Middle East Press on East, West, AI, Turkiye, PKK, Trump, US, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Netanyahu and UK: New Age Islam's Selection, 08 November 2024
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
08 November 2024
The Nations Caught Between East and West
The Future Is Artificial, but Ethical Decisions Remain Human
Why There Is No Need to Fear AI
UK Conservatives Shift Further To the Right
The Butterfly Effect of Turkish Foreign Policy
Türkiye's Regional Ambitions and the PKK Challenge
Trump Has a Choice: Obliterate Palestine or End the War
Can The Lebanese Hezbollah And Amal Movement Reunite?
Gallant Is The Man For The Job! Netanyahu, We Deserve Better
….
The Nations Caught Between East and West
Khaled Abou Zahr
November 07, 2024
Georgia and Moldova have both had to negotiate difficult paths since gaining independence from the Soviet Union. We recall the fall of the Soviet Union as one of an absolute stand against oppression by a great majority of people. And how, one by one and with great sacrifices, each country found its path to freedom. On opposite sides of the Black Sea, Georgia and Moldova are today representative of the struggle between closer ties to the West or to Russia. This struggle for both countries is also linked to territorial disputes, much like Ukraine.
After its independence in 1991, Georgia faced significant instability. The newly independent country faced issues in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, regions seeking autonomy with Russian backing.
Moldova also declared its independence in 1991 and faced challenges rooted in the same ethnic and regional divides. The Russian-speaking Transnistria region subsequently declared independence, leading to a brief armed conflict in 1992. With Russian support, Transnistria established a de facto independent government that remains unrecognized internationally.
In both countries, these territories have symbolized the struggle between attachment to a Soviet past and a wish to align with the West. This is why they keep going through tense election cycles, which move from one side to another, and through protests, while witnessing sporadic violent military conflicts. The lack of a solution has left the disputed areas in a state of frozen conflict.
There is nevertheless a qualitative change that has been happening in recent years. Despite the accusations of Russian interference in the sovereign processes of these countries, there is definitely a more divided view on the benefits of the West and its life model. There has been a loss of this silver bullet solution for a better life. The evolution of the West and the progressive agenda it is pushing have provided fertile ground for division.
In both countries, there is something to say, just like in the West, about how those in rural areas vote. Whether in the recent elections in Georgia or the referendum and presidential election in Moldova, rural areas have generally been against the Western model. Indeed, the ruling Georgia Dream party, which won the election with 53 percent of the vote, did not do well among the Georgian diaspora or in urban areas like Tbilisi, but performed very well in rural zones.
The same applies to Moldova, where the pro-EU vote in last month’s referendum won by the narrowest of margins. In the presidential election, opposition candidate Alexandr Stoianoglo was successful in Moldova itself, winning more than 51 percent of the vote. However, Maia Sandu won her second term thanks to voters in the capital and, just as in Georgia, she was completely dominant among expats.
Tensions remain in Georgia, with opposition supporters gathering to protest on Monday for a second consecutive week, condemning the Oct. 26 election as illegitimate. The demonstrators called for a probe into potential ballot irregularities, as well as a new parliamentary election overseen by the international community. Leaders of the opposition promised to regularly demonstrate and boycott parliamentary sessions until their demands were fulfilled. However, these protests do not have the power and unity witnessed during the Rose Revolution of 2003.
Much like the back and forth swings from East to West in Ukraine and its Orange Revolution, pro-Western leaders have disappointed, failing to deliver on their promises and with corruption becoming more apparent. This shows the worst of the Western model, while Western capitals turn a blind eye for obvious, purely geopolitical reasons.
It is more difficult to accuse Russia of meddling in Moldova, as the incumbent was reelected. Yet, it is now a fact that Moscow presents, for a large or at least nonnegligible part of the populations of Georgia and Moldova, a better alignment with their historical values. They view the West’s current social policies and cultural changes as a shift away from their traditional values and hence a threat to their national identity.
Both countries have strong Orthodox Christian communities and some citizens see Western progressivism as incompatible with their values. Moreover, the collectivism and bureaucracy being pushed is reminiscent of Soviet times. In Moldova, conservative political groups have rightly argued that this trend in Western liberalism threatens their family values and traditional norms. This has caused hurt and led to skepticism toward all EU-related reforms, while giving Moscow more leverage.
We cannot help but see pro-Western protests as deflated versions of the massive and inspiring movements witnessed throughout recent history. There is undoubtedly fatigue and Moscow, unlike its opponents, is consistent and persistent. Yet, the West has not helped its partners in the right way, even when it comes to solving their territorial disputes. There is a parallel to be made between the West’s social policies being disconnected from the realities of soil and culture and its absolutist approach to the territorial issues between these countries and Russia. This is why a more pragmatic approach is needed, while still preserving the sovereignty and specificity of these countries.
Like most countries located in fringe zones and caught between giants, citizens in Moldova and Georgia are stuck between East and West. And there is now growing skepticism regarding fully aligning with either side. There is no doubt that ties with and closer alignment with the EU on the economy and security will support prosperity. Yet, they also understand the necessity to maintain a balanced relationship with Russia, which now seems closer to their historical values. The views of the rural areas should be listened to more closely, as the farmer’s wisdom never fails.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2578439
--------
The Future Is Artificial, but Ethical Decisions Remain Human
By Rafael Hernández De Santiago
November 07, 2024
In a world where artificial intelligence is poised to rule our lives, one man stands at the intersection of technological advancement and ethical oversight: Mr. Gus.
With a flair for irony and a heart of gold (somewhere beneath the layers of skepticism), Gus is on a mission to restore dignity to our historical sites and water caves — places that have suffered under the relentless assault of plastic and human negligence.
As Techville embraces its reputation as a hub of innovation, it is hard to ignore the plastic pollution that silently chokes our beloved natural wonders. Socrates McHipster, a local philosopher, once said: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Yet, in Techville, it seems the unexamined rubbish is here to stay. Gus, a self-proclaimed environmentalist with a PhD in sarcasm from the University of Everyday Life, has taken it upon himself to lead the charge against this growing crisis.
“You’d think with all the AI we have, we could program people to not throw their trash everywhere,” Gus mused, surveying the remnants of last weekend’s picnic at Crystal Water Cave. “But here we are, drowning in a sea of plastic straws and forgotten snack wrappers, like a bad dream brought to life by a malfunctioning AI.”
