-Semitism is a big and growing problem in the world, and I see a lot of people in our industry supporting me, which I greatly appreciate, and I see much less of that for Muslims.”

A fatwa spurred the boycott of Israel's supporters in Indonesia

A fatwa spurred the boycott of Israel's supporters in Indonesia

    Tuesday, December 12, 2023   No comments

Solidarity marches in Indonesia, like other countries of the world, carry many messages that are reflected in the behavior of the solidarity activists, the most prominent of which is the boycott of companies related to Israel, or that have explicitly announced any forms of support or sympathy within Israel.

Over the past two months, the boycott has expanded remarkably in Indonesia, which has the largest Islamic market in the world, and whose population this year is estimated by the Indonesian Statistics Authority to reach 278.8 million people.

The boycott campaigns had not become evident among Indonesians, until the Indonesian Ulema Council last month issued Fatwa No. 83 of 2023, which became the jurisprudential basis for the boycott campaign among the public.

The fatwa - which came in 9 pages - requires that zakat and alms funds be directed to support the struggle of the Palestinian people to gain their independence in the face of Israeli aggression, and prohibits any support for Israel or any party that supports it, even by opinion or influence to buy products that support it, according to the text of the fatwa.

Supporting fatwas were also issued, including those issued by the Issues Research Committee of the Nahdatul Ulama Association in West Java, which saw the boycott as imposing kifaya in solidarity with the people of Gaza, and as weakening the economy of the occupation and those who have a relationship with it.

The Indonesian Ulema Council did not issue any lists of companies to boycott. More than one list of products that were called for to be boycotted was spread by activists and tweeters, and not by any official body or specific institution. The Secretary of the Fatwa Committee of the Indonesian Ulama Council, Miftah al-Huda, said that his council is not authorized to issue such Those lists.

Vice President of the People's Consultative Council, Dr. Hidayat Nur Wahid, supported the fatwa of the Indonesian Ulema Council, and suggested that legislation be passed to boycott Israeli products, in light of their committing crimes against the Palestinian people, to be a legal basis for the boycott, and to confirm Indonesia's position towards Palestine and the occupation.

Nour Waheed called for the establishment of a body concerned with this matter that would collect information and be an information reference for everything related to the boycott, and who should be boycotted based on the relationship with Israel and its aggression, and the activities of those companies inside the country.

Indonesian-based media outlet Republik reported on Saturday that Indonesian advocates are calling for a boycott of Israeli-linked products due to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. 

The call for a boycott was initially launched by human rights groups in both Indonesia and Malaysia and gradually grew to garner support from various political parties, the outlet said.

The list reportedly includes companies such as Coca-Cola, Starbucks, McDonalds, KFC, Nestle and IBM. 

"We in the House of Representatives encourage this boycott movement of Israeli products to become the official stance of the Indonesian government to be followed by all businesses and society," a member of the country’s parliament, Amin Ak, told Republika on Wednesday.

Advocates of the boycott are urging individuals to opt for locally-made products over Israeli-linked ones.

"That would be a good moment to strengthen the tightening of the flow of imported goods, especially imports of some products," said a senior official at the Indonesian Industry Ministry, Putu Juli Ardika.