#core emirates

[estellamila]

Odyssey diye bir klasörüm var bilgisayarda arada oraya bir şeyler yazıyorum. Bugün de yazdım skfksks şu kısma sonradan çok güldüm siz de halime gülebilin diye buraya da atıcam çünkü kim beni durdurabilir skckskds

"Benim bu evde daha fazla sağlıklı bir şekilde kalmam imkânsız gibi görünüyor ne fiziken ne de ruhen. Bu evde mi yoksa bu hayatta mı diye düşünmeden edemiyorum, çünkü nereye gittiysem tam olarak mutlu olamadım, belki benim kaderimi yazan kutsal varlık mutluluk kelimesini unutmuştur, ben o kutsal varlığın da aq. Her şeyin ve herkesin aq, kendim de dahil olmak üzere. Akademinin de iş hayatının da aq. Bitkiler ve kediler siz güvendesiniz bana azıcık da olsa mutluluk verebilen, hayatın geri kalanını unutturan bir siz kaldınız zaten."

[southstand]

something i’ve seen frequently in football circles especially with the rise of social media (where ppl engage with the sport in absolutely bizarre ways but that’s another topic for another day) is this longstanding obsession with ‘(winning) mentality.’ how is it quantified? how do you prove its existence? how consistent must it be for a club to acquire this ‘mentality?’ it’s just bonkers to me because you’d assume that every club and every fanbase would want to win, just some a) have better resources to do so or b) some overperform/underperform as is the case with any sport which leads to drawing some kind of conclusions about this ‘mentality’ or c) some fanbases just have a better time rationalising a potential loss within the external factors which of course also leads to drawing conclusions about this ‘mentality.’ i guess my problem with it is just that it’s become such a buzzword where teams get either praised or insulted for their mentality when it’s so subjective and influenced by other factors too (doing well, doing badly, general trajectory of the club, personal satisfaction with individual achievements, media opinion, etc).

[urbanknightart]

The Sacred Disease

Emir's second core derangement, next to hearing the voice of God. His seizures are triggered by broken glass (both the sound and the sight).

Not ideal when a Gargoyle just broke through your Church window after mauling your chest open.

[nordholm]

Achieving Financial Success with the Best Accounting Firm in Dubai

Your Ultimate Choice for Unmatched Accounting Services in Dubai. As the premier Best Accounting firm in Dubai, we specialize in Business Establishment Solutions, meticulously guiding you through regulations for seamless company formation, ensuring compliance, and maximizing efficiency. Our proficiency extends to Streamlined Visa Processes, simplifying visa procedures and facilitating swift entry into the vibrant UAE market. Moreover, we excel in crafting Efficient Banking Solutions, expediting prompt and hassle-free bank account setups, enhancing the fluidity of your financial operations.

At Nordholm, our forte lies in HR and Payroll Management Excellence, guaranteeing precision in handling human resources and payroll to sustain seamless operations. Additionally, we are experts in VAT Compliance and Financial Precision, delivering accurate accounting services and meticulous VAT compliance management, freeing your focus for core business strategies.

Recognizing the pivotal role of precise accounting in fostering enduring business development, our seasoned team at the Accounting firm in Dubai is dedicated to empowering your journey. We seamlessly harmonize sustainability and reliability, offering expert insights and strategic approaches that empower informed decisions, unveiling new opportunities for your business growth.

Mastering a complicated regulatory web can be tricky, especially in the United Arab Emirates. However, enjoy stress-free business operations with our assistance. Our experience guarantees a smooth journey, freeing you up to focus on ambitiously growing your company's reach.

Choose Nordholm, the unrivaled Best Accounting firm in Dubai, for tailored services committed to your business's triumphs. Our bespoke top-tier services guarantee precise financial reporting and operational efficiency, aligning seamlessly with your unique business aspirations.

[kp777]

By Olivia Rosane

Common Dreams

Dec. 6, 2023

"Averting this crisis—and doing so equitably—must be the core goal of COP28 and ongoing global cooperation," one expert said.

Current levels of global heating from the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of nature risk triggering five tipping points that could throw Earth's systems further out of balance, with three more at risk of toppling in the next decade.

The Global Tipping Points Report, released Wednesday at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in the United Arab Emirates, argues that policymakers have delayed climate action long enough that "linear incremental change" will no longer be enough to protect ecosystems and communities from the worst impacts of the climate crisis. However, world leaders can still choose to take advantage of positive tipping points to drive transformative change.

"The existence of tipping points means that 'business as usual' is now over," the report authors wrote. "Rapid changes to nature and society are occurring, and more are coming."

"Crossing these thresholds may trigger fundamental and sometimes abrupt changes that could irreversibly determine the fate of essential parts of our Earth system for the coming hundreds or thousands of years."

The report defines a "tipping point" as "occurring when change in part of a system becomes self-perpetuating beyond a threshold, leading to substantial, widespread, frequently abrupt and often irreversible impact." A group of more than 200 researchers assessed 26 different potential tipping points in Earth's systems that could be triggered by the climate crisis.

"Tipping points in the Earth system pose threats of a magnitude never faced by humanity," report leader Tim Lenton of Exeter's Global Systems Institute said in a statement. "They can trigger devastating domino effects, including the loss of whole ecosystems and capacity to grow staple crops, with societal impacts including mass displacement, political instability, and financial collapse."

Because current emissions trajectories put the world on track for 1.5°C of warming, this is likely to trigger five tipping points, the report authors found. Those tipping points are the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the mass die-off of warm-water coral reefs, the thawing of Arctic permafrost, and the collapse of the North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre circulation.

The melting of just the Antarctic ice sheet, for example, could raise global sea levels by 6.6 feet by 2100, Carbon Brief reported, meaning 480 million people would face yearly coastal flooding. Three more tipping points could be triggered in the 2030s if temperatures rise past 1.5°C. These include the mass death of seagrass meadows, mangroves, and boreal forests, according to The Guardian.

"Crossing these thresholds may trigger fundamental and sometimes abrupt changes that could irreversibly determine the fate of essential parts of our Earth system for the coming hundreds or thousands of years," co-author Sina Loriani of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research told The Guardian.

Contributor Manjana Milkoreit of the University of Oslo said in a statement that "our global governance system is inadequate to deal with the coming threats and implement the solutions urgently required."

But that doesn't mean the report authors believe that hope is lost. Rather, they see it as a call to ambitious action at the current U.N. climate talks and beyond.

"Averting this crisis—and doing so equitably—must be the core goal of COP28 and ongoing global cooperation," Milkoreit said.

One way to do this is to take advantage of positive tipping points.

"Concerted actions can create the enabling conditions for triggering rapid and large-scale transformation," the report authors wrote. "Human history is flush with examples of abrupt social and technological change. Recent examples include the exponential increases in renewable electricity, the global reach of environmental justice movements, and the accelerating rollout of electric vehicles."

The report authors made six recommendations based on their findings:

Immediately phasing out fossil fuels and emissions from land use changes like deforestation;

Strengthening plans for adaptation and loss and damage in the face of inevitable tipping points;

Taking tipping points into account in Paris agreement mechanisms like the global stocktake and national climate pledges;

Collaborating to trigger positive tipping points;

Organizing a global summit on tipping points; and

Increasing research on tipping points, including through a special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"Now is the moment to unleash a cascade of positive tipping points to ensure a safe, just, and sustainable future for humanity," Lenton said.

An earlier version of this article said the sea levels could rise by 656 feet by 2100 if the Antarctic ice sheet started to melt. It has been corrected to reflect the fact that they would rise by 6.6 feet.

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Hera asteroid mission's side-trip to Mars

ESA's Hera asteroid mission for planetary defense will make a swingby of Mars next March, borrowing speed to help reach its target Didymos binary asteroid system.

In the process the spacecraft will venture as near as 6,000 km from the surface of the Red Planet, closer than the orbits of the two martian moons. Its trajectory will be tweaked so that it can train its science instruments onto Mars's smaller moon Deimos from within 1,000 km away, while also observing Mars itself.

Details of the swingby are being presented at this week's Hera Science Community Workshop at ESA's ESTEC technical center in the Netherlands.