As AI continues to revolutionize industries from healthcare to dog grooming, it raises a compelling question: Can AI teach us ethical behavior? Perhaps a robotic conscience could be the answer. Picture this: an AI system programmed to chastise litterbugs, reminding them of their moral obligations with an eerie yet oddly endearing voice.
“Hey, buddy, did you really think that chip bag belonged in the cave?” the AI could say, followed by an awkward silence, a pause for reflection, and maybe a robotic sigh. Ah, ethics in the age of machines.
But as we know, the irony of our digital age is that while technology advances, human behavior often lags behind. The ancient philosopher Aristotle wisely declared: “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.” In Techville, knowing yourself seems to include knowing which trash can is closest — often leading to the conclusion that “the nearest bush” is an acceptable disposal method.
Gus, armed with a recycled clipboard and an unyielding spirit, has assembled a motley crew of fellow Techville residents, including techies, environmentalists, and those who just really love wearing matching T-shirts. Together, they’re committed to cleaning up their city, but not without a good dose of irony.
“Some say we should harness AI to manage waste,” Gus said while deftly dodging a half-buried plastic bottle at the cave entrance. “But I’d settle for teaching people to manage their own waste first. Maybe AI can help us learn to remember basic concepts like ‘don’t litter’ and ‘we don’t live in a dumpster.’”
His team, known as “The Green Guardians of Techville,” have made it their mission to not only clean up but also educate the community on ethical behavior in our increasingly plastic-laden society. They’ve even created a catchy slogan: “Trash it, and you’ll crash it!”
As the Guardians tackle the plastic plague, they often find themselves reflecting on history. Techville, known for its innovation, is also home to historical sites that deserve better than to be adorned with plastic. “It’s like putting a clown wig on the Mona Lisa,” Gus said. “You wouldn’t do that to a masterpiece, so why do it to our natural wonders?”
Philosopher Immanuel Kant once stated: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” If only everyone could adopt this principle when reaching for a snack. If we all acted with the consideration that our actions have broader implications, perhaps Gus wouldn’t have to remind us that a water cave is not a rubbish bin.
Yet, as Gus and his crew dive into the depths of this ethical quagmire, they encounter the undeniable truth: the challenge is not simply to remove the rubbish; it’s to address the human condition itself. The ethical conundrum isn’t just about plastic, it’s about our capacity for change.
“Maybe we need AI to give us the moral pep talk we’ve been avoiding,” Gus mused. “Something like, ‘Hey, remember that time you threw your trash on the ground? How did that work out for you?’”
As Techville prepares for the upcoming “Clean Up the Cave” event, Mr. Gus reminds us that while technology can help, it’s ultimately our responsibility to change. “AI might be the future,” he said, “but the real question is: Are we ready to evolve alongside it?”
With a wink and a wave, he added: “Now if only we could program it to make a decent cup of coffee while we ponder our ethical dilemmas.”
In a city grappling with its own contradictions, Mr. Gus stands as a beacon of hope, reminding us that while the future may be artificial, our ethical decisions remain very much human. And as we look ahead, perhaps we’ll find that it’s not just about cleaning up our caves, but also cleaning up our act.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2578448
---------
Why There Is No Need to Fear Ai
By Peter Harrison
November 07, 2024
Technology is largely intended to make our lives easier. They made our washing machines automatic so that we no longer had to stand over them. Booking holidays has become something you can do on the screen of your phone while taking a coffee break. Even the weekly shop can be initiated through an app.
And most of us no longer visit a high street bank to await the humiliation of having a loan request turned down, watching as your credit rating plummets in the process.
For most of us, life is a lot better thanks to technology. Even driving is easier, with more technology operating in our vehicles than ever before.
So, why do we fear the very same technology that we know makes life that bit more bearable? And why do people still fear the idea of information being collected?
Data is a valuable resource; it helps technology learn to be better and target the right people with the right services. Targeted advertising means that the adverts you inevitably see are at least related to stuff you have shown an interest in. Business/strategy manager and consultant Tom Little said in 2019 that, if you go online, you are going to see adverts anyway, so they might as well be relevant. And yet people fear that we are living in a real-life “1984,” with Big Brother watching us.
The truth is that we are monitored more now than we used to be and, if we do not like it, it is kind of difficult to avoid, unless you pay cash for everything and never use the internet. If you do not want to see adverts online, you can invest in an ad blocker.
But consider this, when you are using a music app, it will suggest other music you might like. The TV programs you watch help the likes of Netflix, YouTube and the rest to make other recommendations to further your viewing pleasure — and if you do not like the look of what is suggested, then do not watch it.
Technology and data collection is everywhere, although it is not as widely used as you might think.
In 2022, I went to the annual Autodesk conference, where the software giant shows off its latest services for the design, manufacturing and construction industries. One of the features on display was a bridge made entirely from recycled materials, which contained a network of cables, wires and sensors. The purpose of the bridge was to collect data on the stresses it was exposed to, helping improve the way such structures are built.
Equally, sensors are being placed into existing buildings and those that are under construction. The data being collected will help with efficiencies and the ongoing strength of a structure, or lack thereof, and the information being gathered could effectively revolutionize the buildings in which we live, work and shop.
This is important information that can help reduce costs, while improving what is being created and, in some cases, even advising against some of the more ambitious projects.
As Autodesk CEO and President Andrew Anagnost said at this year’s event, there is every possibility that artificial intelligence will, in some cases, advise against creating very tall or very long structures. He told Arab News last month: “I don’t think giga-projects are going to go away … but I do think that more often than not AI is going to advise against these projects.”
However, contrary to popular belief, there is an enormous amount of data that is being collected in these industries and is still going to waste.
Autodesk noted that its architecture, engineering and construction clients quadrupled their data storage from 0.9 terabytes in 2017 to 3.5TB in 2021. But according to the investment banking firm FMI, 95.5 percent of the data that is being gathered by architecture, engineering and construction firms is not being used.
Autodesk is currently mapping vast amounts of what it calls 3D data that previously did not exist.
We have known for years of the existence of ancient artifacts, but surprisingly few of these objects have any tangible data stored about them other than two-dimensional photographs.
Design is nothing new. It has been around for millions of years, but very little information has been collected on it. The more information gathered, the greater the learning curve for the AI involved in future construction projects.
Currently, AI is only as good as the information it receives and it is project-specific. AI is already used in multiple industries, even in banking, but only under certain parameters, such as the level of risk in investments. The more information it receives, the more effective AI will be at solving problems.
The concern should not be about AI but who controls the data it sees and the people who send it — that is where the power lies.
Of course, not all technology is being used for good.
