Voices from the Arab press: The German attack – despite Saudi Arabia’s warnings

A weekly selection of opinions and analyses from the Arab media around the world.

By THE MEDIA LINE JANUARY 6, 2025 04:08

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Prime Minister of Saxony-Anhalt Reiner Haseloff and German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser visit the site where a car drove into a crowd of a Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany December 21, 2024. (photo credit: AXEL SCHMIDT/REUTERS)

The German attack – despite Saudi Arabia’s warnings

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, December 27

The Saudi warnings to German authorities prior to the tragic Magdeburg attack – where five people were killed and 200 were injured when a man drove into a Christmas market full of holiday shoppers – serve as a stark reminder of international and moral responsibility.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia issued three advance alerts regarding Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen, an individual exhibiting extremist tendencies and making explicit threats on social media. These were not mere signals but were grounded in precise, substantiated data garnered through extensive surveillance of the perpetrator’s alarming actions. Astonishingly, these warnings suggested the potential for one of the most significant terrorist operations on German soil in its recent history.

Nevertheless, German authorities chose a lenient approach, closing the investigation files under the rationale of “no concrete danger.” This negligence transcends a simple oversight; it undermines the principle of international collaboration, a standard the kingdom has consistently upheld by sharing intelligence to combat terrorism and extremism. Saudi Arabia, a global leader in countering extremist ideology, has again proven its reliability as a partner in fostering global security and stability.

When met with indifference, such as in Magdeburg, the consequences are catastrophic. This situation begs the question: how could Germany, a nation previously afflicted by similar incidents, dismiss three successive warnings from a powerful ally like Saudi Arabia? Was it a misinterpretation of the information? A lack of trust in external intelligence? Or did German bureaucratic processes inhibit the serious consideration of these warnings?

If any of these is true, it places substantial responsibility on the German authorities, who ignored clear indications that might have prevented this disaster. Disregarding credible warnings from Saudi Arabia exposes not only a deficiency in competence but also a significant misunderstanding of the critical nature of international security cooperation. This catastrophe could have been averted if Saudi Arabia’s warnings had been heeded.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visits the site where a car drove into a crowd of a Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany December 21, 2024 (credit: AXEL SCHMIDT/REUTERS)

The kingdom, with its proven track record of neutralizing similar threats, offers a benchmark for effective international partnership, making the neglect of these warnings indefensible. In the modern world, security cooperation among nations is an imperative, not a mere option. Saudi Arabia, with its steadfast positions and clear vision, has established itself as a trustworthy source of accurate information vital for enhancing international security and stability.

The events in Magdeburg highlight that ignoring such warnings jeopardizes not only a specific nation but also global and regional security. Ultimately, the lesson from this incident is that negligence invites loss. The kingdom discharged its obligations by warning and cooperating, issuing alerts about potentially the largest terrorist operation in Germany’s recent history. Yet, the German authorities chose to disregard these signals, leading to dire consequences for which they are fully accountable. Saudi wisdom will endure as a beacon of reason and equilibrium, and those who ignore it stand to lose more than they might anticipate. – Firas Trabulsi

Importance of humor in everyday life

Al Qabas, Kuwait, December 28

In my memory, I carry hundreds of humorous anecdotes and jokes spanning political, social, and various other themes. I’ve even shared some of my personal funny experiences in several articles. Western society, in particular, is renowned for its celebration of stand-up comedians – those talented individuals who captivate audiences from the stage with their jokes, often engaging with the crowd to create a delightful atmosphere of happiness and camaraderie.

---

---

Some of these comedians have amassed significant wealth, with the highest earners bringing in up to $70 million annually through numerous live performances. Legends like the late George Carlin and Richard Pryor, alongside those who retired after earning hundreds of millions, such as Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, Eddie Murphy, and many others, mark the pinnacle of this art form.

Saudi intellectual Ibrahim Al-Buleihi emphasizes the crucial role of humor, noting its study by three eminent American thinkers. Renowned cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, along with his colleagues Matthew Hurley and Reginald Adams, explored the topic in their book Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind, published by a leading American scientific institution. This work was translated into Arabic, complete with an extensive introduction by Qais Qasim Al-Ajrash, and published by Dar Sutour.

