Latest Articles

​This report chronicles some of the most significant developments relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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.

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 study deals with the war of aggression launched by Israel against the Gaza Strip at dawn on July 8, 2014. The war lasted for 50 days, during which the Israeli army committed a series of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinian civilians, killing around 2,150 people and injuring 10,870. Thousands of homes were destroyed and around 400,000 Palestinians were made homeless. The paper gives an overview of the background to the assault, its stated and unstated goals, and the means adopted by Israel to achieve these goals, which basically meant the commission of successive massacres against Palestinian civilians. The paper considers the decision making process in the cabinet committee for security affairs (the Israeli security cabinet) and the debates and disagreements that occurred concerning the war aims and the means to achieve them. It also casts light on Israel’s fears concerning the formation of an international commission of inquiry, and on the economic losses to Israel caused by the war. Finally, it looks at the effect of the war for the future of Benjamin Netanyahu on the Israeli political party map.

The Syrian regime opted to hold presidential elections on June 3, 2014. It did this in spite of the dire social catastrophe and sharp political crisis which the country has faced since March of 2011. The race was contended by three candidates, including incumbent president Bashar Al Assad.

This article aims to contribute to the academic debate underway over the concepts of political modernity and modernization, and in particular to address the theories and theses that deal with the problematic in terms of its epistemological premises and foundations. There is then a focus on the main contributions of the various schools of political science while evoking the complexity inherent in the subject and the overlap between the field of philosophy and political theory in this area. The justification for this choice is not limited to the nature of the topic and developments under the influence of the assumptions of western liberalism that represent the various contemporary schools of political science, but transcends this to include the variety of historically successful experiences, and how social values represent the avenue for raising conceptual problems and constructing new problems for the political power that is the custodian of the historical experience of those societies.

This report chronicles some of the most significant developments relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The revolutions in the MENA region were accompanied by many political shifts. These, in turn, led to what might be called primary outcomes; produced before the revolutions have come to an end. These outcomes came as the result of an absence of leaders once described as historical and eternal, and to the leadership of opposing political forces in some of MENA countries. These forces, as the shifts and struggles in the nations of the region continue, are leading political decisions in the wake of the fall of the dictators that seem to enforce marginalization and exclusion. However, these fateful shifts were not the only path available, as seen in the region’s history. Morocco is one example of a country that faced a different political reality, with many observers noting that the monarchy in Morocco- contrary to what some circles expected- became stronger after the Arab Spring.

International alliances, cooperation, and coordination are no longer limited to state bodies or international organizations; criminal and terrorist groups working in organized crime have also formed international networks in order to develop activities, implement plans, and achieve objectives. Despite the differences in structure and purpose between terrorist networks and criminal groups, converging interests have led to cooperation and mutual coordination. This increases the strength of both and makes it hard for authorities to control and define them. North Africa is a living example of these alliances, particularly around drug trafficking given the geographic characteristics of the region that spans Asia, Africa, and Europe. This means North Africa is a key route for drugs smuggled from around the world to Europe in particular. It is also a strategic region for terrorist groups, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in particular. With drug networks in need of protection to secure safe passage of goods, and terrorist groups’ need for sufficient funds to finance and implement plans; the region has witnessed a dangerous alliance between the two parties. This alliance has created a major challenge for countries in the region, which have been forced to confront a double threat. This treat necessitates the development of new strategies.

Developments in the international system have led to a diminishing role of nations within international affairs.