In April this year, The Guardian newspaper reported that Israel had been using AI to identify and target tens of thousands of people it believed had Hamas connections. But the information gathered by AI was also used to decide where to drop bombs, razing houses to the ground, often with their occupants inside — irrespective of whether or not they had Hamas connections.
Arguably, AI could eventually be used for societal purposes. It could assess the likely outcomes of military action and, if that were the case, maybe one day show us that war is costly and solves little. Ideally, we could jump straight to the compromises that most wars end in.
And if the adverts I see tell me about boats, travel and food, then the advertisers have got it right.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2578393
---------
Uk Conservatives Shift Further To The Right
By Christopher Phillips
November 07, 2024
While the world’s eyes are understandably focused on Donald Trump’s victory, a few days earlier a less high-profile election also took place: for the leadership of the UK’s Conservative Party. Though less headline-grabbing, Kemi Badenoch’s capture of 56.5 percent of Conservative Party members’ votes is still an important development. Not only is she the first Black leader of a major UK political party, but her election also signifies a lurch further to the right for Britain’s official opposition.
Badenoch’s election is history-making. Despite their Labour rivals claiming to be Britain’s leading progressives, the Conservatives have a far better record of inclusivity at the top. Badenoch is the fourth woman to lead the Conservatives and the second person from a minority background, after her predecessor Rishi Sunak became the first in 2022. Labour, in contrast, has only ever had white men as its permanent leader.
Moreover, Badenoch has a compelling story that could help the Conservatives reach new voters. She describes herself as “a first-generation immigrant,” having been born in Britain but raised in her parents’ native Nigeria from soon after her birth until the age of 16. In contrast to many on the left, she insists that Britain is the best country in the world in which to be Black, and, as equalities minister under Sunak, favored a low-profile approach to improving racial inequality.
But, like Sunak before her, Badenoch is keen for her politics to be the story rather than her ethnicity. In this regard, her election points to a move further right for the Conservatives. In truth, the Tories have been moving rightward ever since the Brexit referendum of 2016, after the previous decade of David Cameron’s more right of center leadership. Popular support for leaving the EU convinced successive Conservative leaders that populist anti-immigration and anti-EU policies were the route to electoral success. While this helped Boris Johnson win the 2019 general election, his and his successors’ failures in office led to a resounding rejection by the electorate earlier this year, seeing the Tories return their lowest number of MPs in modern history.
However, that defeat will not, seemingly, lead to a reconsideration of this rightward shift under Badenoch. While some candidates for the leadership were from the more “Cameroonian” center, such as Tom Tugendhat and James Cleverly, both received too few endorsements from MPs. The final two put forward to an all-membership vote, Badenoch and her defeated rival Robert Jenrick, were both right-wingers. During the leadership campaign, Badenoch, who has a reputation as a culture warrior, caused some offence by criticizing maternity pay and support for autistic children in school. Jenrick sought to out-flank Badenoch by offering even more populist policies, pledging to immediately withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and reduce overall migration to zero.
By resisting similar pledges, Badenoch managed to secure endorsements as the least bad option from some party centrists, such as Cameron’s Chancellor George Osborne. Yet, on her election, the new leader showed few signs of tacking back to the center. She argued that the Conservative election defeat was due to a “loss of public trust,” because “promises on immigration and on tax were not kept.” Though it is early days, such comments suggest Badenoch agrees with those Conservatives who believe the election was lost because they were not right wing enough, hemorrhaging votes to Nigel Farage’s populist Reform party. Such an analysis glosses over the fact they lost far more seats to Labour and the centrist Liberal Democrats.
A further sign of this rightward tilt is the front bench team Badenoch has put together. Both Tugendhat and Cleverly declined to join the new shadow Cabinet. With a small pool of MPs to choose from, Badenoch has still populated her team largely from the right of the party and two of the three shadow “great offices of state” available were given to right-wing allies: Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp and Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel.
Patel’s appointment is particularly notable. Though she ran for leader herself, she swiftly backed Badenoch when eliminated. An experienced Cabinet minister, having formerly been home secretary and international development secretary, she was fired from the latter role in 2017 for holding 14 unofficial meetings with Israeli ministers, businesspeople and a senior lobbyist during a holiday to Israel. Known as staunchly pro-Israel and having formerly asked to send UK aid money to the Israeli army for humanitarian work, it seems likely that the Conservatives will line up even more behind Israel when it comes to Middle East policy.
How much real impact this will have is, of course, questionable. Opposition parties, especially those reeling from a historic defeat, have limited influence over UK policy. It is possible that Patel will press the Labour government to be more supportive of Israel but, with an enormous majority in Parliament, Prime Minister Keir Starmer will probably be more wary of the pro-Palestinian voices within his own party than the pro-Israeli voices on the opposition benches. Similarly, it will likely be some time before Badenoch is able to achieve the kind of popularity that puts Starmer under pressure to bend his domestic agenda, if she ever does.
Of course, it is possible that Badenoch will be a huge success, leading a right-wing Conservative government to power. However, history is against her. The last new UK leader to take a party from defeat immediately back to government within one election cycle was Margaret Thatcher in 1979. A more chastening historical parallel is the fate of the Conservatives when they last suffered a comparable landslide defeat, in 1997, when it took them 13 years and four leaders before returning to power. They too, like Badenoch, opted to move rightward in response to defeat and only came to power when Cameron brought the party back to the center. Of course, we live in different times today. Badenoch will be hoping that the trends of populism seen in Europe, the US and elsewhere mean her rightward shift will deliver results without having to make such centrist compromises. Trump’s recent victory may prove instructive in this regard.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2578388
----------
The Butterfly Effect of Turkish Foreign Policy
By Salih Kaya
Nov 08, 2024
Amid power shifts in the international system, Türkiye is engaging in energy diplomacy at full throttle, navigating through a dense fog of information overload. Significant events constantly unfold around us, yet it is essential to look beyond the surface to understand what will matter most in the coming decade. The U.S. grip on key energy zones is waning, China is relentlessly searching for new energy territories, and Russia is striving to safeguard its control over energy supply points in Central Asia and Europe. Emerging actors like South Africa, Nigeria and Brazil are breaking free from post-colonial ties and striving for autonomy in energy markets through their material capacity in the sector. Although Türkiye cannot currently be a dominant player in this arena, it is meticulously weaving a network of potential energy suppliers with promising futures.