"This swingby is part of the scheduled maneuvers to get Hera to Didymos by the end of its two-year cruise phase," explains Michael Kueppers, ESA's Hera project scientist.

"By swinging through the gravitational field of Mars in its direction of movement the spacecraft gains added velocity for its onward journey. This close encounter is not part of Hera's core mission, but we will have several of our science instruments activated anyway. It gives us another chance to calibrate our instruments and potentially to make some scientific discoveries."

Flight Dynamics engineer Pablo Muñoz, part of the Mission Analysis team at ESA's European Space Operations Center in Germany, said, "It´s truly fortunate that Mars happens to be at the right location and at the right time to give Hera a hand. This enabled us to design a trajectory that uses the gravity of Mars to push Hera towards its rendezvous with Didymos, resulting in great fuel savings for the mission. Part of the excess propellant can then be spent in advancing the arrival at the binary asteroid by a few months, thus maximizing the mission's planetary defense and science return."

Hera is due for launch in October this year, headed for the mountain-sized Didymos asteroid and the Great-Pyramid-sized Dimorphos moonlet that orbits around it. On 26 September 2022 NASA's van-sized DART spacecraft impacted the Dimorphos asteroid at around 6.1 km/s. This first test of the 'kinetic impact' method of planetary defense succeeded in modifying the orbit of the target asteroid around its larger parent.

Next Hera will perform a close-up survey of Dimorphos, to gather crucial missing information on the asteroid's mass, makeup and structure that can turn DART's grand-scale experiment into a well-understood and potentially repeatable planetary defense technique.

"Hera's instruments have been designed to observe Dimorphos of course, but the potential is there to turn up interesting insights about the distinctively asteroid-like Deimos as well," notes Patrick Michel Director of Research at CNRS at Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in Nice and Hera's Principal Investigator.

Orbiting 23,460 km from Mars, Deimos—its name deriving from the Greek for "Fear"—is the further and smaller of the two martian moons. The lumpy body has a diameter of 12.4 km across and has a dark surface reminiscent of C-type asteroids. One theory is that both Deimos and its fellow martian moon Phobos are in fact captured asteroids from the main Asteroid belt. Their surface characteristics have features in common with the planet below them however, conversely suggesting an impact-based origin.

"Deimos has not been observed before with Hera's combination of science instruments, so hope to make some discoveries," adds Patrick Michel. "We will also be observing in synergy with the Emirates Mars Mission 'Hope Probe,' which launched in July 2020 and entered orbit around Mars in February 2021. Co-observations with ESA's own Mars Express and ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter missions are also under consideration.

"Additionally, the imagery and data we gather will help with planning the Japanese-led Martian Moons eXploration mission, MMX, which is due to launch in 2026. MMX will survey both moons while also landing a small French-German rover on Phobos and acquiring samples to return to Earth."

Hera will employ three of its instruments during its swingby of Mars and Deimos. Its main Asteroid Framing Camera will gather visual imagery while its HyperScout-H instrument will observe in a range of colors beyond the limits of the human eye, gathering mineralogical data in a total of 25 visible and near-infrared spectral bands.

Finally its Thermal Infrared Imager is a heat mapper, able to make out features through local night-time and measure how surface temperatures change over time to help constrain surface properties.

IMAGE....ESA’s Hera mission will be humankind's first mission to explore a binary asteroid system. The mission will perform a close-up survey of the Dimorphos asteroid, which has previously had its orbit shifted by kinetic impact with NASA's DART spacecraft. Credit: ESA-Science Office

[maaarine]

‘A new abyss’: Gaza and the hundred years’ war on Palestine (Rashid Khalidi, The Guardian, April 11 2024)

"Thus, with some exceptions, the mainstream media generally individuates in detail Israeli civilian deaths, which it describes as resulting from atrocities perpetrated by Hamas.

In contrast, it most frequently describes the far greater number of Palestinian civilian deaths collectively and in passive terms, and without naming the Israeli agent of their killing, as if unknown or natural phenomena caused their deaths.

Thus, Israel does not kill: Palestinians die; Israel does not starve Palestinians, they suffer from famine.

This blatantly biased approach is a double-edged sword: while it may serve Israel in the short run by shoring up the diminishing core audience for its skewed portrayal of reality in Palestine, the inherent double standards are transparent to most of the world. (…)

Since his election as a senator in 1972, Biden has been wedded to the myths about Israel and Palestine that are prevalent in American political and media discourse.

His administration has not reversed any of the policies clearly favouring Israel that were enacted by the Trump administration.

Biden thus kept in place a range of significant deviations from previous US policies, including the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the closing of the US consulate in East Jerusalem and of the Palestine mission in Washington DC, recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights.

Beyond this, far from abandoning the Trump administration’s signature approach, dubbed “the Abraham Accords”, of downgrading the Palestinian issue while focusing on normalising relations between Israel and Arab states, the Biden administration praised these measures that led to open diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Bahrain, and enraged the Palestinians.

Biden and his team went even further.

They pressed hard for a Saudi-Israeli normalisation deal that would have aligned the most influential Arab state with Israel, further weakening the Palestinians and diminishing further the prospect of their achieving any of their national objectives. (…)

Even the administration’s call for a “two-state solution” rang hollow.

There was no sign that the US would demand implementation of the essential prerequisites for such a solution: a rapid and complete end to Israel’s nearly 57-year military occupation and to its usurpation and colonisation of Palestinian land, which has planted nearly 750,000 illegal settlers in 60% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Nor has the administration indicated that it would accept the Palestinians democratically choosing their own representatives."

[365proservices444]

Effortless Business Compliance: 365 Pro Services Navigating the UAE Regulatory Landscape

In the constantly changing business landscape of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), navigating the complex terrain of government administration and documentation presents a significant challenge. Faced with the need to simplify these intricate processes and guarantee adherence to regulatory standards, 365 Pro Services stands out as a trusted and all-encompassing solution. Irrespective of a business's scale or nature, the imperative for streamlined and effective Pro Services remains unparalleled in the UAE.

Unravelling the Tapestry of Pro Services: Business Pro Services offered by 365 Pro Services cover a spectrum of crucial aspects vital for the smooth functioning of businesses. One of the core services provided is visa processing, a pivotal requirement for both local and expatriate employees. The company excels in facilitating the documentation and processing procedures, ensuring businesses maintain a compliant and skilled workforce.

Navigating the Regulatory Maze: In the diverse landscape of business licensing in the UAE, 365 Pro Services stands as a beacon for entrepreneurs. The team specializes in handling the intricate process of obtaining business licenses, catering to various sectors and industries. Be it the establishment of a new enterprise or the renewal of licenses, their proficiency guarantees a smooth process, enabling businesses to concentrate on their fundamental operations.

Specialized Support for Engineering and Science: Recognizing the unique needs of businesses in the fields of Engineering and Science, 365 Pro Services boasts a team of specialists who understand the intricacies of these industries. From documentation to approvals, the experts at 365 Pro Services ensure that businesses in these sectors operate seamlessly within the regulatory framework.

Cultivating Creativity with Culture and Art: For businesses rooted in Culture and Art, 365 Pro Services offers creative specialists who understand the nuances of this vibrant industry. Whether it's obtaining approvals for cultural events, managing documentation related to artistic endeavours, or navigating licensing requirements, the dedicated team at 365 Pro Services facilitates a conducive environment for creative businesses to thrive.

A Holistic Approach to Pro Services: 365 Pro Services goes beyond being a mere service provider; it serves as a collaborative partner in the success journey of businesses. Beyond the core offerings, the company extends its support to a myriad of approvals and documentation needs, ensuring that businesses remain compliant and operational. The holistic approach to Pro Services sets 365 Pro Services apart as a one-stop solution for businesses in the UAE.

In the intricate web of government administration and documentation in the UAE, 365 Pro Services emerges as a reliable ally for businesses. With a focus on efficiency, compliance, and a diverse array of specialized services, the company ensures that businesses, regardless of their nature or size, can navigate the regulatory landscape seamlessly. Embrace the power of 365 Pro Services – where success meets efficiency.

