What's Oman doing in the mid of uproar in the Arab Peninsula? 

Oman is that far south-eastern part of the Arab Peninsula is an interesting episode of the history. Media outlets haven't been highlighting it much.

The Omani map/ by www.operationworld.org

Most importantly, its strategic geographical location pushes the cursor of the compass towards understanding how Omani leadership handles its policies in the swaying Gulf region that surrounding it.

Oman is an oil-wealthy country, in addition, its well-reputed pearl and gemstones extraction and industry, as well as, its beauty that featured by other marine creatures like coral reefs including other amenities.

As such, it has been an attractive destination for foreign investments, especially its strategic location at "Strait of Hormuz" alone shows us a story of a challenging political experience whether that it went through since the moderate Palace Coup that occurred in 1970 in Muscat when Qaboos Ibn Saed seized the throne from his father Saed Ibn Taymor. 

Sultan Qaboos set out on a journey of political reformations characterized by moderation, openness, and pragmatism. Up till then, the Sultanate of Oman has been stable to the degree that people who live in the other hemisphere used to somewhat have some sort of impression that the country was founded silently and kept away the factors that lead to deterioration whether internally or externally, although the plagued surroundings that the Arab Peninsula has gone through. 

Indeed, Oman could have wisely managed its policies which kept off plunging into the slope of sectarianism that's MENA region has been plagued by, for instance.

The country moved on the path of regional cooperation when co-founded Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) with the other Gulf States, as well as, it maintains vigorous economic ties in this region and abroad labeled by its close strategic cooperation with the U.S.A. which not only confined on economic exchange, but also, on the security sector. It went along with U.S. counterterrorism strategy after 9/11.

Dating back to the history, we could touch upon that the fluctuations that the country experienced in the 1970s, infers to the reason behind strengthening security cooperation. In the mid of this very decade, Sultan Qaboos defeated a communist-inspired separatist group had broken out in the 1960s. Iranian military forces intervened to back Qaboos up.

By 1971, Oman occupied its seats at the UN and the Arab League.

After that, it stood up neutrally seeking out stability. It, however, endorsed the operation "the Storm of Desert" in 1990 against the former Iraqi regime for invading Kuwait, and endorsed breaking down the Iraqi attempt of building nuclear facilities.
Currently, the Gulf region is going through what's said to be one of the severest diplomatic crises has ever taken place, it erupted when the Saudi  Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain including Egypt cut diplomatic ties off, this included some of other economic conduits like airlines are suspended back and forth. 
This crisis came into play in order to subordinate the Qatari regime for its policies that considered the main factors behind strengthening terror cells in the MENA region specifically in war-ridden Syria.
Omani leadership attitude hasn't been supportive of either side, it has sought out intermediating to reach an end to this crisis. So, it didn't ramp up against Qatar revoking diplomatic relations as other countries did. Omani rule stated that "it's not a wise step to take at the moment."
It kept on this relationship with Qatar setting the demand of the boycotting axis under the Saudi leadership that asked Oman to besiege Qatar and cutting lifeline off.
Basically, Saudi leadership already criticized the Sultanate's widening relations with Iran in many fields like security and economy which shrinks the trust with Oman as a strategic ally for it.
In their turn, Omani and Kuwaiti foreign ministers have been seeking reconciliation that seemed to have brought out their biased position for the Saudi side claiming that's not in their interest to keep backing Qatar up disregarding other three Gulf's States desires on the other hand for a long, it might be a run out patience.
Of course, Omani government opens the vital crossing in the south for Qatar, but the status quo might change at any point.

    
  

Qatar diplomatic crisis provides another example of the fragility of GCC alliance 

Reconciliation is the marginalized alternative in the mid of conflict

Where is the morality in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 61/295 executed?

"Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law." Article 1

  Indigenous people or "aborigines" constitutes a controversial issue hurdling the path of resolving an existing conflict or interior communal dissension. This human category since was exposed to atrocious systematic ethnic-cleansing operations by colonizers many centuries, still suffering from a systematic rejection of their own identity and culture that the remaining of their descendants keep struggling to hold off the ruling powers' attempts of obliterating them. For instance, Native Americans is a long journey of suffering peaked with the latest battle they fought over a land claim where they stood up against pipeline project of North Dakota.