Thinking outside the box
As global dynamics shift, countries increasingly adopt more flexible and resilient approaches to foreign policy. While some nations adapt to the fluidity of interconnected challenges, others cling to traditional methods of global politics. Both approaches have merit, depending on the context. However, balancing innovation with longstanding commitments is a challenging task. Türkiye, carrying both the weight of its history and the need for forward-thinking solutions, finds itself in a unique position. These dual obligations resemble a bird’s wings – both are essential for lift-off.
Recent actions provide a glimpse into Türkiye’s approach to foreign policy. Last month, Türkiye signed a memorandum of understanding with the Democratic Republic of Congo for potential hydrocarbon exploration. Subsequently, Oruç Reis, Türkiye’s first naval drill ship, was sent to Somalia to survey the Somali continental shelf for viable oil and natural gas reserves. Concurrently, the Turkish National Grand Assembly approved a motion allowing Turkish soldiers to be stationed in the Central African Republic. In early November, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hosted Senegalese President Diomaye Faye, where both leaders agreed on a partnership in the energy sector and signed a memorandum of understanding on energy and hydrocarbon resources.
At first glance, Türkiye’s foreign policy aims to position itself as a key player in the global energy market by securing potential centers of energy production and access. However, it also addresses one of the biggest challenges in contemporary world politics: empowering allies while securing national interests. These partner countries may lack the capacity for efficient energy investment or the technological capabilities to make these zones viable. With a clear goal of supporting these actors, Türkiye, on the other hand, strives to stimulate the awakening of a new world order. Türkiye’s longstanding argument that “The world is bigger than five,” is both rational and just, though it lacks the material base to compel dominant actors to take notice. These breakthrough agreements have the potential to promote the rise of the African continent without conditionalities or hidden agendas, such as the Chinese debt trap.
Prioritizing socio-cultural heritage
World politics has shifted from political calculations and diplomatic courtesy to “money politics,” largely as a result of the great powers’ influence on the “spirit of the times.” Scholars in security studies often cite the U.S. decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan as a defining moment in establishing a U.S.-led security architecture in the international system. While security politics remains crucial, it’s often overlooked that the global system isn’t solely based on military muscle; rather, it’s centered on managing and channeling actors’ behaviors at minimum cost. The U.S. method often involves using economic means as both a force multiplier and diplomatic leverage. This shift toward economic prioritization brings its own challenge: overlooking local socio-cultural dynamics and the historical obligations of great powers. The U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the consequences of neglecting indigenous factors. The show of military might tore apart the social fabric of these countries, resulting in an endless cycle of conflicts.
Now, history has reached a “now or never” moment: either this neglected understanding will be acknowledged, bringing peace to regions marked by tears and blood, or new approaches – designed with input from local voices – will take the stage. In this context, Türkiye’s bold attempt to create a new "Development Road" could ignite the dawn of a new era in Iraq. For the first time since the British army’s retreat and unlawful occupation in 1918, an actor has offered the Iraqi people a clear path to a prosperous future. While it may seem exaggerated, the Basra Development Road project could serve as a model for intra-continental disputes in Latin America. Brazil and Bolivia, for example, have faced conflicts over road construction projects aimed at improving connectivity for trade purposes. Differences in infrastructure priorities, funding and environmental concerns often complicate regional collaboration on development projects, leading to intense competition. The Basra Project could provide a framework for these countries to end their disputes, foster cooperation and combat longstanding issues like drug trafficking and paramilitary groups in rural areas.
In conclusion, it could be said that Türkiye has kindled the flame but hasn’t yet ignited the full potential of a transformative change in the international system. Despite recent challenges and hurdles in foreign policy, Türkiye’s bold and strategic steps toward sustainable peace and development deserve applause. Balancing empowerment in non-traditional foreign policy areas with regional stability is a foreseeable goal as long as unity and solidarity at home remain intact.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/the-butterfly-effect-of-turkish-foreign-policy
---------
Türkiye's Regional Ambitions and The Pkk Challenge
By Irfan Ashraf
Nov 08, 2024
The Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI), situated on the outskirts of Ankara, became the target of a terrorist attack on Oct. 23, 2024. The attack happened around 3:30 p.m. local time when a blast was heard, followed by gunshots at the facility. According to Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya, five people, including four TAI employees and a taxi driver, were killed, while 22 others sustained injuries. The attack was condemned by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan while he was away in Kazan to attend the 16th BRICS summit in Russia.
A prime motive for the PKK attack might be to damage Türkiye’s reputation as a prominent arms exporter, which could also hurt its economy. The attack was launched on Türkiye’s military industry at a time when the “International Defense and Aerospace Exhibition” was going on in Istanbul, which reflected the PKK’s intentions to harm the country’s defense exports.
According to the Stockholm International Research Institute (SIPRI) statistical data on arms transfers, Türkiye is a major arms exporter. It is the 11th largest exporter of military equipment in the world. Firms like Aselsan, Roketsan and TAI have a prominent role in not only strengthening the country’s defense but also generating substantial economic benefits. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), are among the main buyers of Turkish military equipment. They have signed agreements and invested heavily in the Turkish defense industry.
Türkiye’s involvement in BRICS will possibly strengthen its regional position. The country seeks to diversify its alliances and reduce dependency on Western institutions, particularly NATO and the European Union. This geostrategic shift may also attract targeted disruptions. Notably, it was not the first time that the PKK launched an attack on Türkiye while the country’s president was attending a foreign summit. For instance, in November 2022, prior to Erdoğan’s departure for the G-20 summit in Indonesia, a PKK terrorist detonated a bomb on a pedestrian street in the heart of Istanbul, killing six people and injuring dozens.
Thus, BRICS membership is attractive for several reasons, offering a platform for emerging economies to collaborate on financial, economic and political initiatives. Most importantly, BRICS membership will strengthen Türkiye’s standing as a regional power, which could possibly support its counter-PKK efforts. Therefore, the recent attack can be attributed to an attention-seeking endeavor by the PKK aimed at raising its voice and signifying its presence globally while at the same time challenging the writ of the Turkish government.
For instance, Türkiye can seek support from BRICS members to increase cooperation on intelligence sharing, cybersecurity and regional security measures to counter the PKK’s influence. Moreover, improved economic relations with BRICS states can provide Türkiye with additional resources to fund development projects in southeastern Türkiye, where the PKK is most active. Development in this region could improve local economic conditions and reduce the appeal of PKK recruitment.