[ainsoftseo]

The Evolution and Impact of ERP Software in the UAE: A Comprehensive Analysis

ERP stands for Enterprise Resource Planning. It is a type of software system that integrates and manages core business processes and functions within an organization. ERP software typically provides a centralized database and a suite of applications that automate and streamline business activities across various departments such as finance, human resources, supply chain management, manufacturing, sales, and customer service.

In the fast-paced landscape of business operations, efficient management of resources and information is critical for success. Enterprises in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have witnessed a remarkable transformation in their operational efficiency and competitiveness through the adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software. This article delves into the evolution, benefits, challenges, and future trends of ERP software within the UAE context.

In recent decades, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software has played a transformative role in how businesses in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) operate and manage their resources. This article delves into the evolution, adoption, and impact of ERP systems within the UAE's business landscape. By exploring the unique challenges and opportunities presented by the UAE's dynamic economy, we can better understand how ERP software has become an indispensable tool for organizations seeking efficiency, integration, and scalability.

Evolution of ERP Software

The adoption of ERP software in the UAE mirrors global trends but is uniquely shaped by regional business requirements and technological advancements. In the early 2000s, ERP systems gained traction among larger corporations seeking to streamline their complex processes. Major multinational ERP providers like SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft Dynamics established a strong presence in the region, catering to diverse industry needs including finance, manufacturing, retail, and logistics.

A notable development in recent times is the movement towards cloud-centric ERP solutions.This transition offers scalability, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, allowing businesses in the UAE to manage their operations more efficiently. Local ERP vendors have also emerged, offering tailored solutions that cater specifically to the nuances of the UAE market, such as compliance with local regulations and cultural practices.

Challenges and Obstacles

Despite the numerous benefits, ERP implementation in the UAE is not devoid of challenges. One prominent obstacle is the high initial investment required for ERP deployment, including software licensing, customization, and training costs. For smaller businesses, this financial commitment can be prohibitive, leading to slower adoption rates among SMEs.

Cultural factors and change management also pose challenges. Embracing new technology often requires a shift in organizational culture and employee mindsets. Resistance to change, coupled with the need for extensive training, can hinder the successful implementation of ERP systems in the UAE.

Furthermore, data security and privacy concerns are paramount, especially in light of stringent regulatory frameworks such as the UAE's Data Protection Law. Ensuring compliance with local data protection regulations adds complexity to ERP deployment, necessitating robust cybersecurity measures and data governance protocols.

The Business Landscape of the UAE

The UAE is renowned for its vibrant economy, diversified industries, and strategic geographical location. Over the years, the country has emerged as a global business hub attracting multinational corporations, SMEs, and startups alike. Key sectors such as finance, real estate, construction, logistics, tourism, and manufacturing contribute significantly to the nation's GDP. However, this diversification has also brought complexities in managing business operations efficiently.

The Emergence of ERP Solutions

As businesses in the UAE expanded and diversified, traditional methods of managing operations became inadequate. The need for integrated systems that could streamline processes across departments led to the rise of ERP solutions. Initially developed to manage manufacturing processes, ERP systems evolved to encompass finance, human resources, supply chain, customer relationship management, and more. This evolution mirrored the growth and diversification of UAE businesses.

Factors Driving ERP Adoption

Several factors have fueled the adoption of ERP software among businesses in the UAE:

Global Competition: The UAE's aspiration to compete on a global scale necessitated advanced operational efficiencies that ERP systems could deliver.

Regulatory Compliance: The UAE's regulatory environment, including VAT implementation, required robust financial and reporting capabilities that ERP systems could provide.

Scalability: With rapid economic growth, businesses needed scalable solutions to manage increasing complexities.

Integration Needs: As businesses diversified, the need for seamless integration across functions became crucial.

Challenges in ERP Implementation

While the benefits of ERP systems are substantial, implementing them poses challenges:

Cultural Factors: Embracing technological change and adopting new systems can face resistance due to cultural factors.

Resource Constraints: SMEs may struggle with the limited resources required for ERP implementation and customization.

Data Security and Privacy: The UAE's focus on data security and privacy necessitates robust ERP solutions compliant with local regulations.

Impact of ERP on UAE Businesses

The impact of ERP software on businesses in the UAE has been profound:

Improved Efficiency: Streamlined processes lead to increased productivity and reduced operational costs.

Enhanced Decision Making: Real-time data availability empowers businesses to make informed decisions.

Better Customer Experience: Integrated systems ensure seamless customer interactions and improved service delivery.

Regulatory Compliance: ERP systems aid in meeting regulatory requirements efficiently.

Key ERP Players in the UAE

Several global and regional ERP providers cater to the UAE market, offering tailored solutions to meet local business needs. Major players include SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics, Sage, and Epicor, among others.

Future Trends and Innovations

Looking ahead, several trends are poised to shape the future of ERP software in the UAE. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are increasingly integrated into ERP systems, enabling predictive analytics and automation of routine tasks. This enhances decision-making capabilities and further optimizes business processes.

Mobile ERP applications are also gaining popularity, allowing stakeholders to access critical business data on the go. The rise of Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things (IoT) is driving demand for ERP solutions that can seamlessly integrate with smart devices and sensors, enabling real-time monitoring and control of operations.

Moreover, the convergence of ERP with other technologies like blockchain promises enhanced transparency and security in supply chain management, crucial for industries like healthcare and finance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ERP software has become an integral component of the UAE's business ecosystem, driving efficiency, integration, and growth across diverse sectors. While challenges exist, the transformative impact of ERP systems on businesses in the UAE underscores their importance in navigating complex operational landscapes. As technology continues to evolve, so too will the role of ERP in shaping the future of business in the UAE.ERP software has emerged as a transformative tool for businesses in the UAE, driving efficiency, innovation, and competitiveness across industries. Despite challenges such as high costs and cultural adaptation, the benefits of ERP implementation are substantial, ranging from streamlined operations to improved customer satisfaction. Looking ahead, the evolution of ERP software in the UAE is poised to align with global technological advancements, incorporating AI, IoT, and blockchain to unlock new possibilities for business growth and development. As enterprises continue to navigate the digital landscape, ERP remains a cornerstone of strategic management, enabling organizations to thrive in an increasingly complex and dynamic marketplace.

In summary, ERP software has been a game-changer for businesses in the UAE, enabling them to streamline operations, enhance decision-making, and adapt to a rapidly evolving marketplace. As the UAE continues to position itself as a global economic powerhouse, the role of ERP systems will remain pivotal in supporting the growth and sustainability of businesses across various sectors.

[papirouge]

oh baby. that sex travel story you posted is INSANE. Like I know men are fucked up to the core but that's next level. literally sick to my stomach

I'm back on the porta potty/sexual magick rituals of millionaire degenerates rabbit hole

Look at this horror story

OP says her white friend threw racist slurs at her bc she was mad the Native girl got a "better treatment" as her which makes me believe her friend was White woman bc white women can become extremely vicious with non White women whenever they get favored other them 🥴 (the next thing more dangerous than a white man who can't leverage the privilege he feels owed to is a white woman who can't leverage the privilege she feels owed to lol).

Not everything that shines is gold.

The fact these Emirates were so weird about OP ancestry scream sex rituals. These ghouls love sucking up the life force and they can stop those who have a special gift.

My sister celebrated her bday jubilee in Dubai, I refused in the name of God to step a foot out there.

[menalez]

Here is a critique: Argue all you want with many feminist policies, but few quarrel with feminism’s core moral insight, which changed the lives (and minds) of women forever: that women are due the same rights and dignity as men. So, as news of the appalling miseries of women in the Islamic world has piled up, where are the feminists? Where’s the outrage? For a brief moment after September 11, when pictures of those blue alien-creaturely shapes in Afghanistan filled the papers, it seemed as if feminists were going to have their moment. And in fact the Feminist Majority, to its credit, had been publicizing since the mid-90s how Afghan girls were barred from school, how women were stoned for adultery or beaten for showing an ankle or wearing high-heeled shoes, how they were prohibited from leaving the house unless accompanied by a male relative, how they were denied medical help because the only doctors around were male.

