Connect with us

Middle East

How the parliamentary snap elections changed so little on Israel

Published

on

Israel parliamentary elections of March 17 were won by Likud (centre-right party) that was able to conquer 30 mandates (out of 120) on an electoral night that began with a neck to neck race. Almost 24% (23.40%) of the electors in Israel decided not to punish Likud for calling election two years ahead schedule allowing the ruling party to have twelve more representatives at the Knesset (Israeli Parliament).

The Zionist Union (centre-left party), considered the main opposition bloc to the incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, came in second with less than 19% of the votes (18.67%) and 24 mandates conquered. In an election clearly marked by ethnic and religious concerns, the third place was for The Joint List, an alliance of four mainly-Arab parties, that secured 13 seats with more than 10% (10.54%) of the casted votes.

The new legislative session at the Knesset will also have representatives from seven other political forces: Yesh Atid (11 seats; 8.81%); Kulanu (10 seats; 7.49%); Bayit Yehudi (8 seats; 6.74%); Shas (7 seats; 5.73%); Yisrael Beytenu (6 seats; 5.11%); United Torah Judaism (6 seats; 5.03%) Meretz (5 seats; 3.93%). The election of March 17, 2015, registered an impressive turnout of 72.3%, an increase of 4.5% when compared with the legislative scrutiny of 2013.

The progress of turnout in Israel, quite interestingly, does not show any sort of electoral fatigue like registered in several Western countries. Israeli citizens seem to value democratic institutions, although to several analysts it is clear that voting happens due to nationalistic-conservatism (the need to protect someone’s identity) than to a firm belief on democracy in itself. The mere fact that several jewish orthodox parties gained mandates against the more ideological and less religious based parties seems to prove the dominance of national-conservatism over democracy-defenders.

Minor changes but no transformation

Israel parliamentary elections were supposed to happen only on 2017 but strong disagreements inside the five-parties ruling coalition, that supported the thirty third government of Israel, led the Prime Minister Netanyahu (Likud) to fire the Minister of Justice, Tzipi Livni (Hatnuah) and the Minister of Finance, Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) on December 2, 2014 a few hours after announcing his intention to present a dissolution bill at the Knesset.

Tension regarding budgetary affairs and the so-called “Jewish State Law” (bill that aims to codify Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people) were the main drive behind the dissolution bill, that was approved on December 8. The eclectic political arena of Israel began moving really fast. Opposition leader Isaac Herzog (Labor Party) invited Livni to form the Zionist Union, that performed quite well on several polls before the elections.

The snap elections also brought the novelty of an alliance of four mainly-pro-Arab parties (Balad, Hadash, Ta’al, United Arab List): The Joint List. The alliance was formed due to three reasons: 1.) the understanding that several small Arab parties at the Knesset are a less efficient way to advance the Arab agenda in Israel; 2.) fear that the new threshold (that in March 2014 increased from 2% to 3.25%) would lead to less Arab representatives; 3.) The Joint List can also be seen as a symbolic reply of Arab politicians to the “Jewish State Law”.

The Law, that was immediately criticised by several Western politicians, is seen as a back step against the chance to achieve any sort of peace with the Palestinians. The law also introduces several concerns regarding the capacity of Israel to continue to be a multi-ethnoreligious space, since one ethnoreligious identity (Jewish) will be constitutionally the “owner” of Israel over all other ethnoreligious identities (mainly Muslims, Christians, Samaritans and Caucasian exiled groups). How will a strict-nation-state be in position to negotiate peace with the “other” that is not perceived politically as an equal?

The closer the election day the more mind-puzzling were the polls. No outcome could be predicted and that made the incumbent Prime-Minister very nervous. To the surprise of Washington and many other Western allies, in the end of the campaign Netanyahu stated that there would be no Palestinian state during his mandate, in what was a clear “blink-of-an-eye” to the centre-right-to- right parties that could tip the scale is his favour.

The statement was immediately denounced, by several regional leaders, as clear evidence of the unwillingness of Tel Aviv’s political elite to find a suitable solution to end the everlasting peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Internationally several politicians criticised the remarks of Netanyahu, arguing that they do not help the already tricky peace deal negotiations. Despite all the external criticism, the diplomatically perilous bet paid off on a domestic level.