Basically, native people don't only experience insularity because they're discriminated against, but, the policies toward them haven't completely altered. They are underrepresented although the modern policies that politicians' significantly bring up to maintain civil liberties of natives opening up new horizons to embrace them into the political and social landscapes. The Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau has stressed on several occasions that Native Canadians must be equality treated as other people. He, therefore, set up a campaign calling for integrating them into all walks of life. 

The international community highlighted this issue at official levels when the United Nations declared 1993 "the International Year of World's Indigenous People." This step aimed at enhancing global cooperation in tackling the setbacks that indigenous people encounter in many countries. 
It followed by UN declaration that the period between 1994-2004 the International Decade of World's Indigenous People. And also, the UN took the same step declaring 2005 to 2015 as the second decade of World's Indigenous People. These steps had been preceded by International Labor Organization (ILO) in 1957 when it held a convention on protecting and integrating indigenous people and other ethnic groups in independent countries.
It's indicative that indigenous people are formally recognized and classified as a humanitarian issue that human rights group watching out their situation. However, the humanitarian issue isn't the only aspect that those groups are protected accordingly, there is an environmental consideration as aborigines mostly still live nomadic lifestyle keeping on their natural livestock. If their governments marginalize them, they won't be able to maintain the environment without aids to avoid coercive consumption to these natural resources, because poverty puts them into a position dictate on them using these resources up inappropriately. 
For instance, in Latin America, there are over 400 different ethnic groups. Indigenous people make up approx 12 % of the overall population there, this percentage can be estimated nearly 50 million people.
In this region, and although most of Latin countries adopt international covenants on the rights of the native population, those natives still discriminated against and whose identity faces a steep path like racial misgivings of the legitimacy of their existence in their land. 
Tracing this issue in the Latin American region, we could find out some shocking facts that native people don't enjoy equality in many fields. For example, their children attend school for a shorter time that non-native, as well as, native children engage in labor more than non-native. In spite of the fact that indigenous congregations in many Latin American countries are allowed to set up political and social campaigns. They, consequently, enjoy integrating their institutions into different spheres of general life, they still encountering various impediments.
Therefore, indigenous people carry the brunt of racial policies are implemented to encircle them off in an attempt has been obvious to eradicate their identity. What happened in September 2007 when the long-awaited UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted with 143 votes, after 20 years of deliberations within the General Assembly. 11 countries abstained and 4 (Canada, New Zealand, the USA and Australia) voted against claiming that this declaration violates their sovereignty.
Ironically, these four countries that voted against are characterized by plurinational and diversity. Furthermore, these decisions that have been taken thus far for raising the grievances of native people are legally not binding, it means that irrespective if the country voted for recognizing aborigins getting them equal civil rights, it finally could be nullified at a certain point which indicates the moral weakness in the international resolution for the rights of indigenous peoples.
  

Shared education in the Israeli society is an attempt to bridge what's unbridgeable in the mid of rejecting the narrative of the other side

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories still in need for learning about the Israeli legal system's reverberations.

  According to Geneva Convention of 1949, in Article 64 specifically, stipulates that, 

"The penal laws of the occupied territories shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offenses covered by the said laws..."

An aerial photo mapping the terraces of the disputed land inside the red line/ (the State Attorney)

This Convention contextualized the legal regulations under military rule including human rights shall be ensured. It was preceded by Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 had been groundbreaking before the commencement of WWI in setting up laws following the war and under the military rules. 

This actually, creates a jurisdiction applied by the military ruler over unarmed civilians who sometimes unaware enough of its items. Their daily life is managed accordingly as a foreign law which has repercussions on the other hand.

The experience I'm going through in human rights field sharpens many probing questions hovering over to figure out how the Israeli military law is arranged in the Palestinian Territories where the Palestinian grievances are being brought up at military courts to find their fair verdicts by judges dressed up with the military uniform, it prompts me to wonder whether the officer who sets down on his bench in front of the claimants understands their civil rights from a military perspective or not.