The authors argue that humor is an essential aspect of our cognitive framework, a rich resource illuminating the mental processes at play within our brains. They assert that humor will continue to evolve as time progresses, taking on new dimensions and concepts, thus maintaining its impact. Possessing a sense of humor is a noble human trait, often seen as a mark of intelligence. It brings comfort and joy, as Charlie Chaplin famously stated, “A day without laughter is a day wasted.”

It’s heartening to observe, especially on social media platforms, that those in the Arab Gulf have a pronounced sense of humor. This is a cheerful indication, as laughter is a quintessentially human quality, with some even suggesting that it is one of the most distinct attributes of being human, leading to the expression: A human being is inherently a creature of laughter.

The ability to amuse others and intuitively respond to humor highlights intelligence; humor epitomizes the beauty of human interaction. While some might not catch a joke’s meaning immediately, sharp-minded individuals often grasp it before the punchline is delivered, leading to hearty laughter – a testament to both intelligence and life’s simple pleasures.

People yearn for things that are amusing and comforting, which drives them to comedy shows. A person known for their humor is beloved, and those around them seek their company. Recognizing laughter’s importance in human life, disciplines like philosophy, literature, and science have explored its nuances. Laughter has gained such prominence that it has evolved into a standalone field of study, often referred to as “the science of laughter.” The eminent French philosopher Henri Bergson even penned a book dedicated to laughter.

Psychology regards laughter as a remedy for human suffering. Dr. Daniel Siegel, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, observes that the world is rife with psychological pain. Consequently, renowned psychiatrist Patch Adams harnessed the power of humor and laughter to alleviate misery and infuse happiness into people’s lives.

Stephanie Davies’ book Laughology complements this perspective, asserting that “humor is a cognitive skill” that thrives in an open environment, diverse knowledge, and adaptive interactions. The realm of humor encompasses a variety of expressions, including laughter, sarcasm, irony, smiles, joy, and other spontaneous emotions. Today, satirical literature stands as a prominent literary form, prompting detailed studies of humorists celebrated for their comedic brilliance. – Ahmed Al-Sarraf

Jumblatt: The Shebaa Farms are Syrian

Nida Al Watan, Lebanon, December 28

Druze leader Walid Jumblatt’s recent visit to Damascus, where he met with Ahmed al-Sharaa (known as al-Julani), revealed a fresh approach to leadership in Syria.

At the helm of this new Syrian administration, al-Sharaa articulated a clear stance on Lebanese-Syrian relations, emphasizing mutual sovereignty and independence, alongside a firm commitment to non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs. Al-Sharaa affirmed, “Syria will respect Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, the independence of its decision-making, and ensure security stability.”

The large Lebanese delegation was notably taken aback by al-Sharaa’s intent to directly engage with the Lebanese public, utilizing an array of Lebanese media outlets. According to reports from Nida Al Watan, al-Sharaa chose to bypass the stringent security protocols customarily surrounding Syrian officials.

Media representatives swiftly seized the opportunity to probe him on a gamut of highly confidential subjects, including the contentious ownership of the Shebaa Farms and the evolving dynamics between the nascent Syrian leadership and the Shi’ite communities in Lebanon and Syria. Additionally, there was intense scrutiny over the fate of treaties and agreements forged between Syria and Lebanon during the previous regime.

Al-Sharaa, breaking from prior diplomatic conventions, articulated his position transparently, shedding light on the past era characterized by Syrian and Iranian influence. He boldly stated, “Syria was a source of concern and turmoil, and its interference in Lebanese affairs was detrimental. The former regime colluded with Iranian militias to destabilize Syria. Our efforts were seamless, incurring minimal losses as we took charge of major city centers without incurring any destruction.”

He explicitly accused the deposed Assad regime of orchestrating the assassinations of Kamal Jumblatt, Bachir Gemayel, and Rafik Hariri. This new stance from the Syrian leader resonated with Walid Jumblatt’s address, in which he celebrated the liberation from tyranny. He hailed the resilience of this transformed nation, expressing hope for the normalization of Lebanese-Syrian relations through official diplomatic channels. Jumblatt also advocated for accountability for those who committed crimes against both Lebanese and Syrians, envisioning historical sites as memorials to past struggles.

