Latest Articles

ﺗﺮﺻﺪ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﻓﻮﺿﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ إﻃﺎر ﺻﺮاع اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻤﺔ واﻟﺒﻴﺖ اﺑﻴﺾ. وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻧﺤﻴﺎز اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ دوﻧﺎﻟﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ إﻟﻰ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر ارﺑﻊ ﺿﺪ ﻗﻄﺮ، وﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﻤﺮار ﻧﻬﺠﻬﺎ وﻋﺮﻗﻠﺔ ﺟﻬﺪ اﻟﻮﺳﺎﻃﺔ، ﻓﺈن اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻤﺔ - ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ ﺳﻌﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق ا وﺳﻂ، وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًا اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ - ﻛﺎن ﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻠﻤﻮس ﻓﻲ ا زﻣﺔ؛ ﻓﻘﺪ اﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺼﺮﻳﺤﺎت واﺟﺮاءات أﺣﻴﺎﻧ ﺎ اﺳﺘﻌﺎدة زﻣﺎم اﻟﻤﺒﺎدرة وﻣﻨﻊ ﺗﺪﻫﻮر اوﺿﺎع ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ أو ﻣﻨﻊ اﻻﺗ ﺠﺎه ﻧﺤﻮ ﺳﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮﻫﺎت ﺗﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳّﺔ. وﺗﺨﻠﺺ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ إﻟﻰ أن ﻓﻮﺿﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻮد إﻟﻰ ﻓﻘﺪان اﻟﺮؤﻳﺔ اﻟﻮاﺿﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ؛ اﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻀﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ أﻣﺎم ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺎت ﺟﺴﺎم، ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺪم ﻛﻔﺎءة اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ، واﺳﺘﻨﺎده إﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﻮﻏﱢﺎت أﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ، ﻓﻀﻠ ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺎت، وﺧﺼﻮﻣﺎت ﺷﺨﺼﻴّﺔ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، ﺣﺼﺎر ﻗﻄﺮ، ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ. This paper traces the evolution of the official stance of the US establishment, including the White House, towards the 2017 intra-Gulf crisis. While the president's seeming bias in favor of the four countries leading the blockade on Qatar served to make them more intransigent and less amenable to various attempts at mediation, other organs of the US establishment were quick to move to try to contain the excesses of statements made by Trump and limit the fallout of the crisis. The author concludes that the disarray in the American approach to the Gulf crisis is a reflection of the lack of a clear vision of what US foreign policy ought to be under the Trump presidency. Coupled with the inexperience of President Trump, his personal vendettas and his reliance on ideological gimmicks, this reality foretells huge challenges for US interests around the world.

This paper will examine the situation which can be described as the “Blockade of Qatar”, and particularly the legal ramifications of this blockade and the avenues of action available through international law channels and intra-state apparatus. The paper is premised on the argument that the deliberate, multilateral actions taken by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt against Qatar are not only punitive, but also represent a violation of the principles of international law and of the foundations for the relations between states in times of crisis. Given the use of force to enforce the blockade, the political and economic boycott of Qatar by a group of countries in the region could be legally defined as punitive measures. This paper concludes that the actions taken by the group of countries blockading Qatar provide an adequate basis for the activation of international mechanisms for international arbitration. Specifically, the author contends that Qatar would be justified in pursuing political and judicial redress against the group of countries concerned.

India adopts a cautious policy towards the GCC states during the emergence of differences between them, such as the Gulf crisis of 2017 - 2021. This stems from many considerations: First, the principle of non-alignment. Despite Narendra Modi's government focus on proactive diplomacy and engagement abroad, it has reverted to the principle of non-alignment and neutrality in dealing with the crisis. Second, the special relationship with the GCC states. Given the depth of historical interdependence, geographic proximity and intertwining of economic interests, these states are India's most important trading partner and are home to the largest overseas Indian community. Third, the roles of other countries. Because the competing countries such as China and Pakistan have remained neutral, this has encouraged India not to take an active role in solving the conflict. United States' key role in mediation encouraged New Delhi to remain neutral, taking advantage of Washington's efforts and its influence in securing energy routes. Nevertheless, India has taken an active role in providing Qatar with essential needs and food products during the crisis.