Interestingly, the incumbent Prime Minister was not only “flirting” with the pro-Zionist centre-right- to-right parties but also with Reuven Rivlin, President of Israel, that is known to be a critic of the two-states solution advocated by Brussels and Washington. The electorate gave to Netanyahu what he ultimately wanted: and that was not the victory of Likud but the defeat of the Zionist Union. Netanyahu knew that if the Zionist Union would come in second, Likud would be in a better position to negotiate with the other pro-Zionist centre-right-to-right parties posed to win seats at the 34th legislative session at the Knesset.

Let the negotiations begin

Formally speaking, Netanyahu was only be invited by President Rivlin to form government, after the scrutiny of March 17, on March 25. The incumbent Prime Minister will have until April 22 to conclude the coalition deals and ministerial posts distribution. The deadline can, nonetheless, be extended to May 6 if needed. A national government with the Zionist Union is not discarded but the chances of that to materialise are slim, at best.

The new governmental coalition will most probably include Kulanu (whose leader is expected to become the new Finance Minister), Bayit Yehudi (whose leader is inclined towards the Defence and Foreign Affairs ministries but Netanyahu aims to have him with the Education post), Shas (that is seeking to secure positions at the Interior and Religious Services ministries) United Torah Judaism (with clear interest on the Health portfolio) and Yisrael Beytenu (whose leader aims to be Defence Minister despite Netanyahu’s apparent unwillingness to comply).

Although the new governmental coalition is still under negotiation what seems clear is that Tel Aviv political scenario did not changed that much with the snap elections. Likud remains in power with a deeper entrenchment in the electorate; ethnic/religious devisions are now wider and not narrower; national unity (that can only be achieved via an inclusive dialogue) remains a non-priority and the settlement of the Palestinian Affair is doomed to continue on murky waters.

Elections in Israel also showed the double standards of Western countries in what regards the defence of democratic principles. The same West that is always so vocal against the vibrant rhetoric of Hungary’s Jobik or against the nationalistic-ultraconservative style of France’s Le Pen seemed to be unable (or unwilling) to criticise the virulent nationalistic rhetoric adopted by Likud’s leader in the end of the electoral race. This double standards however are dangerous in a time in which basic pillars of democracy are being challenged by multiple contenders!

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Process to draft Syria constitution begins this week

Published

on

The process of drafting a new constitution for Syria will begin this week, the UN Special Envoy for the country, Geir Pedersen, said on Sunday at a press conference in Geneva.

Mr. Pedersen was speaking following a meeting with the government and opposition co-chairs of the Syrian Constitutional Committee, who have agreed to start the process for constitutional reform.

The members of its so-called “small body”, tasked with preparing and drafting the Constitution, are in the Swiss city for their sixth round of talks in two years, which begin on Monday. 

Their last meeting, held in January, ended without progress, and the UN envoy has been negotiating between the parties on a way forward.

“The two Co-Chairs now agree that we will not only prepare for constitutional reform, but we will prepare and start drafting for constitutional reform,” Mr. Pedersen told journalists.

“So, the new thing this week is that we will actually be starting a drafting process for constitutional reform in Syria.”

The UN continues to support efforts towards a Syrian-owned and led political solution to end more than a decade of war that has killed upwards of 350,000 people and left 13 million in need of humanitarian aid.

An important contribution

The Syrian Constitutional Committee was formed in 2019, comprising 150 men and women, with the Government, the opposition and civil society each nominating 50 people.

This larger group established the 45-member small body, which consists of 15 representatives from each of the three sectors.

For the first time ever, committee co-chairs Ahmad Kuzbari, the Syrian government representative, and Hadi al-Bahra, from the opposition side, met together with Mr. Pedersen on Sunday morning. 

He described it as “a substantial and frank discussion on how we are to proceed with the constitutional reform and indeed in detail how we are planning for the week ahead of us.”

Mr. Pedersen told journalists that while the Syrian Constitutional Committee is an important contribution to the political process, “the committee in itself will not be able to solve the Syrian crisis, so we need to come together, with serious work, on the Constitutional Committee, but also address the other aspects of the Syrian crisis.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

North Africa: Is Algeria Weaponizing Airspace and Natural Gas?

Published

on

In a series of shocking and unintelligible decisions, the Algerian Government closed its airspace to Moroccan military and civilian aircraft on September 22, 2021, banned French military planes from using its airspace on October 3rd, and decided not to renew the contract relative to the Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline, which goes through Morocco and has been up and running since 1996–a contract that comes to end on October 31.