The PKK is blacklisted as a terrorist organization by Türkiye, the United States and the United Kingdom. Officials in Türkiye blamed the PKK and said that the perpetrators infiltrated from Syria. The PKK has a long history of carrying out violent attacks in the country as an armed separatist group that seeks to carve out a state named “Kurdistan” for the ethnic Kurds in southeastern Anatolia. Since 2015, after the peace agreement between Türkiye and PKK broke off, the intensity and frequency of attacks by the latter has increased significantly, compelling Türkiye to retaliate by air strikes and other military means.
Moreover, while speaking to the journalists in Kazan, President Erdoğan accused the U.S. of supporting terrorism in the region, remarking, "It is now a known fact that the U.S. uses terrorist organizations in the region for its own interests and the security of Israel." The attack on TAI by the PKK on Wednesday, Oct. 23, has created a challenging environment for Türkiye. The timing and location of the TAI attack were crucial in understanding its motive.
Three reasons can be considered that might have motivated the PKK to carry out such an attack. Firstly, the attack can be attributed to the PKK’s aim of raising its voice and signifying its global presence. Secondly, targeting the Turkish military industry could have been done in part to affect the country's arms exports. Lastly, the growing ties between Türkiye and Russia might have compelled the U.S. to use its proxy to warn Türkiye of the grave consequences it might face if it alienated with the anti-Western block.
However, Türkiye's membership in BRICS may significantly enhance its regional power and provide avenues to address some aspects of the PKK problem by gaining new economic and strategic allies. Türkiye’s BRICS membership may significantly enhance its regional power and provide avenues to address some aspects of the PKK problem. By gaining new economic and strategic allies, Türkiye could gain support in its ongoing struggle against the PKK.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/turkiyes-regional-ambitions-and-the-pkk-challenge
---------
Trump Has a Choice: Obliterate Palestine or End the War
7 November 2024
Conventional wisdom has it that Trump 2.0 will be a disaster for Palestinians, because Trump 1.0 all but buried the Palestinian national cause.
And it is indeed true that under Donald Trump’s first term as president, the US was wholly guided by the Zionist religious right - the real voice in his ear, either as donors or policymakers.
Under Trump and his son-in-law adviser, Jared Kushner, Washington became a policy playground for the settler movement, with which the former US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, was unashamedly aligned.
Consequently, in his first term, Trump upended decades of policy by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the US embassy there; he disenfranchised the Palestinian Authority by closing down the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington; he allowed Israel to annex the Golan Heights; he pulled out of the nuclear accords with Iran; and he assassinated Qassem Soleimani, the most powerful Iranian general and diplomat in the region.
Even more damaging for the Palestinian struggle for freedom was Trump’s sponsorship of the Abraham Accords.
This was - and still is - a serious attempt to pour concrete over the grave of the Palestinian cause, constructing in its place a superhighway of trade and contracts from the Gulf that would make Israel not just a regional superpower, but a vital portal to the wealth of the Gulf.
On 6 October 2023, the day before the Hamas attack, the Palestinian cause was all but dead. The Palestinian struggle for self-determination felt like the baggage of an older generation of Arab leaders, which was being unceremoniously dumped by the new generation.
All the diplomatic talk was of Saudi Arabia’s impending decision to normalise relations with Israel, with the picture of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman shaking hands in public with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dangling as the prize lying just behind the next corner. One more push, and it would be in the bag.
If that charge sheet is not long enough, it could easily be argued that Trump’s second term will be even worse for Palestinians than his first was.
Wildest impulses
This time around, and with the Republican party projected to have control over both houses of Congress, there will be no adults in the room to correct the president’s wildest impulses.
After all, did Friedman not just publish a book entitled One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, in which he argues that the US has a biblical duty to support Israel’s annexation of the West Bank?
“Palestinians, like Puerto Ricans, will not vote in national elections … Palestinians will be free to enact their own governing documents as long as they are not inconsistent with those of Israel,” Friedman writes.
So will Trump 2.0 not simply presage yet more territorial changes, such as the annexation of Area C of the occupied West Bank, the permanent division of Gaza, the return of Israeli settlements to northern Gaza, and the clearing of the border area in southern Lebanon?
All of this could, and no doubt will, come to pass under a second Trump term, with no brakes.
I do not for one second underplay or underestimate the sacrifice in blood that Palestinians have paid so far - the death toll in Gaza could easily be three times higher than the current official figure - or could yet pay for all that is about to come.
But in this column, I will argue that the settler movement, backed by a second Trump term, is in the process of burying any chance that Israel will prevail as an apartheid Jewish minority state in control of all the land from the river to the sea.
Irreversible consequences
Let me make two points about the situation that existed on 6 October, before I go on to deal with the irreversible consequences of everything that has happened since. And make no mistake - they are irreversible.
The first is that in allowing Netanyahu to claim total victory, the US administration under a first Trump presidency buried not just the prospect of a two-state solution, but along with it, the Zionist dream of a liberal, secular, democratic Jewish state.
The liberal version of this state had been the main vehicle of Israeli expansion, with its salami slices making ever-deeper inroads into historic Palestine. By killing it, the liberal fig leaf dropped from the Zionist project, and the religious Zionist forces who were once regarded as fringe and even as terrorists, such as far-right politician Itamar Ben Gvir and the Kahanists, became mainstream.
This fundamentally altered the whole project to establish Israel as the dominant state between the river and sea. It suddenly became the only state, and one that was governed by religious fanatics; by people wishing to level the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque.
It became a state governed by the religious dogmas of Jerusalem not by the European Ashkenazi internet geeks and sophisticates of Tel Aviv. Under the first Trump presidency, the rift between these two camps became irreconcilable and fundamentally destabilising.
The second change that the first Trump presidency brought about, or rather completed, took place in Palestinian minds.
A whole generation of Palestinians born after the Oslo Accords came to the conclusion that all political and non-violent ways of seeking an end to the occupation were blocked; that there was no longer any meaning in recognising Israel, let alone trying to find anyone in it to talk with.
Talking to Israel became a meaningless exercise. The political route was blocked not only inside Palestine, but outside it.
To their eternal shame and discredit, US President Joe Biden and his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, kept all the “achievements” of the first Trump presidency in place - first and foremost the Abraham Accords.
Biden's humiliation
Trump’s big boast during his first term of office was that he made all these changes to the status quo of the Palestinian conflict, and the sky did not fall in.
But the sky did fall in on 7 October, and everything that Trump and Biden had done before that contributed to the Hamas attack, which provided the same shock to Israel that 9/11 provided to the US.
After the Hamas attack, it was impossible to ignore the Palestinian cause. It moved from the periphery of global human rights causes to the very centre.