But the rest is feminist silence. You haven’t heard a peep from feminists as it has grown clear that the Taliban were exceptional not in their extreme views about women but in their success at embodying those views in law and practice. In the United Arab Emirates, husbands have the right to beat their wives in order to discipline them—“provided that the beating is not so severe as to damage her bones or deform her body,” in the words of the Gulf News. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot vote, drive, or show their faces or talk with male non-relatives in public. (Evidently they can’t talk to men over the airwaves either; when Prince Abdullah went to President Bush’s ranch in Crawford last April, he insisted that no female air-traffic controllers handle his flight.) Yes, Saudi girls can go to school, and many even attend the university; but at the university, women must sit in segregated rooms and watch their professors on closed-circuit televisions. If they have a question, they push a button on their desk, which turns on a light at the professor’s lectern, from which he can answer the female without being in her dangerous presence. And in Saudi Arabia, education can be harmful to female health. Last spring in Mecca, members of the mutaween, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue, pushed fleeing students back into their burning school because they were not properly covered in abaya. Fifteen girls died.

You didn’t hear much from feminists when in the northern Nigerian province of Katsina a Muslim court sentenced a woman to death by stoning for having a child outside of marriage. The case might not have earned much attention—stonings are common in parts of the Muslim world—except that the young woman, who had been married off at 14 to a husband who ultimately divorced her when she lost her virginal allure, was still nursing a baby at the time of sentencing. During her trial she had no lawyer, although the court did see fit to delay her execution until she weans her infant.

You didn’t hear much from feminists as it emerged that honor killings by relatives, often either ignored or only lightly punished by authorities, are also commonplace in the Muslim world. In September, Reuters reported the story of an Iranian man, “defending my honor, family, and dignity,” who cut off his seven-year-old daughter’s head after suspecting she had been raped by her uncle. The postmortem showed the girl to be a virgin. In another family mix-up, a Yemeni man shot his daughter to death on her wedding night when her husband claimed she was not a virgin. After a medical exam revealed that the husband was mistaken, officials concluded he was simply trying to protect himself from embarrassment about his own impotence. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, every day two women are slain by male relatives seeking to avenge the family honor.

The savagery of some of these murders is worth a moment’s pause. In 2000, two Punjabi sisters, 20 and 21 years old, had their throats slit by their brother and cousin because the girls were seen talking to two boys to whom they were not related. In one especially notorious case, an Egyptian woman named Nora Marzouk Ahmed fell in love and eloped. When she went to make amends with her father, he cut off her head and paraded it down the street. Several years back, according to the Washington Post, the husband of Zahida Perveen, a 32-year-old pregnant Pakistani, gouged out her eyes and sliced off her earlobe and nose because he suspected her of having an affair.

In a related example widely covered last summer, a teenage girl in the Punjab was sentenced by a tribal council to rape by a gang that included one of the councilmen. After the hour-and-a-half ordeal, the girl was forced to walk home naked in front of scores of onlookers. She had been punished because her 11-year-old brother had compromised another girl by being been seen alone with her. But that charge turned out to be a ruse: it seems that three men of a neighboring tribe had sodomized the boy and accused him of illicit relations—an accusation leading to his sister’s barbaric punishment—as a way of covering up their crime.

Nor is such brutality limited to backward, out-of-the-way villages. Muddassir Rizvi, a Pakistani journalist, says that, though always common in rural areas, in recent years honor killings have become more prevalent in cities “among educated and liberal families.” In relatively modern Jordan, honor killings were all but exempt from punishment until the penal code was modified last year; unfortunately, a young Palestinian living in Jordan, who had recently stabbed his 19-year-old sister 40 times “to cleanse the family honor,” and another man from near Amman, who ran over his 23-year-old sister with his truck because of her “immoral behavior,” had not yet changed their ways. British psychiatrist Anthony Daniels reports that British Muslim men frequently spirit their young daughters back to their native Pakistan and force the girls to marry. Such fathers have been known to kill daughters who resist. In Sweden, in one highly publicized case, Fadima Sahindal, an assimilated 26-year-old of Kurdish origin, was murdered by her father after she began living with her Swedish boyfriend. “The whore is dead,” the family announced.

As you look at this inventory of brutality, the question bears repeating: Where are the demonstrations, the articles, the petitions, the resolutions, the vindications of the rights of Islamic women by American feminists? The weird fact is that, even after the excesses of the Taliban did more to forge an American consensus about women’s rights than 30 years of speeches by Gloria Steinem, feminists refused to touch this subject. They have averted their eyes from the harsh, blatant oppression of millions of women, even while they have continued to stare into the Western patriarchal abyss, indignant over female executives who cannot join an exclusive golf club and college women who do not have their own lacrosse teams.

But look more deeply into the matter, and you realize that the sound of feminist silence about the savage fundamentalist Muslim oppression of women has its own perverse logic. The silence is a direct outgrowth of the way feminist theory has developed in recent years. Now mired in self-righteous sentimentalism, multicultural nonjudgmentalism, and internationalist utopianism, feminism has lost the language to make the universalist moral claims of equal dignity and individual freedom that once rendered it so compelling. No wonder that most Americans, trying to deal with the realities of a post-9/11 world, are paying feminists no mind.

To understand the current sisterly silence about the sort of tyranny that the women’s movement came into existence to attack, it is helpful to think of feminisms plural rather than singular. Though not entirely discrete philosophies, each of three different feminisms has its own distinct reasons for causing activists to “lose their voice” in the face of women’s oppression.

The first variety—radical feminism (or gender feminism, in Christina Hoff Sommers’s term)—starts with the insight that men are, not to put too fine a point upon it, brutes. Radical feminists do not simply subscribe to the reasonable-enough notion that men are naturally more prone to aggression than women. They believe that maleness is a kind of original sin. Masculinity explains child abuse, marital strife, high defense spending, every war from Troy to Afghanistan, as well as Hitler, Franco, and Pinochet. As Gloria Steinem informed the audience at a Florida fundraiser last March: “The cult of masculinity is the basis for every violent, fascist regime.”

Gender feminists are little interested in fine distinctions between radical Muslim men who slam commercial airliners into office buildings and soldiers who want to stop radical Muslim men from slamming commercial airliners into office buildings. They are both examples of generic male violence—and specifically, male violence against women. “Terrorism is on a continuum that starts with violence within the family, battery against women, violence against women in the society, all the way up to organized militaries that are supported by taxpayer money,” according to Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, who teaches “The Sexuality of Terrorism” at California State University in Hayward. Violence is so intertwined with male sexuality that, she tells us, military pilots watch porn movies before they go out on sorties. The war in Afghanistan could not possibly offer a chance to liberate women from their oppressors, since it would simply expose women to yet another set of oppressors, in the gender feminists’ view. As Sharon Lerner asserted bizarrely in the Village Voice, feminists’ “discomfort” with the Afghanistan bombing was “deepened by the knowledge that more women than men die as a result of most wars.”

If guys are brutes, girls are their opposite: peace-loving, tolerant, conciliatory, and reasonable—“Antiwar and Pro-Feminist,” as the popular peace-rally sign goes. Feminists long ago banished tough-as-nails women like Margaret Thatcher and Jeanne Kirkpatrick (and these days, one would guess, even the fetching Condoleezza Rice) to the ranks of the imperfectly female. Real women, they believe, would never justify war. “Most women, Western and Muslim, are opposed to war regardless of its reasons and objectives,” wrote the Jordanian feminist Fadia Faqir on OpenDemocracy.net. “They are concerned with emancipation, freedom (personal and civic), human rights, power sharing, integrity, dignity, equality, autonomy, power-sharing [sic], liberation, and pluralism.”