In the case of Morocco, Algeria advanced ‘provocations and hostile’ actions as a reason to shut airspace and end the pipeline contract, a claim that has yet to be substantiated with evidence. Whereas in the case of France, Algeria got angry regarding visa restrictions and comments by French President Emmanuel Macron on the Algerian military grip on power and whether the North African country was a nation prior to French colonization in 1830.

Tensions for decades

Algeria has had continued tensions with Morocco for decades, over border issues and over the Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Morocco as part of its historical territorial unity, but contested by Algeria which supports an alleged liberation movement that desperately fights for independence since the 1970s.

With France, the relation is even more complex and plagued with memories of colonial exactions and liberation and post-colonial traumas, passions and injuries. France and Algeria have therefore developed, over the post-independence decades, a love-hate attitude that quite often mars otherwise strong economic and social relations.

Algeria has often reacted to the two countries’ alleged ‘misbehavior’ by closing borders –as is the case with Morocco since 1994—or calling its ambassadors for consultations, or even cutting diplomatic relations, as just happened in August when it cut ties with its western neighbor.

But it is the first-time Algeria resorts to the weaponization of energy and airspace. “Weaponization” is a term used in geostrategy to mean the use of goods and commodities, that are mainly destined for civilian use and are beneficial for international trade and the welfare of nations, for geostrategic, political and even military gains. As such “weaponization” is contrary to the spirit of free trade, open borders, and solidarity among nations, values that are at the core of common international action and positive globalization.

What happened?

Some observers advance continued domestic political and social unrest in Algeria, whereby thousands of Algerians have been taking to the streets for years to demand regime-change and profound political and economic reforms. Instead of positively responding to the demands of Algerians, the government is probably looking for desperate ways to divert attention and cerate foreign enemies as sources of domestic woes. Morocco and France qualify perfectly for the role of national scapegoats.

It may be true also that in the case of Morocco, Algeria is getting nervous at its seeing its Western neighbor become a main trade and investment partner in Africa, a role it can levy to develop diplomatic clout regarding the Western Sahara issue. Algeria has been looking for ways to curb Morocco’s growing influence in Africa for years. A pro-Algerian German expert, by the name of Isabelle Werenfels, a senior fellow in the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, even recommended to the EU to put a halt to Morocco’s pace and economic clout so that Algeria could catch up. Weaponization may be a desperate attempt to hurt the Moroccan economy and curb its dynamism, especially in Africa.

The impact of Algeria’s weaponization of energy and airspace on the Moroccan economy is minimal and on French military presence in Mali is close to insignificant; however, it shows how far a country that has failed to administer the right reforms and to transfer power to democratically elected civilians can go.

In a region, that is beleaguered by threats and challenges of terrorism, organized crime, youth bulge, illegal migration and climate change, you would expect countries like Algeria, with its geographic extension and oil wealth, to be a beacon of peace and cooperation. Weaponization in international relations is inacceptable as it reminds us of an age when bullying and blackmail between nations, was the norm. The people of the two countries, which share the same history, language and ethnic fabric, will need natural gas and unrestricted travel to prosper and grow and overcome adversity; using energy and airspace as weapons is at odds with the dreams of millions of young people in Algeria and Morocco that aspire for a brighter future in an otherwise gloomy economic landscape. Please don’t shatter those dreams!

Continue Reading

Middle East

Breaking The Line of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Published

on

The conflict between Israel-Palestine is a prolonged conflict and has become a major problem, especially in the Middle East region.

A series of ceasefires and peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine that occurred repeatedly did not really “normalize” the relationship between the two parties.

In order to end the conflict, a number of parties consider that the two-state solution is the best approach to create two independent and coexistent states. Although a number of other parties disagreed with the proposal, and instead proposed a one-state solution, combining Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one big state.

Throughout the period of stalemate reaching an ideal solution, the construction and expansion of settlements carried out illegally by Israel in the Palestinian territories, especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem, also continued without stopping and actually made the prospect of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis increasingly eroded, and this could jeopardize any solutions.

The attempted forced eviction in the Sheikh Jarrah district, which became one of the sources of the conflict in May 2021, for example, is an example of how Israel has designed a system to be able to change the demographics of its territory by continuing to annex or “occupy” extensively in the East Jerusalem area. This is also done in other areas, including the West Bank.