But Biden didn’t get it. An instinctive Zionist, he allowed Netanyahu to humiliate him. His first reaction to the Hamas attack was to give Israel everything it wanted, thwarting all international moves at the United Nations for a ceasefire. His second reaction was to draw red lines, which Netanyahu proceeded to ignore.
Biden told Netanyahu not to reoccupy Rafah and the Philadelphi Corridor. Netanyahu did it anyway. Biden told Netanyahu to allow aid trucks into Gaza, and Netanyahu mostly ignored him. Biden told Netanyahu not to invade Lebanon; Netanyahu did it. Biden told Netanyahu not to attack Iranian nuclear and oil facilities, and Netanyahu listened to him - for now at least.
It’s not a scorecard of total humiliation for Biden, but when the history of this period is written, Biden will emerge as a weak leader.
He also emerges as a leader who facilitated genocide. The amount of heavy bombs that the US supplied, and that Israel used against overwhelmingly civilian targets in Gaza and Lebanon, over the past year far outweighs the US’s own use of such bombs during the entire Iraq war.
If the Israeli state has fundamentally changed after 7 October, so too has the Palestinian mindset.
The scale of the killing - the official Palestinian death toll from the war has exceeded 43,000, and the real count could be several times higher, with the degree of destruction rendering most of the Gaza Strip uninhabitable - has crossed all red lines for Palestinians, wherever they live.
No room for negotiations
From now on, there is no talking or negotiating with a state that does this to your people. The only two votes in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, that secured unanimity among Jewish Israeli MKs included legislation to veto a Palestinian state, and a law banning Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.
These two votes alone told Palestinians that they would be deluded to think that a post-Netanyahu government would bring any relief from occupation. In a deeply divided Israel, the only thing that all Jews could agree on were two measures that fundamentally made life impossible for Palestinians, the majority of the population.
In such extreme conditions, there are only two alternatives: to do nothing and die, or to resist and die. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, believe in the latter.
Consequently, Hamas is at the height of its popularity in areas where the Muslim Brotherhood was on 6 October at its weakest: in the occupied West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.
Walk around Nablus’s old city and ask people who they support. The answer will not be the defunct Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. By a substantial margin, it will be Hamas, a group that is proscribed in the UK and other countries as a terrorist organisation.
In Jordan, Hamas is praised by the whole population, East Bankers and Palestinians alike, because Israel’s assault on the occupied West Bank is seen as an existential threat to the kingdom.
Walk into a Palestinian home for dinner on Friday, and everyone will tell you that this death toll, and the deaths under a second Trump term, are the price to be paid for liberation from occupation.
This generation of Palestinians has shown a degree of fortitude that no previous generation showed. They are not cutting and running, like former President Yasser Arafat’s PLO did when surrounded by Israeli forces in Beirut in 1982.
No one in Gaza is fleeing to Tunisia, and few to Egypt, which is just across the border - and far fewer than Netanyahu intended. Palestinians are not raising the white flag. They are staying, and fighting, and dying where they live.
'Time for complete victory'
This is the answer to those who argue that looking at the long term is all very well, when the short-term duty is simply to survive. There is no short term for Palestinians any more. It’s over. There is nothing left.
The short term means returning to your tent. It means going back to your home in the occupied West Bank, knowing that tomorrow you could be burned out by settlers armed by Ben Gvir. There is no going back. Palestinians have all lost too many family members for surrender to be considered an option.
Viewed from the perspective of a Palestinian farmer clinging to his stony ground in the face of repeated settler attacks in the hills of South Hebron, it’s a toss-up as to whether Kamala Harris as US president would have made any difference. If anything, she could well have been an even weaker influence on Netanyahu than Biden was.
So we have ended up with Trump once again.
The settler right are popping bottles of champagne in celebration. Speaking in the Knesset, Ben Gvir welcomed Trump’s election victory, saying that “this is the time for sovereignty, this is the time for complete victory”.
Netanyahu is also using this period to clear out the stables in his government by sacking his defence minister, Yoav Gallant.
Trump thus has two clear paths when he assumes power next January, assuming that Biden continues to fail to secure a ceasefire in Gaza. He can either carry on where he left off, and continue to allow the US to be led by the nose by the Christian evangelical right, or he can do what he strongly hinted he would do to the Muslim leaders he met in Michigan - which is to stop Netanyahu’s war.
Either path is littered with elephant traps.
Fires of regional war
Letting Netanyahu and his alliance with Ben Gvir achieve “total victory” would mean, in reality, the ethnic cleansing of two-thirds of the occupied West Bank, with a huge refugee influx ending up in Jordan - an act that would be seen in Jordan as a cause for war.
It would mean the expulsion of Palestinians from northern Gaza and the permanent destruction of southern Lebanon, with the assumed right of Israel to continue bombing Lebanon and Syria.
Each of these actions would lead to more war, which Trump has pledged to stop. Remember that one of the last things Gallant said before he was sacked was that a war in Syria to cut Iran’s supply lines was inevitable.
Letting Netanyahu think he can achieve “total victory” only means feeding the forest fires of a regional war.
Nor would getting Saudi Arabia to recognise Israel, putting the cherry on top of the cake of the Abraham Accords, make any difference - although I strongly doubt whether Mohammed bin Salman would be stupid enough to do this anymore.
The reality is that such deals have no meaning while Palestine does not have its own state, and while each Arab leader feels the anger of their own population on Palestine.
But forcing Netanyahu to stop the war, in the way a strong Republican president like Ronald Reagan forced Israel stop the bombing of Beirut four decades ago, would also have seismic consequences.
It would stop the religious Zionist project in its tracks. It would feed the growing dissatisfaction within the Israeli army’s high command, who have already signalled they have achieved all they can in Gaza and Lebanon, and are suffering from war fatigue.
Stopping the war would present Netanyahu with his biggest political peril, as doing so before a return of the hostages would be tantamount to a Hamas and Hezbollah victory.
Hope for the future
One year on, there is still no credible project to install a government in Gaza that would allow the withdrawal of Israeli troops. The moment they do, Hamas re-emerges. The only government of post-war Gaza that could succeed would be a technocratic government that is agreed with Hamas - and that in itself would represent a huge humiliation for Netanyahu and the army’s vow to crush the resistance movement.
Whatever Trump does, the scale of Palestinian resistance during this war has demonstrated that the agency in the conflict does not lie with extremist leaders in Israel or Washington. It lies with the peoples of Palestine and across the Middle East.