Sara Ruddick, author of Maternal Thinking, is perhaps one of the most influential spokeswomen for the position that women are instinctually peaceful. According to Ruddick (who clearly didn’t have Joan Crawford in mind), that’s because a good deal of mothering is naturally governed by the Gandhian principles of nonviolence such as “renunciation,” “resistance to injustice,” and “reconciliation.” The novelist Barbara Kingsolver was one of the first to demonstrate the subtleties of such universal maternal thinking after the United States invaded Afghanistan. “I feel like I’m standing on a playground where the little boys are all screaming ‘He started it!’ and throwing rocks,” she wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “I keep looking for somebody’s mother to come on the scene saying, ‘Boys! Boys!’ ”

Gender feminism’s tendency to reduce foreign affairs to a Lifetime Channel movie may make it seem too silly to bear mentioning, but its kitschy naiveté hasn’t stopped it from being widespread among elites. You see it in widely read writers like Kingsolver, Maureen Dowd, and Alice Walker. It turns up in our most elite institutions. Swanee Hunt, head of the Women in Public Policy Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government wrote, with Cristina Posa in Foreign Policy: “The key reason behind women’s marginalization may be that everyone recognizes just how good women are at forging peace.” Even female elected officials are on board. “The women of all these countries should go on strike, they should all sit down and refuse to do anything until their men agree to talk peace,” urged Ohio representative Marcy Kaptur to the Arab News last spring, echoing an idea that Aristophanes, a dead white male, proposed as a joke 2,400 years ago. And President Clinton is an advocate of maternal thinking, too. “If we’d had women at Camp David,” he said in July 2000, “we’d have an agreement.”

Major foundations too seem to take gender feminism seriously enough to promote it as an answer to world problems. Last December, the Ford Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundation helped fund the Afghan Women’s Summit in Brussels to develop ideas for a new government in Afghanistan. As Vagina Monologues author Eve Ensler described it on her website, the summit was made up of “meetings and meals, canvassing, workshops, tears, and dancing.” “Defense was mentioned nowhere in the document,” Ensler wrote proudly of the summit’s concluding proclamation—despite the continuing threat in Afghanistan of warlords, bandits, and lingering al-Qaida operatives. “[B]uilding weapons or instruments of retaliation was not called for in any category,” Ensler cooed. “Instead [the women] wanted education, health care, and the protection of refugees, culture, and human rights.”

Too busy celebrating their own virtue and contemplating their own victimhood, gender feminists cannot address the suffering of their Muslim sisters realistically, as light years worse than their own petulant grievances. They are too intent on hating war to ask if unleashing its horrors might be worth it to overturn a brutal tyranny that, among its manifold inhumanities, treats women like animals. After all, hating war and machismo is evidence of the moral superiority that comes with being born female.

Yet the gender feminist idea of superior feminine virtue is becoming an increasingly tough sell for anyone actually keeping up with world events. Kipling once wrote of the fierceness of Afghan women: “When you’re wounded and left on the Afghan plains/And the women come out to cut up your remains/Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.” Now it’s clearer than ever that the dream of worldwide sisterhood is no more realistic than worldwide brotherhood; culture trumps gender any day. Mothers all over the Muslim world are naming their babies Usama or praising Allah for their sons’ efforts to kill crusading infidels. Last February, 28-year-old Wafa Idris became the first female Palestinian suicide bomber to strike in Israel, killing an elderly man and wounding scores of women and children. And in April, Israeli soldiers discovered under the maternity clothes of 26-year-old Shifa Adnan Kodsi a bomb rather than a baby. Maternal thinking, indeed.

The second variety of feminism, seemingly more sophisticated and especially prevalent on college campuses, is multiculturalism and its twin, postcolonialism. The postcolonial feminist has even more reason to shy away from the predicament of women under radical Islam than her maternally thinking sister. She believes that the Western world is so sullied by its legacy of imperialism that no Westerner, man or woman, can utter a word of judgment against former colonial peoples. Worse, she is not so sure that radical Islam isn’t an authentic, indigenous—and therefore appropriate—expression of Arab and Middle Eastern identity.

The postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault, one of the intellectual godfathers of multiculturalism and postcolonialism, first set the tone in 1978 when an Italian newspaper sent him to Teheran to cover the Iranian revolution. As his biographer James Miller tells it, Foucault looked in the face of Islamic fundamentalism and saw . . . an awe-inspiring revolt against “global hegemony.” He was mesmerized by this new form of “political spirituality” that, in a phrase whose dark prescience he could not have grasped, portended the “transfiguration of the world.” Even after the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and reintroduced polygamy and divorce on the husband’s demand with automatic custody to fathers, reduced the official female age of marriage from 18 to 13, fired all female judges, and ordered compulsory veiling, whose transgression was to be punished by public flogging, Foucault saw no reason to temper his enthusiasm. What was a small matter like women’s basic rights, when a struggle against “the planetary system” was at hand?

Postcolonialists, then, have their own binary system, somewhat at odds with gender feminism—not to mention with women’s rights. It is not men who are the sinners; it is the West. It is not women who are victimized innocents; it is the people who suffered under Western colonialism, or the descendants of those people, to be more exact. Caught between the rock of patriarchy and the hard place of imperialism, the postcolonial feminist scholar gingerly tiptoes her way around the subject of Islamic fundamentalism and does the only thing she can do: she focuses her ire on Western men.

The most impressive signs of an indigenous female revolt against the fundamentalist order are in Iran. Over the past ten years or so, Iran has seen the publication of a slew of serious journals dedicated to the social and political predicament of Islamic women, the most well known being the Teheran-based Zonan and Zan, published by Faezah Hashemi, a well-known member of parliament and the daughter of former president Rafsanjani. Believing that Western feminism has promoted hostility between the sexes, confused sex roles, and the sexual objectification of women, a number of writers have proposed an Islamic-style feminism that would stress “gender complementarity” rather than equality and that would pay full respect to housewifery and motherhood while also giving women access to education and jobs.

Attacking from the religious front, a number of “Islamic feminists” are challenging the reigning fundamentalist reading of the Qur’an. These scholars insist that the founding principles of Islam, which they believe were long ago corrupted by pre-Islamic Arab, Persian, and North African customs, are if anything more egalitarian than those of Western religions; the Qur’an explicitly describes women as the moral and spiritual equals of men and allows them to inherit and pass down property. The power of misogynistic mullahs has grown in recent decades, feminists continue, because Muslim men have felt threatened by modernity’s challenge to traditional arrangements between the sexes.

What makes Islamic feminism really worth watching is that it has the potential to play a profoundly important role in the future of the Islamic world—and not just because it could improve the lot of women. By insisting that it is true to Islam—in fact, truer than the creed espoused by the entrenched religious elite—Islamic feminism can affirm the dignity of Islam while at the same time bringing it more in line with modernity. In doing this, feminists can help lay the philosophical groundwork for democracy. In the West, feminism lagged behind religious reformation and political democratization by centuries; in the East, feminism could help lead the charge.

At the same time, though, the issue of women’s rights highlights two reasons for caution about the Islamic future. For one thing, no matter how much feminists might wish otherwise, polygamy and male domination of the family are not merely a fact of local traditions; they are written into the Qur’an itself. This in and of itself would not prove to be such an impediment—the Old Testament is filled with laws antithetical to women’s equality—except for the second problem: more than other religions, Islam is unfriendly to the notion of the separation of church and state. If history is any guide, there’s the rub. The ultimate guarantor of the rights of all citizens, whether Islamic or not, can only be a fully secular state.

To this end, the postcolonialist eagerly dips into the inkwell of gender feminism. She ties colonialist exploitation and domination to maleness; she might refer to Israel’s “masculinist military culture”—Israel being white and Western—though she would never dream of pointing out the “masculinist military culture” of the jihadi. And she expends a good deal of energy condemning Western men for wanting to improve the lives of Eastern women. At the turn of the twentieth century Lord Cromer, the British vice consul of Egypt and a pet target of postcolonial feminists, argued that the “degradation” of women under Islam had a harmful effect on society. Rubbish, according to the postcolonialist feminist. His words are simply part of “the Western narrative of the quintessential otherness and inferiority of Islam,” as Harvard professor Leila Ahmed puts it in Women and Gender in Islam. The same goes for American concern about Afghan women; it is merely a “device for ranking the ‘other’ men as inferior or as ‘uncivilized,’ ” according to Nira Yuval-Davis, professor of gender and ethnic studies at the University of Greenwich, England. These are all examples of what renowned Columbia professor Gayatri Spivak called “white men saving brown women from brown men.”

