RSS
Normalization with Saudi Arabia: A Distant Dream or a Dangerous Illusion?
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends the 45th Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Summit in Kuwait city, Kuwait, Dec. 1, 2024. Photo: Bandar Algaloud/Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court/Handout via REUTERS
The possibility of diplomatic normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel has been a topic of heated debate in recent years. As geopolitical dynamics shift, the question remains: is normalization an inevitable outcome of evolving Middle Eastern politics, or is it a deceptive illusion that could empower an authoritarian regime and strengthen extremist forces?
The prospect of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel has largely been driven by strategic calculations rather than ideological shifts. Saudi Arabia has historically positioned itself as a leader in the Arab and Islamic world, emphasizing the Palestinian cause as a central component of its foreign policy. However, with the emergence of new regional challenges, including Iran’s growing influence and the shifting role of the United States in the Middle East, Riyadh’s priorities have begun to change. But at what cost?
One of the key factors influencing Saudi-Israeli normalization is the kingdom’s relationship with the United States. The Trump administration has made it a priority to push for normalization, seeing it as a cornerstone of broader regional stability. However, Washington’s willingness to overlook Saudi Arabia’s human rights violations, its funding of radical Islamist groups, and its questionable role in regional conflicts should raise alarms. A US-brokered deal that rewards Saudi Arabia with security guarantees and advanced weaponry could further embolden its aggressive foreign policy, leading to more instability rather than peace.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has introduced sweeping economic and social reforms under the Vision 2030 initiative, aiming to transform Saudi Arabia into a global economic powerhouse. However, beneath the surface of these modernization efforts lies a deeply authoritarian regime that silences dissent, funds extremist ideologies worldwide, and continues to impose severe restrictions on human rights. Any normalization agreement that strengthens MBS’ grip on power risks exacerbating these problems rather than resolving them.
Despite potential economic benefits, the Palestinian issue remains a significant obstacle to normalization. Saudi Arabia has reiterated its commitment to the Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions normalization with Israel on the establishment of a Palestinian state with eastern Jerusalem as its capital. However, in practice, Riyadh’s stance appears increasingly performative, as the kingdom continues to maintain backdoor relations with Israel while failing to take meaningful action to support Palestinian self-determination. If Saudi Arabia ultimately normalizes relations without securing major concessions for Palestinians, it will expose its long-standing rhetoric as little more than empty posturing.
Another critical concern is Saudi Arabia’s long history of involvement with radical Islamist movements. While the kingdom has taken steps in recent years to distance itself from jihadist groups, its past funding of Wahhabi extremism and its questionable ties to groups like Hamas raise serious doubts about its commitment to regional stability. Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US and several other countries, has historically received support from Saudi-aligned entities. A normalization deal that fails to address these lingering connections could further empower militant factions and escalate violence.
Public sentiment in Saudi Arabia also plays a crucial role in the kingdom’s decision-making process. Unlike the UAE and Bahrain, where leadership-driven policies paved the way for normalization, Saudi Arabia’s deeply religious and conservative society presents a different challenge. Anti-Israel sentiment is still widespread, and many Saudis view normalization as a betrayal of Islamic principles. This raises the question: is MBS willing to risk domestic unrest to secure a deal that primarily serves his geopolitical ambitions?
The shifting role of the United States in the region is another variable to consider. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy — where alliances are dictated by economic deals rather than long-term strategic stability — raises concerns about the sustainability of any normalization agreement. Saudi Arabia, aware of US political volatility, has been hedging its bets by strengthening ties with China and Russia, signaling that its loyalty to Washington is far from guaranteed.
While normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel may seem like a step toward peace, it could, in reality, be a dangerous illusion. The geopolitical and economic incentives for both nations are clear, but the risks far outweigh the benefits. Strengthening an authoritarian regime with a track record of human rights abuses, fueling regional power struggles, and indirectly empowering jihadist groups are consequences that cannot be ignored. The future of Saudi-Israeli relations must be approached with extreme caution — failure to do so could turn a supposed diplomatic victory into a long-term security nightmare for the entire region.
Amine Ayoub, a Middle East Forum Fellow, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco.