And that is the biggest hope for the future. Never before in US electoral history has Palestine been a factor in turning the youth vote away from the Democratic Party. Henceforth, no Democratic leader wishing to rebuild their coalition can ignore the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim vote.
It may be that as Biden departs, we have seen the party’s last Zionist leader. That in itself is of immense significance for Israel.
The irrational, quixotic, transactional occupant of the White House - the president who insists that his advisers reduce all their analysis to one sheet of A4, which they are lucky he actually reads - will only accelerate the destruction of the status quo in the Middle East that he started in his first term.
With much help from Netanyahu, Trump has already killed the dream of Zionist liberal democracy that lasted for 76 years.
This is some achievement in itself. In a second term, he will only hasten the day the occupation ends.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/trump-two-choices-obliterate-palestine-end-war
---------
Can The Lebanese Hezbollah And Amal Movement Reunite?
By Ata Şahit
7 November 2024
Lebanon stands at a critical juncture in its history amid Israel’s continued assault on the country as well as the ongoing genocidal war in the besieged Palestinian enclave of Gaza.
The long-drawn regional conflicts and the recent assassination of key Hezbollah figures have contributed to a new geopolitical context, intensifying the complexities in both Gaza and Lebanon and significantly diminishing prospects for regional peace.
The question of how the Lebanese conflict—or, more precisely, Israel's sustained assaults and occupation efforts in Lebanon—will conclude hinges primarily on the decisions of Lebanon’s principal political actors and the evolving positions of regional and international powers regarding Israel.
Within this framework, a scenario for potential de-escalation of tensions involves the possible reunification of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement in Lebanon, or at the minimum, the establishment of a united front to facilitate renewed avenues for dialogue.
From armed struggle to political entity
The Amal Movement, a prominent Shia political organisation in Lebanon, was founded in the early 1970s by Musa Sadr to advocate for Lebanese Shia rights and spearhead military resistance against Israel.
Musa Sadr led the movement from its inception, succeeded by Mustafa Chamran and subsequently, in 1979, by Nabih Berri.
During critical events such as the Galilee Operation and Israel's assault on Beirut, Amal, alongside other Lebanese factions, participated in negotiations with Israel under the auspices of the National Salvation Committee.
Since 1990, Amal has been integrated into Lebanon’s political framework, securing parliamentary seats and the speaker’s position in the Lebanese parliament—outcomes of the movement’s recalibrated approach following Musa Sadr’s leadership.
The movement’s origins were shaped by military training and cooperation with Palestinian organisations, producing enduring effects on Lebanon’s political equilibrium.
Amal's initial membership comprised young graduates from the Jabal Amel Industrial School, which provided the movement’s foundational structure through rigorous military training.
Here, members underwent intensive training under Fatah instructors, instilling military discipline and operational structure within the movement.
Since the early 1970s, Lebanon has been mired in political instability, exacerbated by deepening sectarian tensions and a substantial influx of Palestinian refugees.
Intersectarian conflicts, particularly between Lebanon's diverse sectarian communities, culminated in the outbreak of civil war in 1975.
During this period, the Shia community faced a particularly acute security vacuum relative to other sects, prompting community leaders to establish independent military organisations.
Following Israel’s 1978 Litani Operation—an invasion of southern Lebanon—Shia participation in the Amal Movement grew significantly due to the PLO’s inability to shield the local population or counter Israeli influence effectively.
The Lebanese civil war that erupted in 1975 deepened sectarian divisions, and efforts to resolve the conflict culminated in the Taif Agreement of 1990. This accord sought to balance political power more equitably among sects and restore social stability.
Within this newly established political framework, the Amal Movement was integrated into the formal political system, strengthening its legitimacy as a political actor and amplifying its influence in Lebanese society.
In the 1996 parliamentary elections, Amal solidified its power by securing a substantial number of seats, especially in southern Lebanon and Beirut. As a result, Amal transformed into an institution dedicated to upholding the rights and interests of Lebanon's Shiite community.
This broadened role contributed to Amal’s strategic significance within Lebanon’s domestic affairs and its stature in international relations.
Hezbollah and fragmentation of Lebanese Shiism
Amal’s appeal, particularly among young Shias, influenced both Lebanon’s sectarian balance and broader regional dynamics, especially through its connection with the Palestinian resistance.
However, the disappearance of Musa Sadr in 1978 disrupted Amal’s internal coherence and altered its power structure.
This event, coupled with the ideological influence of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, became decisive factors that catalysed Amal’s fragmentation and the eventual emergence of Hezbollah.
Specifically, the Iranian Revolution intensified tensions between Amal's secular and religious factions, while the Israeli invasion in 1982 further polarised these divisions, ultimately leading to Hezbollah's establishment.
This period witnessed an internal schism within Amal between the secular faction, led by Nabih Berri, and the religious faction under Hussein Mussawi, who advocated closer ties with Iran.
This shift was exacerbated by Nabih Berri’s participation in the National Salvation Committee, which included the Lebanese forces—a faction with ties to Israel—intensifying discontent within Amal’s religious faction.
This discord spurred a significant number of Shia youth to rally around Hezbollah, thereby consolidating its power and cementing its role as a dominant force within Lebanese Shiism.
This proximity has fostered both competition and conflict between the two groups. In particular, disparities in personnel recruitment, foreign relations, and positions on the Palestinian cause have intensified this rivalry.
Hezbollah has firmly opposed the recognition of Israel as a state and the establishment of agreements aimed at securing borders, perceiving such actions as a form of capitulation.
These policy differences have eroded mutual trust and instigated a protracted period of conflict.
Ideologically, Hezbollah is aligned with their vision of an Iran-supported theocratic state, while Amal has retained a more secular orientation.
The ensuing schism culminated in a violent rivalry that commenced in mid-1988 and persisted for two-and-a-half years, inflicting substantial costs on both groups and threatening social cohesion, thereby generating tensions within the Shia community in Lebanon.
However, the Gulf Crisis of 1990 transformed regional conditions, leading both factions to seek a mutual peace agreement.
Notably, the collaboration between Hezbollah and Amal during the 33-Day War in the summer of 2006 was pivotal in Lebanon's resistance against Israel.
The formation of the March 8 Coalition in 2005 formalised the collaboration between these two groups within the Lebanese political landscape.
Within this coalition framework, Hezbollah and Amal have successfully secured numerous parliamentary seats and shared ministerial positions, thereby establishing a lasting impact on the Lebanese government.
How to stop Israel's attacks on Lebanon?