The 4th of June was the day marked the first episode at an Israeli military court for me. The purpose to be there is coordinating between an Israeli lawyer doesn't speak Arabic and his Palestinian clients who don't speak Hebrew, on the other hand. The lawsuit had been raised, it addresses a land claim and settler transgressions from the adjacent area to the disputed land where placed an illegal outpost called "Beit Ayn" neighboring Safa and Beit Omar villages.

The lawyer had called me asking for an urgent meeting with those clients live in the aforementioned villages and for whom a human rights organization in Jerusalem is working. He aimed to explain to them how to be aware enough of the affidavit they already gave to keep on without change that might expose the case to a potential nullification because of inconsistency between the documented affidavits if they proved to be contradictory, as well as, the lawyer informed them concerning the lack of settler violence constantly as they claim orally and some documented literally. Furthermore, there are aerial photos were taken which geographically elaborate the disputed pieces of land in detail prove that those claimants have not been to their land since 1989. They firmly denied it. 

At the session, the judges arrived dressed up with military uniform. I had forgotten that military court isn't only dedicated to military personnel or those who carry out onslaughts against military and security targets. But, to those who live unarmed under the military rule, irrespective what kind of litigation they have or over which claim.

Before the session took place, the lawyer repeated his assertiveness to his clients regarding the credibility of aerial photos that might have in front of the judge, "don't belittle them, and to overcome this barrier, you must insist on your affidavit about settler violence that has prevented you access to the land up till then," he said.
To get this successful done,  they need to step up for putting an end to the constant violence which requires not denying aerial photos, it may put the case at risk. The clients denied what's documented in claiming that they have been regularly to their land. 
At the end of the conversation with the lawyer, one of them -an old man in his seventies- called "Mohammed Salibi" insisted on his attitude, "these aerial photos are baseless, I head up to my land on a regular basis. I, consequently, won't tell lies in the court." He was uncompromising showing distrust appeared on his wrinkled face, I have no doubt that he didn't trust the lawyer either.
Losing the land is regulated according to the "Ottoman Land Registration Law" that Israeli Authorities still finds it adaptable, stipulates that, "if the land is abandoned for a period of 10 years, shall be seized by the ruling power. Thus, these photos clarify a long period of their absence.
Dating back Hague regulations we find out that article 46 stipulates,

"Private property must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated."

It's incumbent upon Israeli occupying military force providing protection for the properties of occupied people.
Therefore, Salibi hadn't a solid aware that the judge in front of him won't believe his oral testimony and disregard the aerial photography that was made by licensed expert had been hired by a formal aspect.
So, in order to convince the judge that they've not been to the land due to settler violence, in addition to tangible clues lead to the fact that the land hasn't intentionally been abandoned, they should confirm what's clarified in the photos.
Eventually, this stride comes out to install hurdles on the path of applied "Absentees Property Law" concerning the properties have been abandoned for more than a decade which categorized as without owners.
In the first round, Khalil Thalji addressed based on the existing reality, "Well, I admit that I have never been to the land not because this land whose ownership is documented under our ownership since more than  dozens of years is abandoned," and wisely continues, "It's because there is a conclusive evidence that the land including farmers who  could barely and painstakingly get into, can't access normally due to violent settlers from the adjoining outpost "Beit Ayn" who come down to kick us out of it."
There was the State attorney whose position is against the claimant, with his investigative questions in an attempt to bring out any gap could prove the case unsubstantial and lacks a realistic evidence to get it nullified. 
Thalji could overcome the shrewdly directed questions proving that the land is not abandoned, it's cultivated with olive and old growth trees including seasonal crops. The drawback is regarded to systematic violence by settlers. Other than that, nothing holds him back accessing the land.
The second round began with Salibi, he, unfortunately, gave in to his emotionality rather than rationality. The case, basically, requires shrewdness and eloquence in the way how you give your testimony. First of all, consistency is very important to keep the case convincing. Therefore, Salibi's uncompromising position got him into complication with unclear statement, "I have been to my land despite everything, I go there regularly plowing, sowing and cultivating it," he continues, "However, since I won the suite after 8 years of struggle peaked with a final decision from the high court that proved my claim, I face some challenges accessing it as documented in the first testimony."
Then, the hunter -the State Attorney- found his prey in the trap, asking, "how come you go regularly to your land which aerial photos prove the contrast between both affidavits the previous and today's one? It means that settler violence is untruthful, and the area is safe."
During the session, the lawyer felt upset, "the suit might be lost after this absurd testimony, the court will find him a liar," said Yair, "why he is insistent on his position? Didn't we explain to him that the judge believes only the documents in his hands? However, compatible oral testimony adds more credibility," he added.
I asked Salibi, why did he reject what's documented in the photos? He said, "I was very concerned that if I had confessed that I have never been to the land since the given date, the suit might have been lost."
Sailibi didn't want to show a weak position believing that Israelis confiscate abandoned land so that he wanted to prove his constant attendance there. He, probably, thought that the lawyer would cheat him, or has had previous experiences made him a skeptic.
This matter, in fact, reflects a great extent of how Palestinians under the Israeli military rule are still ignorant concerning the Israeli regulations. For me, too, I have no background of how the entire legal system functions in the Occupied Territories.
Supposedly, there are civil institutions in our society conduct symposiums for introducing the Israeli military rule including courts work, and how the rights of unarmed civilians living under it are treated.   