The discussions in Damascus tackled several pressing issues. On the Shebaa Farms dispute, al-Sharaa indicated that the matter would be resolved through Syria’s emerging institutions. In contrast, Jumblatt argued for adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 242, recognizing the Farms occupied by Israel as Syrian territory, and urged border demarcation efforts to clarify territorial rights.

In addressing Shi’ite affairs, al-Sharaa emphasized a vision for Syria that transcends sectarian divides, resisting any external interference in its affairs. He stated, “Regarding Lebanese Shi’ites, irrespective of their political allegiance, we engage with them through the lens of statehood, steering clear of political bias, and forging a new chapter with all Lebanese communities.”

Regarding bilateral agreements, Jumblatt assured the submission of a comprehensive memorandum that would propose revisions and additional considerations. Al-Sharaa also announced the dispatch of a governmental delegation to Suwayda, promising enhanced services while respecting the city’s unique characteristics and national importance. He critiqued the international community’s failure to resolve the Syrian crisis over 14 years and championed a path of self-determination, asserting that Syria’s future will chart a new course.

Following their meeting, Jumblatt expressed his admiration for the encounter, proclaiming, “I embrace all of Syria and not just Suwayda. The meeting was exceptional, signaling a new chapter between our peoples.” Former MP Marwan Hamadeh praised al-Sharaa’s discourse as a foundational basis for future developments.

Meanwhile, MP Akram Chehayeb voiced his astonishment at the transformation he observed in Syria, reflecting a change unseen in the 24 years under former President Bashar Assad’s regime. Arriving at the newly designated Yabous checkpoint, visitors were confronted with a startling sight: a torn portrait of Bashar Assad alongside a fading image of his father, Hafez Assad. In stark contrast, the imagery of the new Syrian leadership remained absent, replaced only by the new national flag.

A testament to ongoing hardships, vendors lined the road selling cans of gasoline amid an evident fuel crisis. Observations suggested a significant reduction in the once ubiquitous security checkpoints between the Lebanese border and Damascus, signaling a departure from former practices.

Notably, the new leadership was composed predominantly of younger figures, noticeably devoid of older individuals among the ranks. As the delegation entered the People’s Palace, its unchanged façade prompted curiosity. A young palace staff member revealed that Rafik Hariri was the palace architect, ominously hinting at the involvement of the former regime in Hariri’s assassination. Despite a stark reduction in palace staff from a thousand employees during Assad’s era to a bare minimum now, signaling the new leadership’s shifting priorities away from palatial grandeur, the “People’s Palace” retained its antiquated allure.

A senior protocol officer, reflecting on the Lebanese delegation’s visit, remarked on the unyielding pursuit of media freedom, noting, “I was impressed by the Lebanese media’s relentless drive to secure their objectives.” This observation underscored a cultural juxtaposition, where the new Syrian regime is unaccustomed to the vibrant political discourse that unfolded before them.

Within the palace’s main reception hall, a lively scene unfolded as media personnel gradually closed the distance from the designated coverage area, eventually engaging al-Sharaa directly. His willingness to converse freely with journalists hinted at a newfound openness, metaphorically welcoming Lebanese journalistic practices. This signifies a radical departure from regional norms of media constraint.

Beyond the Jumblatt visit, Damascus bore witness to a series of strategic developments attesting to Syria’s elevated regional profile post-Assad. The new leader, al-Golani, engaged with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, and discreetly with a Saudi delegation, underlining a shift towards diplomatic restoration. Intriguingly, al-Golani also met with former Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa at his Damascus residence, extending an invitation to a national conference on Syria’s future, thereby indicating the evolving regional paradigm. – Ahmed Ayash

Bashar’s relationships that killed him

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, December 27

In my previous article, I explored the intricacies of Tehran’s relationship with Bashar Assad, a bond once deemed unshakeable. This alliance preserved Assad’s regime in 2014, only to falter a decade later.