ﺗﺸﻬﺪ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ ﻣﻨﺬ أواﺧﺮ أﻳﺎر/ ﻣﺎﻳﻮ 2017 أزﻣﺔ دﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ دول ﻣﺠﻠﺲ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻲ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ، ﻫﻲ ا ﻛﺜﺮ ﺣﺪةً ﻣﻨﺬ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ ﻋﺎم 1981. ﺑﺪأت ا زﻣﺔ ﺑﺤﻤﻠﺔ إﻋﻼﻣﻴّﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ دوﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ، ﻗﺎدﺗﻬﺎ وﺳﺎﺋﻞ إﻋﻼم ﺳﻌﻮدﻳﺔ وإﻣﺎراﺗﻴﺔ. وﺑﺨﻼف أزﻣﺔ ﺳﺤﺐ اﻟﺴﻔﺮاء ﻋﺎم 2014، أﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺛﻼث دول ﺧﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، واﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﻦ، واﻣﺎرات ﻣﻊ ﻣﺼﺮ، ﻓﻲ اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺰﻳﺮان/ ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ 2017، ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻄﻊ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ وﻓﺮض ﺣﺼﺎر ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻄﺮ ﺛﻢ ﺳﻠ ﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ، وأﻣﻬﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﺸﺮة أﻳﺎم ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ أو ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﺔ ﺳﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮﻫﺎت ﺗﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳﺔ. وﻓﻲ اﻃﺎر ﻧﻔﺴﻪ، ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪول إﻟﻰ ﻋﺰل ﻗﻄﺮ دﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴًﺎ وﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺒﺎرﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻀﻮع، ﻏﻴﺮ أنّ اﻟﻘﻮى اﻟﻜﺒﺮى ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻠﺖ ﺑﻤﺴﺆوﻟﻴﺔ أﻛﺒﺮ ﺗﺠﺎه ازﻣﺔ، وﺑﺪأت ﺗﻘﻮم ﺑﺪور اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺘﻬﺎ. ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺬور ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ وﻣﺴﺎراﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺮﺟﺔ ﺑﺤﻜﻢ ﺗﺪاﺧﻞ أدوار ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﻦ اﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﻦ واﻟﺪوﻟﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، ﺣﺼﺎر ﻗﻄﺮ، ﻣﺠﻠﺲ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻲ. Since late May 2017, the Gulf region has been witness to the most intense diplomatic crisis since the formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council in 1981. Tis paper attempts to highlight the roots of the present-day Gulf crisis and explore the potential, complicated outcomes, taking in the roles of various regional and global players. Te crisis begun with a vicious smear campaign against Qatar and led by Saudi- and Emirati-state owned media. In contrast to the 2014 diplomatic rif in which the Ambassadors of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain were withdrawn from Doha, this latest crisis also included a complete severing of diplomatic ties on the part of the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in addition to Egypt.To this was later added a complete blockade of Qatar by air, sea and land. Te countries leading the siege on Doha later presented a ten-point ultimatum to Qatar to fulfill within 10 days. A further attempt by the countries leading the blockade to isolate Qatar on the world stage failed, however, as leading world powers opted to play a more constructive role and mediate an end to the crisis.

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدات اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﺔ ﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ ﺛﻼث دول ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ؛ ﻫﻲ اﻟﺴﻮدان واﻟﻤﻐﺮب واﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺮاﻫﻨﺔ. وﻟﻢ ﻳﺄت اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪول ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدﻓﺔ، ﺑﻞ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ؛ أﺑﺮزﻫﺎ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ واﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰة ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ازﻣﺔ، وﺳﻌﻲ اﻟﺪول ارﺑﻊ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﺻِ ﺮة ﻻﺟﺘﺬاﺑﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺻﻔﻬﺎ، ﺿﻤﻦ ﻧﻬﺞ دﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﺎدﺗﻪ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﻳﺮﻣﻲ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺰل دوﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ ﻋﺮﺑﻴًﺎ ﺗﻤﻬﻴﺪًا ﻟﻌﺰﻟﻬﺎ دوﻟﻴًﺎ. وﻣﺎ أﻋﻄﻰ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻧﺎ أﻫﻤﻴﺔ، رﻓﺾ اﻟﺪول اﻟﺜﻼث، ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻏﺮاءات واﻟﻀﻐﻮط، ﻣﺴﺎﻳﺮةَ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر ﻓﻲ ﺧﻄﻮاﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺿﺪ ﻗﻄﺮ، واﺗﺨﺬت اﻟﺤﻴﺎد اﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﺪاﻋﻲ إﻟﻰ ﺣﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮق اﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ، ﻣﻦ دون اﻟﻠﺠﻮء إﻟﻰ آﻟﻴﺎت ﺗﻌﺴﻔﻴﺔ، ﻛﻨﻬﺞ اﻟﺤﺼﺎر اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ واﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدي اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻊ ﺣﺎﻟﻴًﺎ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، اﻟﺴﻮدان، اﻟﻤﻐﺮب، اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، أرض اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل. This paper explores the positions of three Arab states: Morocco, Sudan and Somalia towards the present crisis in intra-Gulf relations. The choice of these three Arab countries in Africa was deliberate, a result of the strong bilateral bonds which tie each of them to Qatar, a party to the conflict. It is also true that the countries presently leading a blockade on Qatar, led by Saudi Arabia, sought to coerce these three countries to similarly cut off ties with Qatar, part of an effort to isolate Doha on the Arab regional stage before seeking to isolate the country globally. More importantly, each of these three countries opted to pursue a path of "positive impartiality", remaining firm in the face of financial and political inducements from the countries leading the blockade on Qatar to join their effort.

​In this section you will find the most important documents on democratic change in the Arab world. In this issue, we publish documents highlighting the political movement in Tunisia demanding democracy and look at the main political changes in Sudan, Iraq and Jordan in March and April 2022.

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.

ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺶ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ "اﻟﺰام" ﺑﻤﻘﺮرات اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮك ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﻌﻴﺪ ا ﻣﻨﻲ، زاﻋﻤﺔ أن اﻃﺮ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﻜﺎﻓﺤﺔ ارﻫﺎب ﻣﺎ زاﻟﺖ ﻫﻲ اﺟﺪر وا ﻗﺪر ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺠﺎوز اﻟﺨﻼﻓﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬا اﻟﻨﻮع اﻟﺬي ﺿﺮب اﻟﺴﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻣﺆﺧﺮًا وأﻓﻀﻰ إﻟﻰ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﺾ ﻗﻄﺮ ﻟﺤﺼﺎر دول ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ أرﺑﻊ، ﻗﻔﺰت ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬه اﻃﺮ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ، وﻃﺮﺣﺖ اﺳﺘﺒﺪاﻟﻪ ﺑﺄﻃﺮ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة، أو اﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎء أﺳﺎﻧﻴﺪ ﻣﻠﻔﻘﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺢ اﻟﻤﺸﺮوﻋﻴﺔ ﺟﺮاءات اﻟﺤﺼﺎر. وﺗﺤﺎﺟﺞ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﺑﺄن اﻃﺮ اﻟﺠﺰﺋﻴﺔ اﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ واﻟﺮﺑﺎﻋﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ اﺳﺘﺤﺪﺛﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﺎق ازﻣﺔ، ﺳﻮاء اﺿﻄﺮارًا ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ، ﺑﺘﻮﻗﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻣﺬﻛﺮة ﺗﻔﺎﻫﻢ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ ﺣﻮل ﺗﻤﻮﻳﻞ ارﻫﺎب؛ أو اﻧﺘﻬﺎزًا ﻟﻔﺮص اﻻﺑﺘﺰاز اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر، ﻟﻦ ﺗﻐﻨﻲ ﺑﺤﺎل ﻋﻦ اﻃﺮ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﻮم ﻋﻠﻰ أﺳﺎس إﻟﺰام واﻟﺘﺰام، ﻋﻠﻰ وﻓﻖ ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ ﺗﺤﺘﺮم ﺳﻴﺎدة اﻟﺪول وﺗﺤﻔﺰﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪ ﺟﺴﻮر اﻟﺘﻌﺎون. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺤﺔ ارﻫﺎب، ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺪول اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ، ﻗﻄﺮ. This paper explores the question of adherence to commitments to joint Arab action, particularly in the security realm. The author contends that Arab cooperative frameworks for the combatting of terrorism remain the most relevant and potent force to overcome intra-Arab rivalries of the type which have most recently led a group of four Arab countries to blockade Qatar. The author further contends that piecemeal or separate bi-lateral frameworks, or even multi-lateral agreements between a number of actors—such as were in evidence during the latest Gulf Crisis—will never be a replacement for collective Arab action on these points. Such collective Arab action must be based on foundations of mutual commitment and respect for the sovereignty of the individual countries, incentivizing them to build channels of cooperation.

The Gulf Crises and Blockade of Qatar: Economic, Legal and Political Perspective

Collective Security in the Arab League: Realistic and Structural Theories