"But, she's divorced." This perception must be totally erased from our dictionary 

   Each society has a specificity where individuals manage their lives accordingly. This specificity is emanated from an overwhelming ideology, religion or an inheritable tradition generation-by-generation to the degree that it's not smoothly to overstep this ingrained tradition by whichever means.

In this condition, every individual must have to be committed to the prevailing social rules. Otherwise, nothing tolerable with any attempt of overruling this especially in ultra-conservative societies where diversity is barely existent. It, therefore, has no place.

As people are categorized into different groups based on social status; males, females, single, widows, divorced and married. Each of which encounters certain social impediments. For instance, females have an interesting story full of challenges, and if we capture this very category, we'll touch upon that women have suffered much in many societies in all over the world, in terms of their struggle to get out of gender based social hegemony imposed on them throughout the course of history. 

Women in the U.S.A. have a benchmark on this thread, their struggle marked the U.S. archive passing through bumpy paths. It proved that the nature of human relations are characterized by a relentless struggle to regain the legitimate civil rights by the weaker group.

And, definitely, there are root causes behind this struggle that stir it up, masculinity, for instance, features a remarkable part. I can simply address that in my society it's a phenomenon outmaneuvers femininity on all aspects of life. To clarify it more, divorced women are harshly impacted within this realm which has a prolonged struggle, they haven't overcome the prevailing perception towards them yet for no reason other than being divorced where sadly certain groups consider them as a second-hand stuff. As such, the second chance that keeps her value comes out in return for a price she's supposed to pay, if she belongs to a wealthy family, then, the wealth will guarantee her a dignified second experience. Otherwise, the divorced would be sometimes subordinated to that horrible perception portraying her as a divorced that men rarely look up asking her to take up their new marriage offer, they think traditionally that as long as there are virgins. 
Whatever she does to prove the reverse of what the term "divorced" refers to, it implies a traditional anachronistic definition was apparently shaped at first by forefathers had lived even before the last generation long years ago, which is sadly still a deliberated term to describe women who are categorized as such.
But, does "divorce" stigmatize women?
To interpret it from a humanitarian perspective, not at all, divorce doesn't imply that women are discredited aftermath. It, actually, all about a social dilemma reverberates a convoluted way of thinking where the descendants of the last generations keep on to describe divorced in my society, it emanates from a feeling of superiority over the other sex.
The last story I heard through a conversation in a gathering where I was coincidentally made me upset to reconsider the matter from another angle to hopelessly get it washed away from our daily dictionary at the moment. 
It's a story of a cute woman got divorced after a long struggle to get her rights from her ex-husband. She's considered one of the elites in the village in terms of a great success in the academic field, she is prolific. However, she doesn't belong to a wealthy family, this status imposes on her to be subordinated to the prevailing unfair equation, she would have to carry the brunt of that unbearable social perception in a society sanctifies the woman as long as her virginity is fine. Her cuteness and success won't intercede to bail her out.
This bunch of persons got a news that this woman has gotten engaged again. The tale sharpened their curiosity so that they began gossiping and wondering, "from whom?"
The first person, "From that guy, do you remember him? He served a 7 years sentence in the Palestinian Authority's prison because he was a collaborator with Israelis."
The second one, "Gotcha! got it now, that guy is disreputable, how come her family accepted him as a second husband for their daughter? They're well-reputed people and moreover, have a national orientation."
