Peace Process

The end of Cold War created a unique opportunity for both the Arabs and Israelis to end their animosity and for the United States to play an important role to bring them to peace negotiations. Therefore, during the 1990s, the U.S. facilitated several rounds of talks between Syria and Israel, but the negotiations complicated gradually. The talks were stalled over the fact that Israel did not want to withdraw from the Golan Heights prior to concluding security arrangements and normalization of relations with Syria. There were variety of reasons that prevented Syria and Israel from reaching a peace agreement. Besides, unresolved issues such as the Golan Heights, the biased role of the United States in the Syrian-Israeli talks left the process at an intractable impasse. The fact that the U.S. had strategic relations with Israel and due to the increasing power of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. Congress, Washington failed to be an honest broker. Both Syrian and Israeli inflexibility, mutual mistrust and suspicious along with tentative and conditional nature of talks were proved hindrances. The U.S. could play an active role through urging both Damascus and Tel Aviv to comply with the basic and logical needs of peace, pushing the Israelis to withdraw from the Syrian territory, urging the Syrians to moderate their positions-allowing new demarcation of border-strengthening confidence-building measures between the parties and assuring them that peace will provide their basic needs, and in no way will the conflict be settled at the expense of either’s interests.

The religious nationalism in Neo-Taliban era implies a process of distancing from tribal legitimacy toward a more nationalistic narration. The research aims to understand the Religious nationalism in the approach of Neo- Taliban toward state-building and the peace process. In this regard, the social theory of Ibn Khaldun is employed to measure the process, the logic and the consequences of the birth of its religious nationalism. It becomes clear that the group spiced its religious narration with nationalist changes to win more social support and legitimacy by overcoming ethnonationalism and emphasizing on nationalistic notions that ultimately weakened its traditional legitimacy.

This study conducted a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of Arab English-language online newspapers to examine how the Israeli-Lebanese and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are represented. Employing Fairclough's three-dimensional framework, the research explored the linguistic, discursive, and socio-cultural dimensions of media narratives, integrating framing theory to investigate how these narratives shape public opinion and geopolitical discourse. The study’s design involved the systematic collection and analysis of 50 articles from prominent newspapers such as Al Jazeera English, Al Arabiya English, and Asharq Al-Awsat, selected for their diverse ideological perspectives. The findings revealed distinct ideological framings employed by each outlet, ranging from systemic oppression narratives to calls for regional diplomacy. These narratives are shaped by geopolitical affiliations, cultural identities, and the affordances of digital media, including the role of algorithms and user-generated content. The research highlights how digital tools and social media amplify and polarize discourses, influencing public sentiment and policy debates. By addressing gaps in the literature concerning Arab media’s linguistic strategies and digital affordances, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the interplay between language, power, and ideology in conflict representation. Implications extend to both academic discourse and practical applications, providing a framework for policymakers, peacebuilding organizations, and journalists to critically engage with and promote balanced conflict narratives. This interdisciplinary approach underscores the evolving role of digital media in shaping political realities, offering a nuanced lens for future research on conflict discourse.