مجید بزرگمهری

In the field of futurology research in the revelatory texts, various research works have been done in academic centers. What has been paid less attention in these researches is dealing with the presuppositions that should be taken into consideration. The futurological understanding of the revelatory text, as its name suggests, is based on the three pillars of the quiddity of understanding, the quiddity of future, and the quiddity of the revelatory text. In other words, depending on what understanding and perception we have of the phenomenon of understanding itself, what perception and imagination we have of the future, and how we consider the revelatory text as a text and what we should expect from it, makes our futurological understanding different. In this regard, in the first part of the article, an attempt is made to address the point that the researches that have been carried out in the futurological field are based on what perception and expectation of the Holy Qur'an and how this perception and expectation can be used in futurological studies. In the next section, we are focused on the concept of the future and how the understanding of the future that emerges in different paradigms affects the futurological understanding of the revelatory text. In the next section, we are focused on the concept of the future and how the understanding of the future that emerges in different paradigms affects the futurist's understanding of the revelatory text. This study shows that the concept of the future has been moving from something objective, rigid and external to something subjective and rooted in people's beliefs today.

The AKP’s policy towards Palestine is the main core of this article. The Turkish authorities have tried to play as the mediator in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and have attempted through various political and economic initiatives to support a peace agreement between both sides. However, after the 2008 Gaza war, the AKP government’s foreign policy stance towards Israel began to change, at least officially. This war, alongside to other events such as 2009 Davos, the 2010 Low Chair and the 2010 Mavi Marmara, produced a public political conflict in the Turkish-Israeli relations. This tension extended from the 2008 Gaza war until the normalization deal between the two countries in June 2016. But this political tension did not have very impact on the other current fields of cooperation between Ankara and Tel Aviv. This emphasizes clearly that both countries were pragmatic in maintaining efficient and strategic ties. The major research question can be stated as the following: What has been the Turkish government's policy on the Palestinian issue between 2002-2020? In addition we want to assess the proximity and distance of Turkey's policies from Iranian perspectives and positions.

Despite Iran’s critical relations with USA since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Canada had often played the role of an honest broker and maintained relations with Iran, con-trary to the US. Although the Canadian Government has not viewed the Iranian regime as democratic actor, it was interested in pursuing diplomacy for moderating the Iranian Policies too. Iran and Canada relations have passed the numerous ups and downs in the diplomatic, political and economic affairs. As our major question, this study aims at in-vestigating the main factors, which affect the structure of bilateral relations. Canada has controlled engagement policy limits talks with Iran down to four main subjects: Iran’s human rights situation, its regional role, notably towards Israel and the Middle East Peace Process, its nuclear program and an unfair accusation claiming a supportive role for Iran in world terrorism. Insisting on the principles of its foreign policy with its own reasonable justifications, Iran has tried to test various ways for conserving some levels of cooperation particularity economic and for keeping so the limited links with North America. Relaying on discourse analysis, the article tries to elaborate the related issues by looking at the perspectives of both parties.

Since the expansion of ISIS in the summer of 2014, Israeli leaders have increasingly proclaimed the Kurds’ right to an independent state in Iraqi Kurdistan. So an important question is raised. What is Israel`s main objective towards to Kurds and their efforts for independence? Based on the «peripheral strategy», what could be place of the Kurds in Israel’s strategy in the Near and Middle East? If does Israel consider the Kurdish issue as vital component of its priorities in the foreign policy or see it just as a temporary benefit in its regional security considerations? Relying on the various comments and opinions, our study uses the contextual analysis for finding the facts and presenting the impartial final analysis. Our analysis is shaped and developed by the facts reported and discussed by the experts as well as by real strategic considerations of the players. I try to shape my argument based on two pivotal considerations, first ethnical debate and second Tel Aviv`s long term strategy in the region. Based on both of them, the Kurd issue will be a marginal not main concern for Israel. Tel Aviv seeks to abuse the Kurdish independence emotions, and it is and will be a half way comrade for Kurdish people, nothing more