"Come on man! don't forget that she's divorced, and assuredly the unbearable social pressure forced her to accept this collaborator, she might have found him a golden opportunity after having been painstakingly struggling to get her rights first after a long procrastination at the court including the social perception aftermath," said the third one.
In fact, collaborators in my society are ostracized whom people despise and don't deal with. They only get married from infamous people like them or underprivileged. It's actually not my topic to highlight the collaborators' issue, but, as those gossipers found it's much for this a cute woman to get married again which they relieved themselves when they had known the future husband is that scummy collaborator. Otherwise, she wouldn't have easily found a nice guy. What's a madness! 
It's hard to imagine if this backward way of thinking towards the divorce is rampant!
This story reflects how much superiority over divorced women is inculcated in the minds of people within traditionalist and tribal society. This obscurantist social perspective must be in any way faded away. It enhances an absurd discriminatory perception which generates only more fragmentation-based social status.

   

Note, warm apology in advance for using indecent words "vulgarity," it's the inescapable reality. Furthermore, doesn't represent the vast majority. 

 Tribalism and the dilemma of social bigotry  

  Tribalism, tribalism, tribalism?!

"Tribalism is the most powerful force in the world!" Patrick Dixon

How come? It's seemingly quite conspicuous that the term is realistic constitutes a lens we could see through an entire society with its various components. It explains a social fabric consists of a bunch of tribes share the same geographical spot owe allegiance to the same firm social norms are inherited generation-by-generation. Therefore, maintaining them vivid is necessary to keep on the values that the holistic concept of tribalism imposes on the tribal masses that pay a staunch support for. 

As such, individualism has significantly failed to find its place within tribal societies, because it's not your own choice to make up your mind regarding even many personal matters that the family sticks up for values in a way the individual find living path is blocked down with patriarchal hurdles which she/he must be acquiescent to.
The concept pushes us to figure out the mystery behind the immense power it has according to Dixon. For me, I could testify after having been experiencing tribalism for almost three decades that indeed it has an incredible influence that people are shackled up with its spirituality that's vigorously inculcated in the mind. It's  a dogma had been created in the MENA region before the message of Islam brought out in the Arab Peninsula many centuries ago.

Characteristically, the Middle Eastern societies are tribally shaped, hierarchically the grand leader of each tribe owns the authority over those adherents who belong to. There are duties must be fulfilled other than alliance, like synergy from each member whether in times of intensity or leniency in order to keep the name of the clan or tribe held up and well-reputed because it's very important to keep this name pure. Otherwise, this tribe will lose in the competition arena, and this competition is multidimensional. For instance, if the tribe is well off economically, then its individual can garner prestigious posture in the society even politically those individuals of wealthy clans find themselves ruling over other worse off clans who sometimes can find their place in patriarchal-based society.    

Basically, the relationships among the tribes plunge into the cycle of who have more dominance. Thus, the norm of power is highly considered, as a result, social ostentation occupies the scene. So, the equation as such, the more powerful your tribe is, the more positive reaction you receive.

Many anthropologists and thinkers have found out that tribalism is a fatal plague drives societies to complications in many spheres. Culturally, they could touch upon the reality devoid of its pluralism within tribal realms. It's attributed to the tribal-based mentality that doesn't find integrating into different cultural melting pot tastable. Conversely, it's kind of introversion violates cultural values.