Spivak’s phrase, a great favorite on campus, points to the postcolonial notion that brown men, having been victimized by the West, can never be oppressors in their own right. If they give the appearance of treating women badly, the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Western colonial masters is to blame. In fact, the worse they treat women, the more they are expressing their own justifiable outrage. “When men are traumatized [by colonial rule], they tend to traumatize their own women,” Miriam Cooke, a Duke professor and head of the Association for Middle East Women’s Studies, told me. And today, Cooke asserts, brown men are subjected to a new form of imperialism. “Now there is a return of colonialism that we saw in the nineteenth century in the context of globalization,” she says. “What is driving Islamist men is globalization.”

It would be difficult to exaggerate the through-the-looking-glass quality of postcolonialist theory when it comes to the subject of women. Female suicide bombers are a good thing, because they are strong women demonstrating “agency” against colonial powers. Polygamy too must be shown due consideration. “Polygamy can be liberating and empowering,” Cooke answered sunnily when I asked her about it. “Our norm is the Western, heterosexual, single couple. If we can imagine different forms that would allow us to be something other than a heterosexual couple, we might imagine polygamy working,” she explained murkily. Some women, she continued, are relieved when their husbands take a new wife: they won’t have to service him so often. Or they might find they now have the freedom to take a lover. But, I ask, wouldn’t that be dangerous in places where adulteresses can be stoned to death? At any rate, how common is that? “I don’t know,” Cooke answers, “I’m interested in discourse.” The irony couldn’t be darker: the very people protesting the imperialist exploitation of the “Other” endorse that Other’s repressive customs as a means of promoting their own uniquely Western agenda—subverting the heterosexual patriarchy.

The final category in the feminist taxonomy, which might be called the world-government utopian strain, is in many respects closest to classical liberal feminism. Dedicated to full female dignity and equality, it generally eschews both the biological determinism of the gender feminist and the cultural relativism of the multiculti postcolonialist. Stanford political science professor Susan Moller Okin, an influential, subtle, and intelligent spokeswoman for this approach, created a stir among feminists in 1997 when she forthrightly attacked multiculturalists for valuing “group rights for minority cultures” over the well-being of individual women. Okin admirably minced no words attacking arranged marriage, female circumcision, and polygamy, which she believed women experienced as a “barely tolerable institution.” Some women, she went so far as to declare, “might be better off if the culture into which they were born were either to become extinct . . . or preferably, to be encouraged to alter itself so as to reinforce the equality of women.”

But though Okin is less shy than other feminists about discussing the plight of women under Islamic fundamentalism, the typical U.N. utopian has her own reasons for keeping quiet as that plight fills Western headlines. For one thing, the utopian is also a bean-counting absolutist, seeking a pure, numerical equality between men and women in all departments of life. She greets Western, and particularly American, claims to have achieved freedom for women with skepticism. The motto of the 2002 International Women’s Day—“Afghanistan Is Everywhere”—was in part a reproach to the West about its superior airs. Women in Afghanistan might have to wear burqas, but don’t women in the West parade around in bikinis? “It’s equally disrespectful and abusive to have women prancing around a stage in bathing suits for cash or walking the streets shrouded in burqas in order to survive,” columnist Jill Nelson wrote on the MSNBC website about the murderously fanatical riots that attended the Miss World pageant in Nigeria.

As Nelson’s statement hints, the utopian is less interested in freeing women to make their own choices than in engineering and imposing her own elite vision of a perfect society. Indeed, she is under no illusions that, left to their own democratic devices, women would freely choose the utopia she has in mind. She would not be surprised by recent Pakistani elections, where a number of the women who won parliamentary seats were Islamist. But it doesn’t really matter what women want. The universalist has a comprehensive vision of “women’s human rights,” meaning not simply women’s civil and political rights but “economic rights” and “socioeconomic justice.” Cynical about free markets and globalization, the U.N. utopian is also unimpressed by the liberal democratic nation-state “as an emancipatory institution,” in the dismissive words of J. Ann Tickner, director for international studies at the University of Southern California. Such nation-states are “unresponsive to the needs of [their] most vulnerable members” and seeped in “nationalist ideologies” as well as in patriarchal assumptions about autonomy. In fact, like the (usually) unacknowledged socialist that she is, the U.N. utopian eagerly awaits the withering of the nation-state, a political arrangement that she sees as tied to imperialism, war, and masculinity. During war, in particular, nations “depend on ideas about masculinized dignity and feminized sacrifice to sustain the sense of autonomous nationhood,” writes Cynthia Enloe, professor of government at Clark University.

Having rejected the patriarchal liberal nation-state, with all the democratic machinery of self-government that goes along with it, the utopian concludes that there is only one way to achieve her goals: to impose them through international government. Utopian feminists fill the halls of the United Nations, where they examine everything through the lens of the “gender perspective” in study after unreadable study. (My personal favorites: “Gender Perspectives on Landmines” and “Gender Perspectives on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” whose conclusion is that landmines and WMDs are bad for women.)

The 1979 U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), perhaps the first and most important document of feminist utopianism, gives the best sense of the sweeping nature of the movement’s ambitions. CEDAW demands many measures that anyone committed to democratic liberal values would applaud, including women’s right to vote and protection against honor killings and forced marriage. Would that the document stopped there. Instead it sets out to impose a utopian order that would erase all distinctions between men and women, a kind of revolution of the sexes from above, requiring nations to “take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women” and to eliminate “stereotyped roles” to accomplish this legislative abolition of biology. The document calls for paid maternity leave, nonsexist school curricula, and government-supported child care. The treaty’s 23-member enforcement committee hectors nations that do not adequately grasp that, as Enloe puts it, “the personal is international.” The committee has cited Belarus for celebrating Mother’s Day, China for failing to legalize prostitution, and Libya for not interpreting the Qur’an in accordance with “committee guidelines.”

Confusing “women’s participation” with self-determination, and numerical equivalence with equality, CEDAW utopians try to orchestrate their perfect society through quotas and affirmative-action plans. Their bean-counting mentality cares about whether women participate equally, without asking what it is that they are participating in or whether their participation is anything more than ceremonial. Thus at the recent Women’s Summit in Jordan, Rima Khalaf suggested that governments be required to use quotas in elections “to leapfrog women to power.” Khalaf, like so many illiberal feminist utopians, has no hesitation in forcing society to be free. As is often the case when elites decide they have discovered the route to human perfection, the utopian urge is not simply antidemocratic but verges on the totalitarian.

That this combination of sentimental victimhood, postcolonial relativism, and utopian overreaching has caused feminism to suffer so profound a loss of moral and political imagination that it cannot speak against the brutalization of Islamic women is an incalculable loss to women and to men. The great contribution of Western feminism was to expand the definition of human dignity and freedom. It insisted that all human beings were worthy of liberty. Feminists now have the opportunity to make that claim on behalf of women who in their oppression have not so much as imagined that its promise could include them, too. At its best, feminism has stood for a rich idea of personal choice in shaping a meaningful life, one that respects not only the woman who wants to crash through glass ceilings but also the one who wants to stay home with her children and bake cookies or to wear a veil and fast on Ramadan. Why shouldn’t feminists want to shout out their own profound discovery for the world to hear?

Perhaps, finally, because to do so would be to acknowledge the freedom they themselves enjoy, thanks to Western ideals and institutions. Not only would such an admission force them to give up their own simmering resentments; it would be bad for business.

The truth is that the free institutions—an independent judiciary, a free press, open elections—that protect the rights of women are the same ones that protect the rights of men. The separation of church and state that would allow women to escape the burqa would also free men from having their hands amputated for theft. The education system that would teach girls to read would also empower millions of illiterate boys. The capitalist economies that bring clean water, cheap clothes, and washing machines that change the lives of women are the same ones that lead to healthier, freer men. In other words, to address the problems of Muslim women honestly, feminists would have to recognize that free men and women need the same things—and that those are things that they themselves already have. And recognizing that would mean an end to feminism as we know it.

