Latest Articles

This study distinguishes between three Interrelated theoretical approaches prevalent in writings of researchers seeking to understand the emergence of the Islamic Resistance Movement, "Hamas". The first of these approaches examines the movement from the portal of ideology, stressing the importance of international and regional dimensions and the rise of political Islam after the "setback" (Naksa) of the 1967 Six Day War. The second approaches Hamas as representing a social movement seeking to revisit the historical narrative of Palestinian society. The third considers it to be the heir of the Palestinian national liberation movement, attributing its rise to transformations witnessed in Palestinian identity and the Palestinian community's definition of itself. Although the three readings do not contradict each other, a focus on one of them can lead to oversimplification or exaggeration: emphasis on the first approach is at risk of overlooking transformations in the movement in its later stages and a marginalization at the micro level of local dimensions; emphasis on the second approach can result in the overestimation of the effectiveness of collective action; exaggerated emphasis on the third approach deprives social actors of their effectiveness. Hence this study proposes situating Hamas in the ​intersection of these three approaches.

This article discusses the nuclear program agreement reached between the P5+1 group of nations and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The article sees the agreement as a historic achievement that may well have major effects in the region. The paper deals with the main features of the agreement and the circumstances that led to it, and enumerates its likely effects on the region and especially on the Palestine-Israel conflict, as well as Israel’s frustration with the Iranian nuclear program and its threats to strike it. The paper puts forth the possibility that the agreement will lead to positive results and cause stability in the region and lead to real improvement in Iranian-Gulf relations, particularly with Saudi Arabia, as well as resolve the problems of Shia minorities in some Gulf states.

This study aims to define the interests and goals of the United States in the Arab region by answering two main questions: how does the Obama administration differ from its predecessors in view of its promises of change, particularly following the tragic transformations raging in the Arab region at present? And to what extent does the strategy of this administration reflect its public diplomacy regarding democracy, freedom, and justice in the region? The study explains how Obama raised the ceiling of expectations when he did not limit his promises to a change in American policy only, but included putting an end to the mentality that had pushed the United States into war. Despite the difference in style and method between the Obama and Bush Junior administrations, the overall goals and the regional strategy can be summarized in terms of three key interests: the priority of ensuring free access to energy supplies in the region; maintaining American supremacy over all other global powers; and the containment of all Arab objections to ensure the dominance of the US strategic agenda in the Arab region, including the guarantee of Israel's security.

​Arab narratives of the June, 1967 War remained limited in scope even today, 50 years after the cessation of hostilities. “The June, 1967 War” was held in Doha, Qatar from June 20-22, 2017, the three-day meeting was devoted to studying the events of the war and its ongoing repercussions through the prisms of military history and strategic analysis.

​عنوان الكتاب الأول بلغته الأصلية: The End of American World Order. عنوان الكتاب: نهاية النظام العالمي الأميركي. المؤلف: أميتاف أشاريا Amitav Acharya. دار النشر: Polity. سنة النشر: 2018. عدد الصفحات: 138. عنوان الكتاب الثاني بلغته الأصلية: Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. عنوان الكتاب: اللفياثان الليبرالي: أصول وأزمة وتحول النظام العالمي الأميركي. المؤلف: جون إكنبري Gilford John Ikenberry. دار النشر: Princeton University Press. سنة النشر: 2011. عدد الصفحات: 372.

​Settlement and occupation of Arab lands constitute paramount values in Zionist ideology and are highly important in the politics of all Zionist currents, be they secular, religious, leftist or rightist. Settlement in the West Bank and the occupied Eastern Jerusalem is a constant central colonial policy through which Israel seeks to achieve what it failed to do in the 1948 war, that is control the largest surface area of lands accommodating the least number of Arab-Palestinian citizens. As soon as Israel occupied the remaining Palestinian territories in the six-day war in June 1967, it started building settlements. Since 1967, Israel has gradually developed its colonial settlement project in the occupied Palestinian territories. This paper examines the stalling policy that Israel is adopting by using double standards: it caves to international pressures at times, while it expedites its settlement pace at other times.

How is International Relations (IR) taught in the Arab World? What happens to what was once labelled an 'American Social Science' when it enters classrooms in the Arab world and is taught in Arabic? Despite the predominance of Western approaches and theories on the teaching of IR in the Arab World, there is tension between the need to train students in the classical theories as a prerequisite for knowledge production, and the need to adapt them to various political, social, and economic contexts across the globe. This study examines the different approaches to how IR is taught in Arab universities, and how Western theories are considered critically by the teaching of alternative approaches. The paper argues that the different approaches to teaching IR are more versatile theoretically than the range of published papers in leading academic journals in the West. As such, they may prove to be the starting point for new forms of knowledge production that better reflect the realities of international relations in the Arab world.

This study aims to define the interests and goals of the United States in the Arab region by answering two main questions: how does the Obama administration differ from its predecessors in view of its promises of change, particularly following the tragic transformations raging in the Arab region at present? And to what extent does the strategy of this administration reflect its public diplomacy regarding democracy, freedom, and justice in the region? The study explains how Obama raised the ceiling of expectations when he did not limit his promises to a change in American policy only, but included putting an end to the mentality that had pushed the United States into war. Despite the difference in style and method between the Obama and Bush Junior administrations, the overall goals and the regional strategy can be summarized in terms of three key interests: the priority of ensuring free access to energy supplies in the region; maintaining American supremacy over all other global powers; and the containment of all Arab objections to ensure the dominance of the US strategic agenda in the Arab region, including the guarantee of Israel's security.

Qatar is on a path to ever widening global production and trade, its networks today including the entire global market. This paper discusses how the economy is no longer governed by the system of the nation-state alone, as new types of actors in the economic field appear. The private sector has gained the primary role in fields of production, marketing, and global competition, causing some theorists to say that globalization has put the state’s role in the shadow of globalization, predicting an end to the state. Others, however, say that though it has removed restrictions and barriers on the flow of goods, capital, labor, values ​​and cultures, globalization does not toll the demise of the role of the state as much as it promotes the role of national authority in the management of economic, social, civil, cultural, and scientific activities. The general global trend toward the international reality of gradual global institutionalization allows the overcoming of barriers and other enormous challenges that lie ahead. This study discusses a number of issues related to globalization and the opening of old borders, it reviews the trend toward institutionalization of international action on issues such as terrorism, war, and environmental crimes, as international law has taken a step forward to develop mechanisms of judicial action

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.