The post Normalization with Saudi Arabia: A Distant Dream or a Dangerous Illusion? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Says No Interim Hostage Deal Possible Without Work Toward Permanent Ceasefire
Explosions send smoke into the air in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the border, July 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
The spokesperson for Hamas’s armed wing said on Friday that while the Palestinian terrorist group favors reaching an interim truce in the Gaza war, if such an agreement is not reached in current negotiations it could revert to insisting on a full package deal to end the conflict.
Hamas has previously offered to release all the hostages held in Gaza and conclude a permanent ceasefire agreement, and Israel has refused, Abu Ubaida added in a televised speech.
Arab mediators Qatar and Egypt, backed by the United States, have hosted more than 10 days of talks on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce in the war.
Israeli officials were not immediately available for comment on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on a call he had with Pope Leo on Friday that Israel‘s efforts to secure a hostage release deal and 60-day ceasefire “have so far not been reciprocated by Hamas.”
As part of the potential deal, 10 hostages held in Gaza would be returned along with the bodies of 18 others, spread out over 60 days. In exchange, Israel would release a number of detained Palestinians.
“If the enemy remains obstinate and evades this round as it has done every time before, we cannot guarantee a return to partial deals or the proposal of the 10 captives,” said Abu Ubaida.
Disputes remain over maps of Israeli army withdrawals, aid delivery mechanisms into Gaza, and guarantees that any eventual truce would lead to ending the war, said two Hamas officials who spoke to Reuters on Friday.
The officials said the talks have not reached a breakthrough on the issues under discussion.
Hamas says any agreement must lead to ending the war, while Netanyahu says the war will only end once Hamas is disarmed and its leaders expelled from Gaza.
Almost 1,650 Israelis and foreign nationals have been killed as a result of the conflict, including 1,200 killed in the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel, according to Israeli tallies. Over 250 hostages were kidnapped during Hamas’s Oct. 7 onslaught.
Israel responded with an ongoing military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
The post Hamas Says No Interim Hostage Deal Possible Without Work Toward Permanent Ceasefire first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Marks 31st Anniversary of AMIA Bombing by Slamming Argentina’s ‘Baseless’ Accusations, Blaming Israel
People hold images of the victims of the 1994 bombing attack on the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) community center, marking the 30th anniversary of the attack, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Irina Dambrauskas
Iran on Friday marked the 31st anniversary of the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires by slamming Argentina for what it called “baseless” accusations over Tehran’s alleged role in the terrorist attack and accusing Israel of politicizing the atrocity to influence the investigation and judicial process.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on the anniversary of Argentina’s deadliest terrorist attack, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.
“While completely rejecting the accusations against Iranian citizens, the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns attempts by certain Argentine factions to pressure the judiciary into issuing baseless charges and politically motivated rulings,” the statement read.
“Reaffirming that the charges against its citizens are unfounded, the Islamic Republic of Iran insists on restoring their reputation and calls for an end to this staged legal proceeding,” it continued.
Last month, a federal judge in Argentina ordered the trial in absentia of 10 Iranian and Lebanese nationals suspected of orchestrating the attack in Buenos Aires.
The ten suspects set to stand trial include former Iranian and Lebanese ministers and diplomats, all of whom are subject to international arrest warrants issued by Argentina for their alleged roles in the terrorist attack.
In its statement on Friday, Iran also accused Israel of influencing the investigation to advance a political campaign against the Islamist regime in Tehran, claiming the case has been used to serve Israeli interests and hinder efforts to uncover the truth.
“From the outset, elements and entities linked to the Zionist regime [Israel] exploited this suspicious explosion, pushing the investigation down a false and misleading path, among whose consequences was to disrupt the long‑standing relations between the people of Iran and Argentina,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said.
“Clear, undeniable evidence now shows the Zionist regime and its affiliates exerting influence on the Argentine judiciary to frame Iranian nationals,” the statement continued.
In April, lead prosecutor Sebastián Basso — who took over the case after the 2015 murder of his predecessor, Alberto Nisman — requested that federal Judge Daniel Rafecas issue national and international arrest warrants for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over his alleged involvement in the attack.