There are signs that, outside the academy, middlebrow literary circles, and the United Nations, feminism has indeed met its Waterloo. Most Americans seem to realize that September 11 turned self-indulgent sentimental illusions, including those about the sexes, into an unaffordable luxury. Consider, for instance, women’s attitudes toward war, a topic on which politicians have learned to take for granted a gender gap. But according to the Pew Research Center, in January 2002, 57 percent of women versus 46 percent of men cited national security as the country’s top priority. There has been a “seismic gender shift on matters of war,” according to pollster Kellyanne Conway. In 1991, 45 percent of U.S. women supported the use of ground troops in the Gulf War, a substantially smaller number than the 67 percent of men. But as of November, a CNN survey found women were more likely than men to support the use of ground troops against Iraq, 58 percent to 56 percent. The numbers for younger women were especially dramatic. Sixty-five percent of women between 18 and 49 support ground troops, as opposed to 48 percent of women 50 and over. Women are also changing their attitudes toward military spending: before September 11, only 24 percent of women supported increased funds; after the attacks, that number climbed to 47 percent. An evolutionary psychologist might speculate that, if females tend to be less aggressively territorial than males, there’s little to compare to the ferocity of the lioness when she believes her young are threatened.

Even among some who consider themselves feminists, there is some grudging recognition that Western, and specifically American, men are sometimes a force for the good. The Feminist Majority is sending around urgent messages asking for President Bush to increase American security forces in Afghanistan. The influential left-wing British columnist Polly Toynbee, who just 18 months ago coined the phrase “America the Horrible,” went to Afghanistan to figure out whether the war “was worth it.” Her answer was not what she might have expected. Though she found nine out of ten women still wearing burqas, partly out of fear of lingering fundamentalist hostility, she was convinced their lives had greatly improved. Women say they can go out alone now.

As we sink more deeply into what is likely to be a protracted struggle with radical Islam, American feminists have a moral responsibility to give up their resentments and speak up for women who actually need their support. Feminists have the moral authority to say that their call for the rights of women is a universal demand—that the rights of women are the Rights of Man.

my god this dude wrote the world’s worst thesis and sent it to the worst candidate possible (a muslim-born woman from the middle east that regularly talks about the issues feminists apparently never talk about)

[mariacallous]

Three months ago, Saudi Arabia kick-started a concerted regional effort to reengage and normalize Syria’s regime within the Middle East and, Riyadh hoped, farther afield. On April 18, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian capital of Damascus. Just one month later, on May 19, the Arab League embraced one of the world’s most notorious war criminals for the first time since 2011.

While Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s decision to reengage triggered this regional shift, its roots lie a little deeper. The United Arab Emirates began restoring relations with Assad’s regime in 2018, and it has pushed hard for others to follow suit ever since. More recently, Jordan and its king, Abdullah II—long a close and reliable U.S. ally—have emerged as a key architect of the plan to normalize Assad, drafting secretive white papers for dissemination across the region as well as in Moscow and Washington. Underpinning Jordan’s vision was the idea that only by reengaging the Assad regime could diplomacy achieve meaningful concessions from Assad and, in doing so, Syria would be oriented back onto a path toward stability and recovery.

With more than half a million people dead, after nearly 340 chemical weapons attacks, 82,000 barrel bombs, dozens of medieval-style sieges, and much more, the region’s decision to reembrace Assad was no insignificant thing. It has also not been a unanimous decision, with Qatar a strong opponent, followed closely behind by Kuwait and Morocco. But the Middle East works by consensus, not unanimity, and Mohammed bin Salman’s decision to pivot has changed everything.

Beyond the region, the prospect of normalizing Assad remains a deeply distasteful proposition. Europe shows no sign of following suit, nor does the United States, although some senior White House officials have privately greenlighted the region’s pivot. For some within the administration, Middle Eastern crises such as Syria’s are viewed as essentially unresolvable, peripheral to U.S. interests, and not worth the effort. At the same time, according to two regional and two European officials who recently conducted separate meetings in Washington, all of whom spoke to me on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic conversations, one senior Biden administration official has taken to lauding the U.S. role in achieving “the most stable Middle East in 25 years.”

Notwithstanding the factual issues with such a claim, it is likely based in large part on the recent wave of so-called de-escalation across the region, as adversarial and rival governments have reengaged and papered over their differences. The durability of these developments remains unclear, but for many in the region, the normalization of Assad’s regime is part and parcel of this de-escalation. As such, it came as no surprise when one Biden appointee, Assistant Secretary of State Barbara Leaf, called on regional states in March to “get something” in return for their efforts. In retrospect, there can be no doubting how consequential that statement was in triggering concerted regional normalization and significantly weakening Washington’s claimed posture toward Assad.

It has now been three months since the Saudi visit to Damascus set in motion the region’s reembrace of Assad. In mid-August, regional states plan to convene a follow-up summit to discuss progress and next steps. According to officials from three regional states, the entire summit is up in the air. Why? Because every problem in Syria has significantly worsened since April. If regional states were issued a report card, it would barely deserve an F.

Aid Access

A core goal underpinning the region’s normalization of Assad was a desire to see Syria stabilize. For more than a decade, the international community has supported a humanitarian aid effort across Syria worth tens of billions of dollars, meeting the needs of millions of people. The most vulnerable 4.5 million live in a small corner of Syria’s northwest, which is home to the world’s most acute humanitarian crisis. On July 11, Russia vetoed an extension of the United Nations’ 9-year-old mechanism for cross-border aid provision into the northwest, severing a vital lifeline and plunging the area into a profound and unprecedented state of uncertainty.

Days after Russia’s veto, the Assad regime announced an offer to open aid access to the region but added a set of conditions that made the offer practically impossible to implement. Even if the regime’s scheme were somehow implemented, the flow of aid would be a fraction of what was possible under the previous arrangement. For two years, the regime has sought to prioritize cross-line aid delivered from Damascus, and in that time, 152 trucks have been sent. In the same two-year period, more than 24,000 trucks arrived cross-border. As things stand, there is now no mechanism to provide unhindered aid to northwestern Syria and no serious effort to create one. So much for the idea that engaging Assad would bring forth concessions.

Captagon

One issue that Saudi Arabia and Jordan had been most concerned about emanating from Syria was the trade in captagon, an illegal amphetamine produced on an industrial scale by prominent Assad regime figures. Between 2016 and 2022, more than a billion Syrian-made captagon pills were seized around the world, most in the Persian Gulf. In engagements with Assad’s regime, regional states have sought to convince Assad to put an end to the trade.

Given the regime’s central role as well as the stunning profit margins involved—one pill can cost several cents to produce but sells in the Gulf for $20—Damascus’s promise in May to regional governments that it would curb the captagon trade was at best a laughable claim. Nevertheless, Jordan just welcomed two of the most notorious and internationally sanctioned regime officials—Assad’s defense minister and intelligence chief—to Amman to discuss combating drug trafficking, only to be forced to shoot down a drone carrying drugs from Syria just a day later.

Meanwhile, data I’ve collected monitoring regional seizures shows that a massive $1 billion worth of Syrian-made captagon has been confiscated across the region in the last three months, in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, and Jordan. Even more significantly, German authorities just discovered a Syrian-run captagon production facility in southern Germany along with approximately $20 million worth of pills and 2.5 tons of precursor chemicals.

Refugees

Regional states also hoped that reengaging with Assad’s regime would open a path for refugee returns to Syria. After all, the presence of large numbers of Syrian refugees in neighboring countries—3.6 million in Turkey, 1.5 million in Lebanon, and 700,000 in Jordan—is placing an increasingly untenable strain on host countries.

Yet the logic behind regional hopes is inexplicable. All of the most significant reasons why Syrian refugees refuse to return are associated with regime rule. Indeed, new U.N. polling of Syrian refugees released just days after Assad’s participation in the Arab League summit in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, revealed that just 1 percent were considering returning in the next year.

By so actively normalizing Assad’s rule, regional states have given many among that 1 percent reason to reconsider. What’s more, refugees are now voting with their feet, taking perilous journeys toward Europe at an exponential rate—with the rate of Syrian migration north now at least 150 percent higher than in 2021. Now faced with this bleak reality, host states are enacting policies to coerce refugees to leave, with Lebanon’s U.S.-funded armed forces resorting to forcible expulsions and Jordan declaring that financial support for Syrian refugees will soon end.

