Latest Articles

​يعرض التقرير أعمال الندوة الأكاديمية "مآلات الثورة السورية: ماذا جرى؟ ولماذا؟"، التي عقدت يومَي 7-8 نيسان/ أبريل 2018.

This paper highlights the mental and political changes that took place in Russian society after the fall of the Soviet Union. An examination of these changes is significant because it fills a gap in research that relies on original sources written by Russians in Russian. This shift is analyzed with particular focus on the Russian position in Syria following its Revolution, a position that surprised analysts. This surprise in itself is evidence that Russia, in relation to the Arab world, remains a mystery. In order to assess the decisions taken, a look into emerging political forces in Russia and their overall objectives seems necessary. These forces hold strong subjective power, and after the years of weaknesses after the collapse of the Soviet Union, forces in the country are again looking internationally. This study is an initial attempt to determine the general view of the intellectual and political shifts in Russia.

This study adopts a comparative approach to investigate the impact of the reciprocal fears of internal and external parties on the stances of key actors during the 2011 transitions. Apparently, the uncertainty that accompanies any democratic elections has not been a local factor in the Arab cases because regional and international forces have an interest in hindering democracy, being a potential threat to the status quo. The study examines four interrelated problems related to external factors. It concludes that the external factors that have hindered democracy in non-Arab cases were not inevitable because addressing them seems to have been related to changes in the international system and the emergence of domestic democratic blocs that are able to exert pressure on external forces and get them to change their positions.

Since the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and on through the presidents of the 20th century, the United States has talked about itself as the propagator, protector, and defender of democracy around the world. Yet America has never showed any qualms of forming military and political alliances with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The US justifies these international alliances on the basis that “not all dictatorships in the world are enemies of the United States, but all the United States’ enemies are dictatorships.” The US therefore adopted a two-track diplomacy: while working to spread democracy (directly or by means of international organizations and NGOs) the US has no issue in supporting autocratic governments when its interests are involved. How did US policy apply to the democratic transformation in the former Eastern bloc states in Europe on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently, when American values and interests went hand in hand, and how did it then apply to the Arab Spring of 2011, when US values and interests were congruent in some cases and out of sync in others, according to the situation in each country and its strategic importance from America’s perspective? What are the results of these policies and what differences emerge from such a comparison of the Arab and East Europe cases.

​This report documents key Palestinian events and incidents related to the Arab-Israeli conflict from May 1 to June 30, 2023.