In fact, Israel’s “occupation” of the eastern part of Jerusalem which began at the end of the 1967 war, is an act that has never received international recognition.

This is also confirmed in a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council Numbers 242, 252, 267, 298, 476, 478, 672, 681, 692, 726, 799, 2334 and also United Nations General Assembly Resolutions Number 2253, 55/130, 60/104, 70/89, 71/96, A/72/L.11 and A/ES-10/L.22 and supported by the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 on Legal Consequences of The Construction of A Wall in The Occupied Palestine Territory which states that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories under Israeli “occupation”.

1 or 2 country solution

Back to the issue of the two-state solution or the one-state solution that the author mentioned earlier. The author considers that the one-state solution does not seem to be the right choice.

Facts on the ground show how Israel has implemented a policy of “apartheid” that is so harsh against Palestinians. so that the one-state solution will further legitimize the policy and make Israel more dominant. In addition, there is another consideration that cannot be ignored that Israel and Palestine are 2 parties with very different and conflicting political and cultural identities that are difficult to reconcile.

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​a two-state solution is an idea that is also difficult to implement. Because the idea still seems too abstract, especially on one thing that is very fundamental and becomes the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely the “division” of territory between Israel and Palestine.

This is also what makes it difficult for Israel-Palestine to be able to break the line of conflict between them and repeatedly put them back into the status quo which is not a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The status quo, is in fact a way for Israel to continue to “annex” more Palestinian territories by establishing widespread and systematic illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, more than 600,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In fact, a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council have explicitly and explicitly called for Israel to end the expansion of Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territory and require recognition of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the region.

Thus, all efforts and actions of Israel both legislatively and administratively that can cause changes in the status and demographic composition in East Jerusalem and the West Bank must continue to be condemned. Because this is a violation of the provisions of international law.

Fundamental thing

To find a solution to the conflict, it is necessary to look back at the core of the conflict that the author has mentioned earlier, and the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to encourage Israel to immediately end the “occupation” that it began in 1967, and return the settlements to the pre-Islamic borders 1967 In accordance with UN Security Council resolution No. 242.

But the question is, who can stop the illegal Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem and West Bank areas that violate the Palestinian territories?

In this condition, international political will is needed from countries in the world, to continue to urge Israel to comply with the provisions of international law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and also the UN Security Council Resolutions.

At the same time, the international community must be able to encourage the United Nations, especially the United Nations Security Council, as the organ that has the main responsibility for maintaining and creating world peace and security based on Article 24 of the United Nations Charter to take constructive and effective steps in order to enforce all United Nations Resolutions, and dare to sanction violations committed by Israel, and also ensure that Palestinian rights are important to protect.

So, do not let this weak enforcement of international law become an external factor that also “perpetuates” the cycle of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will demonstrate that John Austin was correct when he stated that international law is only positive morality and not real law.

And in the end, the most fundamental thing is that the blockade, illegal development, violence, and violations of international law must end. Because the ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict is only a temporary solution to the conflict.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia5 hours ago

Did India invade Kashmir?

Pakistan has decided to observe 27th October as Black Day. This was the day when, according to India’s version, it...

Environment7 hours ago

Landmark decision gives legal teeth to protect environmental defenders

A 46-strong group of countries across the wider European region has agreed to establish a new legally binding mechanism that...

Environment9 hours ago

Plastic pollution on course to double by 2030

Plastic pollution in oceans and other bodies of water continues to grow sharply and could more than double by 2030, according to an assessment released on Thursday by the UN Environment...

Americas11 hours ago

Global Warming And COP26: Issues And Politics

The president’s massive social services and infrastructure package is under consideration by Congress.  The problem is Senator Joe Manchin, a...

International Law13 hours ago

The End of the West in Self-annihilation (Intentionality, Directionality and Outcome)

A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.-Definition of Health,...

New Social Compact15 hours ago

Women in leadership ‘must be the norm’

We can no longer exclude half of humanity from international peace and security matters, the UN chief told the Security...

Energy17 hours ago

Maximizing Nickel as Renewable Energy Resource and Strengthening Diplomacy Role

Authors: Nani Septianie and Ramadhan Dwi Saputra* The development of the times and technology, the use of energy in the...

Trending