Economic Collapse and Violent Escalation

In the past three months, Syria’s economy has precipitously collapsed, with the Syrian pound having lost 77 percent of its value. When the Saudi foreign minister visited Damascus in April, the Syrian pound was worth 7,500 to $1, but today, that number is 13,300.

Having been welcomed back into the regional fold while simultaneously benefiting from U.S. and European sanctions waivers in the wake of the February earthquake, Assad’s economy should not look like this. The fault here lies with the regime itself, which has proved systematically corrupt, incompetent, and driven by greed rather than the public good. Fiscal mismanagement and the prioritization of the illegal drugs trade have killed the Syrian economy, potentially for good.

As the region yearns for a stable Syria, ruled by a strong but reformed regime that welcomes refugees back home, the past three months have told a starkly different picture—one of escalation. Nearly 150 people have been killed in the southern governorate of Daraa since April, furthering the area’s status as the most consistently unstable region of the country since 2020.

In mid-July, regime forces besieged villages south of the town of Tafas that it accused of harboring opponents, before demolishing 18 homes as punishment. Since its violent submission to the regime five years ago, Daraa was meant to exemplify Assad’s self-described plans to “reconcile” areas formerly controlled by his opponents. But reconciliation in Daraa has been anything but, and the region is now rife with insurgency, terrorism, organized crime, and a chaotic mess of political infighting.

Meanwhile, the regime has also escalated its attacks on the opposition-controlled northwest. Not long after Assad walked the red carpet into the Arab League summit in Jeddah, Russia resumed airstrikes in northwestern Syria for the first time since November 2022—launching nearly 35 in June alone. Along with Russian jets, pro-regime artillery fire also surged from May into June, resulting in a 560 percent increase in fatalities in the northwest in June, from five in April to three in May to 33 in June. That marked escalation included the resumption of mass casualty regime bombings of civilian targets, including one attack that destroyed a market on June 25, leaving at least 13 dead. Civilian rescue workers also returned to being explicit targets, including the “double-tap” attack that targeted White Helmet personnel on July 11.

Terrorism

Regional normalization of Assad’s regime has also dealt a deep and likely irreversible blow to nearly a decade of international efforts to counter the Islamic State. For years, the United States has relied on the cover provided by regional partners such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia to sustain the vital U.S. military deployment in northeastern Syria, but those partners are now declaring their support for the expansion of Assad’s rule nationwide, including via the removal of foreign forces.

Worse still, having long been among the most generous donors to counter-Islamic State operations, Saudi Arabia failed to donate anything in the recent annual ministerial conference—which was hosted in Saudi Arabia itself. Assad’s normalization has also gravely undercut the leverage of the U.S.-partnered Syrian Democratic Forces to determine or negotiate their long-term survival. Russia and Iran have also been empowered, with reports of Iranian attack plotting and daily Russian violations of a long-standing deconfliction arrangement in order to challenge and threaten U.S. aircraft.

While the U.S.-led coalition’s ability to sustain the only meaningful counter to the Islamic State in Syria has been shoved into a tight and uncomfortable corner, the terrorist group also appears to be benefiting directly from Assad’s new status. As Assad was taking his seat in the Arab League in May, the Islamic State was in the midst of its most aggressive and deadly month of operations in regime-controlled areas of Syria since 2018.

Between April 1 and July 1, the group conducted 61 attacks and killed 159 people in regime-run central Syria—amounting to 50 percent of all attacks and 90 percent of fatalities achieved in 2022. The Islamic State has returned to controlling populated territory (albeit temporarily) in regime areas of Syria, and it defeated a six-week offensive in March and April by Syrian regime forces that was backed by the Russian air force and Iranian proxies. In late July, the Islamic State expanded its reach into Damascus, killing at least six people and wounding 23 others in a bomb attack in the Shiite district of Sayida Zeinab.

Assad’s Diplomatic Veto

Finally, the regional normalization of Assad—which the Arab League said was supposed to be “conditional” on securing regime concessions—appears to have wrecked any hope for meaningful diplomacy aimed at genuinely resolving Syria’s crisis. According to senior U.N. officials who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations, Assad himself has conveyed to U.N. leaders in recent weeks that he has no intention to reengage with the U.N.-run Constitutional Committee or in any step-for-step negotiation process, whether coordinated by the U.N. or regional states. The prospect for a diplomatic resolution to Syria’s crisis may have looked bleak six months ago, but regional engagements with the regime since April appear to have killed things altogether.

The regime’s stance toward cross-border aid should serve as a clear indicator of the extent to which Assad feels irreversibly empowered since being welcomed back by much of the region. Even convincing Assad to issue a small prisoner amnesty as a show of goodwill appears to be a non-starter.

The picture here is stark and irrefutable. The chorus of warnings that reengagement with Assad would backfire were ignored, and the consequences are now clear for all to see. That regional states’ plans for a follow-up summit are up in the air speaks for itself. To meet amid such calamitous developments would be folly. Syria is now entering a deeply dark period of uncertainty, with a crashing economy, rising levels of violence, heightening geopolitical tensions, and a poisoned diplomatic environment. The fault here lies in many different corners, but as usual, it will be Syrians who suffer the costs.

[nordholm]

Elevate Your Financial Success with Nordholm: Your Go-To Best Accounting Company in Dubai!

Nordholm stands as your ultimate choice for Best Accounting Services Company in Dubai, proudly holding the title of the best accounting company in the region. Specializing in Business Establishment Solutions, we expertly guide you through seamless company formation, ensuring compliance and maximizing efficiency. Our proficiency extends to Streamlined Visa Processes, simplifying procedures for swift entry into the vibrant UAE market. Additionally, we excel in crafting Efficient Banking Solutions, facilitating prompt and hassle-free bank account setups to enhance the fluidity of your financial operations.

We shine in HR and Payroll Management Excellence, guaranteeing precision in handling human resources and payroll to sustain seamless operations. We are also experts in VAT Compliance and Financial Precision, delivering accurate accounting services and meticulous VAT compliance management, freeing your focus for core business strategies.

Recognizing the pivotal role of precise accounting in fostering enduring business development, our seasoned team at the best accounting firm in Dubai is dedicated to empowering your journey. We seamlessly harmonize sustainability and reliability, offering expert insights and strategic approaches that empower informed decisions, unveiling new opportunities for your business growth.

Mastering a complicated regulatory web can be tricky, especially in the United Arab Emirates. However, enjoy stress-free business operations with our assistance. Our experience guarantees a smooth journey, freeing you up to focus on ambitiously growing your company's reach.

Choose Nordholm, the unrivaled best accounting company in Dubai, for tailored services committed to your business triumphs. Our bespoke top-tier services guarantee precise financial reporting and operational efficiency, aligning seamlessly with your unique business aspirations.

[kp777]

By Damian Carrington, Environment editor

The Guardian

June 7, 2023

The United Arab Emirates’ state oil company has been able to read emails to and from the Cop28 climate summit office and was consulted on how to respond to a media inquiry, the Guardian can reveal.

The UAE is hosting the UN climate summit in November and the president of Cop28 is Sultan Al Jaber, who is also chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). The revelations have been called “explosive” and a “scandal” by lawmakers.

The Cop28 office had claimed its email system was “standalone” and “separate” from that of Adnoc. But expert technical analysis showed the office shared email servers with Adnoc. After the Guardian’s inquiries, the Cop28 office switched to a different server on Monday.

Al Jaber’s dual role has attracted strong criticism, including from the former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, who called his approach “dangerous”.

Replies to a Guardian email to the Cop28 office requesting reaction to these comments, which did not mention Adnoc, contained the text “Adnoc classification: internal”.

The French MEP Manon Aubry, said: “This is an absolute scandal. An oil and gas company has found its way to the core of the organisation in charge of coordinating the phasing out of oil and gas. It is like having a tobacco multinational overseeing the internal work of the World Health Organization.”

Aubry, who co-led a recent letter to the UN from 133 US and EU politicians calling for the removal of Al Jaber, said: “The Cop28 office has lost all credibility. If we care more about preventing a climate disaster than protecting the profits and influence of fossil fuel companies, we need to react now.”

Read more.