Since 2006, Argentine authorities have sought the arrest of eight Iranians — including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who died in 2017 — yet more than three decades after the deadly bombing, all suspects remain still at large.
In a post on X, the Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations (DAIA), the country’s Jewish umbrella organization, released a statement commemorating the 31st anniversary of the bombing.
“It was a brutal attack on Argentina, its democracy, and its rule of law,” the group said. “At DAIA, we continue to demand truth and justice — because impunity is painful, and memory is a commitment to both the present and the future.”
31 años del atentado a la AMIA – DAIA. 31 años sin justicia.
El 18 de julio de 1994, un atentado terrorista dejó 85 personas muertas y más de 300 heridas. Fue un ataque brutal contra la Argentina, su democracia y su Estado de derecho.
Desde la DAIA, seguimos exigiendo verdad y… pic.twitter.com/kV2ReGNTIk
— DAIA (@DAIAArgentina) July 18, 2025
Despite Argentina’s longstanding belief that Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah terrorist group carried out the devastating attack at Iran’s request, the 1994 bombing has never been claimed or officially solved.
Meanwhile, Tehran has consistently denied any involvement and refused to arrest or extradite any suspects.
To this day, the decades-long investigation into the terrorist attack has been plagued by allegations of witness tampering, evidence manipulation, cover-ups, and annulled trials.
In 2006, former prosecutor Nisman formally charged Iran for orchestrating the attack and Hezbollah for carrying it out.
Nine years later, he accused former Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner — currently under house arrest on corruption charges — of attempting to cover up the crime and block efforts to extradite the suspects behind the AMIA atrocity in return for Iranian oil.
Nisman was killed later that year, and to this day, both his case and murder remain unresolved and under ongoing investigation.
The alleged cover-up was reportedly formalized through the memorandum of understanding signed in 2013 between Kirchner’s government and Iranian authorities, with the stated goal of cooperating to investigate the AMIA bombing.
The post Iran Marks 31st Anniversary of AMIA Bombing by Slamming Argentina’s ‘Baseless’ Accusations, Blaming Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jordan Reveals Muslim Brotherhood Operating Vast Illegal Funding Network Tied to Gaza Donations, Political Campaigns
Murad Adailah, the head of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, attends an interview with Reuters in Amman, Jordan, Sept. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Jehad Shelbak
The Muslim Brotherhood, one of the Arab world’s oldest and most influential Islamist movements, has been implicated in a wide-ranging network of illegal financial activities in Jordan and abroad, according to a new investigative report.
Investigations conducted by Jordanian authorities — along with evidence gathered from seized materials — revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood raised tens of millions of Jordanian dinars through various illegal activities, the Jordan news agency (Petra) reported this week.
With operations intensifying over the past eight years, the report showed that the group’s complex financial network was funded through various sources, including illegal donations, profits from investments in Jordan and abroad, and monthly fees paid by members inside and outside the country.
The report also indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken advantage of the war in Gaza to raise donations illegally.
Out of all donations meant for Gaza, the group provided no information on where the funds came from, how much was collected, or how they were distributed, and failed to work with any international or relief organizations to manage the transfers properly.
Rather, the investigations revealed that the Islamist network used illicit financial mechanisms to transfer funds abroad.
According to Jordanian authorities, the group gathered more than JD 30 million (around $42 million) over recent years.
With funds transferred to several Arab, regional, and foreign countries, part of the money was allegedly used to finance domestic political campaigns in 2024, as well as illegal activities and cells.
In April, Jordan outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s most vocal opposition group, and confiscated its assets after members of the Islamist movement were found to be linked to a sabotage plot.
The movement’s political arm in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front, became the largest political grouping in parliament after elections last September, although most seats are still held by supporters of the government.
Opponents of the group, which is banned in most Arab countries, label it a terrorist organization. However, the movement claims it renounced violence decades ago and now promotes its Islamist agenda through peaceful means.
The post Jordan Reveals Muslim Brotherhood Operating Vast Illegal Funding Network Tied to Gaza Donations, Political Campaigns first appeared on Algemeiner.com.