Politically, tribal societies starkly lack sound democracy, even any democratic process inside the society ends up being a mirage because eventually, the culture of dominance is the watershed at any democratic process. For example, in the domestic elections, you find that candidates belong to stronger clans regardless how qualified they are, sweeping the positions. 

It's imaginable to think a little bit of what Alexander Haig addressed, 

"You have to look at the history of the Middle East in particular. It has been one of the failure and frustration, of feudalism and tribalism."

Needless to spin around the matters of failure, frustration, and feudalism, these dilemmas are found in Latin America as well. But, here Alexander has a criticism of why the MENA region is democratically torn-apart. I do endorse him claiming that democracy even free and creative thinking don't work out well under tribalism. 
The phenomena don't only stop at this brink, it, however, is proven to be a reason of fostering bigotry and fundamentalism. As the individual keeps living in a homogeneous environment mixed up of components must be obligatory fulfilled. In a practical case, when conservatism collides with tribalism, the situation is stifling then, there is no domain for multiculturalism because it might be the social restrictions which the fruits of this phenomena play crucially in cracking down on creative thinking. 
To keep off misconception,  this lifestyle that encounters a growing resistance especially from the current generation doesn't refer to the fact that there is a police power watching out those who attempt to think differently then chase them down, not at all. However, the problem is, if one decided to find a new way of thinking or living within a tribal conservative realm, he won't be able to move on for a long time, because there is acceptability for wiping stereotypes out. Then, it's better to carry on this kind of living isolated under your roof.
Roughly, Sherman Alxies argued that tribalism is a root-cause of social dilemma that people can't smoothly drift away living on this path, 

"Well, I think the worst part about tribalism is its tendency to fundamentalize, and if I can fight fundamentalism in any of its forms I'm happy."

I can specifically argue, the bigotry is ascribed to mentality has been entrapped into tribal spots where it has never tried out change. This mentality, however, is attracted to get out of traditionalism in cosmopolitan areas which plays instrumentally in diluting the stringent nature of tribal mentality that finds the new multicolored places as a sanctuary where salvation can embrace new aspirations to get out of the box. 
Appearance is indispensable within tribalism, in Saudi Arabia, I don't think that woman after coming back from the U.S.A., can keep unveiled, it would be a big dispute against the tribe she belongs to. So, don't transcend the traditional way of appearing at public places. 
If this the landscape in our region, how it's in the West? I think the difference is fanaticism in the West can't run over the entire political landscape because family ties are unleashed so that every individual is linked directly to the authority whose power isn't concentrated on certain groups who in their turn monopolize it in favor of their interests whilst those who belong to underprivileged tribes find themselves marginalized. Consequently, bigotry there can't sweep an entire society.  
To recap, I have no disapproval towards what the aforementioned thinkers substantially shaped a perspective towards how threatening tribalism is to the entire and holistic democratic doctrine, that supposedly constitutes our free way of choosing the lifestyle that suits our various orientations away from the hegemony of patriarchal family which's derived from a staunchly dominant tribalism over our willpower. 
Therefore, tribalism entraps thinking into a very narrow space where the knowledge we derive managing many aspects of our life from anachronistic values aim frantically at keeping the hegemonic tribal system viable where liberties are in the hands of those who have prestigious postures or the grand leader (Mukhtar) of each tribe who's waiting for a blind obedience from those puppets working under his umbrella. Moreover, females cannot share this position with. It's unreal equality under tribalism harnesses the principle of patriarchism that categorizes society hierarchically into different groups which enhance gender-based discrimination.  
It's time to eradicate this tough social fabric, it requires more awareness to be spread among the current generation in order for driving them out of the impact of bigotry of tribalism through encouraging dialogue within the society, convincing those of the last generation who blindly believe that tribalism is the right way of living, it's a harmful thinking must come to an end because this globalized world requires creating an open-minded generation to keep up with the accelerating modernity.