According to reports in the international media, Israel has articulated its conditions for pursuing a diplomatic resolution to end its military onslaught in Lebanon, presenting these stipulations to the United States.
It is asserted that the objectives of these conditions primarily revolve around constraining Hezbollah's military capabilities while simultaneously reinforcing Israel's own security measures.
The first of these conditions involves Israel's demand for the right to employ force to prevent the arming of Hezbollah within Lebanese territory.
This demand reflects Israel's concerns regarding Hezbollah's potential rearmament and the fortification of its infrastructure in Southern Lebanon.
The second condition pertains to Israel's request for the right to operate freely within Lebanese airspace, in violation of Lebanese sovereignty.
Through this demand, Israel aims to enhance its capacity to monitor Hezbollah's activities and to conduct military incursions when they deem it necessary.
This request for unrestricted aerial violations serves not only Israel's security interests but also its strategic objective of asserting dominance in the region.
Concurrently, Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces Party and a significant political actor in Lebanon, along with the March 14 Coalition, is advocating for the implementation of international resolutions that mandate the disarmament of resistance movements such as Hezbollah.
Recent statements from Samir Geagea highlight the necessity of disarming the resistance in Lebanon, referencing United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1701, 1680, and 1559.
These resolutions foresee the disbandment of armed groups, particularly Hezbollah, and aim to ensure that the state assumes full control over security matters.
However, a contentious and unresolved issue persists regarding the future of Shia groups in light of the potential elimination of Hezbollah's leadership. For an extended period, Israel has sought to undermine Hezbollah's military and logistical structure by targeting its leadership.
The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah may be perceived as part of a broader strategy to erode Hezbollah's ideological coherence and organisational resilience.
Conversely, Hezbollah is endeavouring to rebuild its strength and credibility in the aftermath of such challenges and aims to demonstrate its power through retaliatory actions against Israel.
In this context, Israel's ultimate goal may involve not only aerial bombardments but also ground invasions that would enable it to gain control over the territory extending to the Litani River. Such manoeuvres would address Israel's long-term expectations concerning regional security dynamics and border integrity.
To prevent the realisation of this scenario, the most advantageous approach would entail reinstating the previous security arrangements based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted in 2006.
This would require the limitation of armed groups' activities in the border region of southern Lebanon, ensuring the security of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and facilitating the resumption of diplomatic dialogue.
One of the essential prerequisites for achieving this objective is the restriction of armed Shia groups, which could be facilitated through the consolidation of the groups under the leadership of the Amal Movement.
The historical trajectories of the Amal Movement and Lebanese Hezbollah suggest that the unification of these two movements, while complex, is not an unattainable goal.
Despite the numerous divisions between them, the potential for consolidating Shia groups under a singular umbrella or for Lebanese Hezbollah to align with the Amal Movement is plausible.
This would effectively represent a "Lebanonisation" of the armed Shia groups.
https://www.trtworld.com/content/article/can-the-lebanese-hezbollah-and-amal-movement-reunite-18229590
---------
Gallant Is The Man For The Job! Netanyahu, We Deserve Better
By Jpost Editorial
November 8, 2024
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement on Tuesday evening that he has found a “crisis of trust” that “gradually deepened” with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on the eve of US elections and a pending Iran attack seemed like something out of a horror movie.
What justifiable strategy is there to replace a defense minister in the middle of a multi-front existential war, two fronts of which are being fought by soldiers who are weary and bone-tired, with no real end in sight?
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara said on Thursday that Netanyahu’s decision is legally sound and that her office will not intervene. The move came after petitioners requested that the High Court of Justice freeze the firing.
The deeper meaning
But let’s put Gallant aside. Because, besides the fact that he is a military man with overflowing qualifications for the role, Gallant has led Israel’s defense strategy seamlessly for the past year. Even if you don’t agree with him, his moves, or his politics, he was the man for the job.
But it’s not about him. It is about something much bigger: A sense of stability gradually growing more eroded, consistency, and ultimately, leadership.
When Netanyahu threatened to fire Gallant last March, it set off a wave of anger and a sense of both discontent and disgust, feelings that soon became concretized in what has become one of the strongest demonstrations ever.
That energy was echoed on Tuesday night, but it carried with it something even more ominous: a sense of panic and exhaustion; the feeling that this is precisely the thing that is one step too far – but the people are so weary, the hostages families so tortured, that this is the only thing left to do to try to affect some change, or at least express frustrations.
Few reservists expressed feelings of doubt, anger, and betrayal on Wednesday. Some expressed doubt at the decision to fire the defense minister for seemingly political reasons in the middle of a war, while others expressed frustration over the fact that Gallant was fired in part for opposing a bill that would exempt eligible ultra-Orthodox (haredi) men from the draft, reported the Post’s Economic Correspondent Eve Young.
Because anyone with sight and intellect could see exactly what happened here: An underside punch to kick at the political chessboard and keep the coalition intact, because if the haredi parties won’t get what they want, they will crumble the coalition, tunnel-visioned, damning Israel’s greater needs and goals.
The reason this is so outrageous is because instead of dealing with the century-old issue of differences between the haredi sector and their fellow citizens who work and contribute much more, instead of answering the very dire needs of protection that the State of Israel needs, this move maintains the status quo, putting even more weight on the very people growing too tired to carry it.
A true leader would find a way to bridge those gaps, would see the fractures in the society they are charged with leading and protecting, and tend to them. What we have seen is only the opposite, and it only becomes more brazen.
“We expect our soldiers to be strong and to fight with everything they have. But what does that strength mean when, back in the Knesset, the message to both our troops and our enemies is one of fractured leadership, of weak priorities?” asked Editor-in-Chief Zvika Klein.
“Gallant’s sacking, right here, right now, is no simple bureaucratic change: It’s an earthquake, a shock wave that rattles from the top of the government to the battlefield trenches; it screams chaos,” he wrote. “Why fire Gallant in the middle of a war? Because he had the nerve to issue draft notices…? Because coalition survival suddenly trumps national security? That’s what this soldier in Gaza is hearing. Is this what I’m fighting for? Is this what I’m ready to die for?”
If the rot is so clear from the top, what can this possibly say about our society?
As it stands, there is effectively one person filling in the positions of prime minister, defense minister, and foreign minister: Netanyahu. Israel Katz does not have the qualifications for the role, and the deal Gideon Sa’ar agreed to is a stab in the back of the public. We deserve better leaders.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-828065
--------
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/west-turkiye-trump-lebanon-hezbollah/d/133649
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism