作者： admin

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has revealed that Syria and Israel are engaged in advanced security discussions, though any potential agreement will not mirror the normalization seen in the Abraham Accords. Speaking at an event alongside former CIA director David Petraeus during the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Sharaa emphasized the complexities of Syria’s relationship with Israel, citing historical grievances and regional anger over the Gaza conflict. Sharaa’s visit marks the first time a Syrian leader has attended the UN General Assembly since 1967, underscoring the significance of his presence. Despite the ongoing talks, Sharaa dismissed the possibility of Syria joining the Abraham Accords, highlighting Syria’s unique position as a neighboring country subjected to over 1,000 Israeli military actions. He also expressed skepticism about Israel’s intentions, referencing its past violations of peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. The discussions, mediated by US envoy Tom Barrack, aim to address Israel’s security concerns while preserving Syria’s sovereignty. However, Sharaa’s government faces internal challenges, including tensions with Druze militias and efforts to integrate the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) into the national military. Sharaa’s broader objectives include lobbying for the complete lifting of US sanctions on Syria, a move initiated by former President Donald Trump but still partially in place due to congressional mandates. As Sharaa prepares to address the UN Assembly, his administration’s ability to protect minority groups and navigate regional alliances remains under scrutiny.

In a significant geopolitical development, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif inked a landmark strategic mutual defense agreement last week in Riyadh. The pact, described as an “institutionalization of long-standing and deep cooperation” by a senior Saudi official, has stirred considerable debate, particularly in India, which views the agreement as a potential threat to its national security. The agreement stipulates that “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both,” a clause that has unsettled Indian analysts. Brahma Chellaney, an Indian strategist, argued that the pact reflects Saudi Arabia’s ambitions rather than Pakistan’s strength, binding a “chronically dependent” partner to gain manpower and nuclear “insurance.” Former Indian foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal labeled the agreement a “grave misstep,” warning of its implications for India’s security. While India’s government has adopted a cautious stance, stating it will study the pact’s implications, the move has reignited tensions between India and Pakistan, who have a history of conflicts, particularly over Kashmir. Some analysts, however, downplay the immediate risks, noting Saudi Arabia’s extensive economic ties with India, its second-largest trading partner. Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, suggested that the pact does not directly hinder India but embeds Pakistan in the Middle East’s security architecture, leaving India facing a coalition of Pakistan, China, Turkey, and now Saudi Arabia. Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador, warned that the pact could position Saudi Arabia as a Cold War-style patron for Pakistan, bolstering its military capabilities against India. The agreement also signals Saudi Arabia’s broader strategic shift, diversifying its security partnerships amid declining faith in the US security umbrella. Ahmed Aboudouh of Chatham House noted that the pact is more about signaling intent than battlefield commitments, reflecting Saudi Arabia’s perception of threats from both Iran and Israel. For India, the pact’s broader geopolitical implications could complicate its ‘Look West’ strategy, potentially hardening into an “Islamic Nato” that challenges its trade and investment interests in the Gulf. While the immediate security threat to India remains unclear, the pact has undoubtedly reshaped regional alignments, leaving Delhi to recalibrate its diplomatic and strategic approach.

Over a century after the Balfour Declaration endorsed the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the United Kingdom, alongside Canada, Australia, and Portugal, officially recognized a Palestinian state on Sunday. France is anticipated to follow suit shortly. This historic decision has ignited fierce backlash from the Israeli government, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowing to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and promising a response upon his return from the United States. Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer labeled the move as a “betrayal” by the UK Labour Party, stating that the Jewish community would not forgive them. The announcement has sparked a polarized response on social media, with some dismissing it as “performative recognition” that fails to address the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the annexation of the West Bank. Palestinian writer Yara Hawari criticized the gesture as a symbolic shield for Israel’s war crimes, while others highlighted the continued arms exports to Israel by the UK, Canada, and Australia. Palestinian journalist Abubaker Abed emphasized that recognition would be meaningless without concrete actions to end the genocide, secure the right of return, and release Palestinian hostages. Despite some hailing the move as a victory for the Palestinian cause, many in the occupied West Bank expressed skepticism, noting that daily settler attacks and Israeli raids persist. Decolonial scholar Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui viewed the recognition as a symbolic acknowledgment of Israel’s inevitable decline, while former PLO politician Hanan Ashrawi urged that the gesture not be underestimated, calling for punitive measures against Israel to stop the genocide.