In the twilight of his life, Hafez Assad made the momentous decision in March 2000 to engage in talks with Israel. He aimed to resolve outstanding issues before passing power to Bashar. Despite his health challenges, Hafez traveled to Geneva, where he engaged in negotiations with Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, mediated by US president Bill Clinton. The proposed agreement involved the return of the occupied Golan Heights without addressing the prospect of a Palestinian state.

While Israelis were aware of Bashar’s grooming for leadership, they remained skeptical of his ascendancy amidst internal power struggles. Hafez passed away 10 weeks after the Geneva summit. Bashar only resumed peace talks after the eruption of protests against him in 2011. Throughout, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu harbored doubts about Bashar’s willingness or ability to sever ties with Tehran and Hezbollah, ultimately leading to a rejection of further negotiations.

A key factor sustaining Hafez Assad’s regime was his adeptness in managing foreign relations with adversaries. Following the defeat of 1973, he avoided direct confrontations with Israel, whereas Bashar’s alliance with the Revolutionary Guards rendered Syria a target for inevitable destruction.

Why did Hafez, despite his covert coordination with Israel, abstain from signing a peace treaty? According to his close associate, the late Abdul Halim Khaddam, Hafez feared the narrative that an Alawite minority had brokered peace with an adversary.

As for his engagements in Lebanon, Syria abstained from attacking Israel over a 30-year period, focusing instead on curbing the activities of Palestinian factions and, to a lesser extent, Hezbollah. This dynamic shifted under Bashar, who escalated regional tensions. The senior Assad’s strategy was to control Lebanon as long as the Golan remained occupied, using this position as leverage with Arab nations and playing mediator in the crisis of Western hostages.

In line with his policy of approaching potential crises without igniting them, Hafez initially offered refuge to Turkey’s Kurds but ceased this support and indirectly surrendered their leader in response to Ankara’s threats.

Hafez’s relationship with Iran was multifaceted and strategic. He leveraged Tehran as a counterbalance against [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s regime to safeguard Damascus from being toppled. Furthermore, he used Tehran to bolster his standing with Riyadh, frequently mediating to de-escalate tensions with Iran.

Following the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, an attack on part of a housing complex in the Saudi city of Khobar, Hafez handed over some fugitives found hiding in Damascus, while aiding the escape of the plot’s leader to Tehran. In trying to decipher this relationship, Khaddam elucidated Hafez Assad’s cautious approach to Iran.

When [then-speaker of the Iranian Parliament Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani approached him in 1985, seeking support in the war against Iraq, Assad was cautious. Rafsanjani pitched the alliance by promising Syria enhanced status in relation to Turkey, Israel, and Iraq if Saddam was defeated. Assad, however, remained wary of entrenching alliances amidst the region’s shifting sands.

Bashar Assad’s downfall is partly attributed to his mishandling of foreign policy, particularly his Iranian alliance. Despite Hafez’s close ties with [Iranian Supreme Leader Ruhollah] Khomeini’s regime and recognizing its significance, he abstained from Iraq’s conflict but discreetly sold Iran Scud missiles, much like Israel and Libya did.

In contrast, early in his leadership, Bashar suggested a pivot towards the West, distancing from Moscow and Tehran. Initially, this shift excited nations, including Saudi Arabia, Spain, France, and the United States, but they soon became dismayed. With the beginning of his Iranian alliance, Bashar aimed to dominate Lebanese politics by orchestrating the assassination of [former Lebanese Prime Minister] Rafic Hariri and several leaders, paving the way for Hezbollah to emerge as the reigning force in Lebanon following the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

Subsequently, Bashar audaciously opened his southern borders to armed factions to destabilize the new US-protected government in Baghdad. This move justified Jordan and Turkey’s decision to open their borders to Syrian rebels in 2012, ultimately contributing to the regime’s demise.

Understanding these alliances within the regional context requires recognizing Hafez’s strategic relationship with Tehran as a key player, and Bashar’s subsequent involvement in its conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq. According to Khaddam, Bashar made a decisive move toward complete alignment with Tehran in 2011.

However, as I previously mentioned, Bashar had been embroiled in Tehran’s conflicts long before then. Whether Bashar’s ascension to power was significantly bolstered by extraordinary support from Tehran, compelling him to act as a proxy akin to Hezbollah, remains a subject known by few between 2000 and 2024. – Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.