World Press on Bangabandhu, Israel’s Election and Myanmar’s Civil Disobedience: New Age Islam's Selection, 18 March 2021
By
New Age Islam Edit Desk
18 March
2021
•
Bangabandhu: A Public Leader Extraordinaire
By
Syed Badrul Haque
•
What’s Missing in Israel’s Election? Biden.
By
Shmuel Rosner
• 10
Years On, the Birds Of Prey Circle over Syria
By
Tasneem Tayeb
• Can
Myanmar’s Civil Disobedience Movement Restore Democracy?
By
Nicola Williams
• By
Breaking the Silence about Patriarchy, Men Can Help End Violence against Women
By
Harry Ferguson
-------
Bangabandhu:
A Public Leader Extraordinaire
By Syed
Badrul Haque
March 18,
2021
Bangabandhu
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's date of birth is being commemorated this year with the
added dimension of his birth centenary. This anniversarial date is an asterisk
mark in the chronicle of our nation's history. A public leader extraordinaire,
Bangabandhu suffered extended imprisonment, braved life-risking challenges and
finally wrested liberation from the colonial rulers for his people.
My
reminiscences about Bangabandhu date back to the late fifties when Bangabandhu
took over as a minister in charge of commerce, labour and industries in the
provincial cabinet of East Pakistan. On his personal selection, I, with a stint
in journalism behind, joined as his press officer. This assignment was
obviously the high-water mark of my service career and beyond. I was somewhat
nervous initially, but then felt reassured and comfortable when he asked me to
send my copies to the news media without his vetting.
The room
which he occupied was located on the first floor of the Shahbag canteen
(presently known as Secretarial canteen), which was rather small for
ministerial accommodations. Around his secretariat table, there were four
wooden chairs without any cushion and a sofa-set that would accommodate only
three persons. Visitors were few and far between. His table was never cluttered
with pending files. The curtains of his one-door room and two windows were of
moderate variety, as was the norm in those days. It exuded a gentleness and a
quiet ambience that characterised the secretariat premises at the time.
Regretfully,
his room is still unmarked and unrecorded by the secretariat authorities. Also
the time that he had spent at the secretariat as a minister rarely finds
mention in print or electronic media, although every phase of his career was
singularly important in shaping his political thought and career. His tenure as
a minister had, in fact, offered him a unique opportunity to gain first-hand
knowledge of the exploitation of the Bengalis by the Pakistani rulers since
Partition. It reinforced his conviction that liberation was the only option
left for the Bengalis if they were to live honourably in the comity of nations.
Notably,
the ministerial job was the only appointment that Bangabandhu had accepted
under the Pakistani regime. But then, that was indeed the defining moment to
chart his next political strategy. At times there were moments when he seemed
austerely private, a loner—it was rather impossible to recognise the inner
turmoil in his far-away look and the frozen melancholy of his features.
In one of
his official tours to the Faridpur town, Bangabandhu asked me to accompany him
during an inspection visit to the district jail. As he was going around the
jail premises in brisk steps, he suddenly stopped in front of a cell, and
remained standing there for some time. Later he told us that in his student
days, he had been jailed for protesting the price hike of daily necessities by
a West Pakistani district magistrate. I still vividly remember those moments
when he seemed lost in nostalgia.
But before
the year's end in office, Bangabandhu elected to opt out from the cosy club of
ministerial comfort and authority and be with his hapless people to galvanise
them to fight for freedom, albeit on a graduated scale, a role that he seemed
to be preparing for all his life. Since then, much time elapsed, Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman became Bangabandhu and the Father of the Nation, as Bangladesh emerged
on the world map from a classic war of liberation in contemporary history.
In the
early days of independence, we had streams of visitors from all corners of the
globe. On one occasion, I, then an information officer, accompanied a venerated
German writer during her visit to Bangabandhu at Dhanmondi 32. Bangabandhu
received the guest at the doorstep of his residence and took her to the drawing
room. The writer complimented Bangabandhu on his unique leadership in the
liberation movement that won freedom for the Bengali nation. Bangabandhu was
also appreciative of the support extended by her country in building our
ravaged economy.
Before
seeing the visitor off, much to my surprise, Bangabandhu called me by my first
name. He remembered it even after so many years had elapsed. I was close to
tears—it was the most unforgettable moment that remained etched in my mind.
Like me, so many people have had fond memories of being pleasantly surprised
when Bangabandhu called them by their first names, a gesture that showed how
deeply he cared about his people.
Presently,
as the nation commemorates the centenary of Bangabandhu's birth, let us
recommit ourselves to fulfil his dream of Sonar Bangla. The attainment of the
status as a developing nation under the leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh
Hasina is a luminous tribute to his birth centenary on behalf of the nation.
----
Syed Badrul
Haque is a contributor to The Daily Star.
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/bangabandhu-public-leader-extraordinaire-2062301
----
What’s
missing in Israel’s Election? Biden
By
Shmuel Rosner
March 17,
2021
American president, Joe Biden
------
On March
23, Israel will go to the polls for its fourth national election in two years.
The worst part is that this depressing Election Day may just be a prelude to
yet another: Opinion polling suggests that Israel’s political blocs will
struggle to elect and form a stable parliamentary majority. Our politics, it
seems, are stuck on a repetitive doom loop.
At least
one thing is different: This time, the American president is a nonentity.
Consider
two election cycles of the last decade. In 2015, just days before Israelis
voted, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington and spoke before
Congress about the threat of Iran. Mr. Netanyahu made his fierce opposition to
President Barack Obama and his Iran deal central to his campaign. Four years
later, when Israel entered its current long cycle of repeated elections, Mr.
Netanyahu posted his image alongside that of President Donald Trump on a
high-rise overlooking Tel Aviv’s main highway. This time his goal was making
America a central feature of his campaign, by highlighting his closeness to the
president. In both cases, the political messaging was spot-on.
Mr.
Netanyahu was hardly the first Israeli politician to make America’s president
an electoral issue. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was helped by President George
W. Bush. Prime Minister Ehud Barak was elected with the backing of President
Bill Clinton’s administration.
Why are
American presidents so central to elections in a country so far away from
Washington? First, because Israelis see the United States as a cornerstone of
their country’s security. And while Israelis’ confidence in the alliance has
somewhat eroded in recent years, the ability of their leaders to understand,
debate and confront the leaders in Washington is still important. Second, what
happens in Israel matters to America, too; Israeli politics are also part of
Washington’s strategy for the Middle East.
But in the
lead-up to this month’s election, there has been neither an embrace of
President Biden nor a repudiation of him. And that’s not for a lack of
opportunity. Nearly four weeks passed between Mr. Biden’s inauguration and his
first call to Israel’s prime minister. That was viewed by many as a snub. But
when Mr. Netanyahu was asked this month why Mr. Biden was so late to call him,
the prime minister didn’t try to convince the voters that in fact, Mr. Biden
was his best friend; nor did he try to claim that Mr. Biden was a great foe who
threatened Israel’s security. He dismissed the question with a few generalities
and moved on.
Mr.
Netanyahu’s main rivals, Yair Lapid, Naftali Bennett and Gideon Saar, have also
been hesitant to seize on the issue, or on early signs of disagreement between
Washington and Israel over Iran as proof that the prime minister is not fit to
keep Israel secure.
There’s a
simple explanation, and a more complicated one, for this unusual absence.
First, the simple: Israelis do not yet know whether Mr. Biden will prove to be
a friend, like his predecessor, or a thorn in their side, like the president he
previously served under. Mr. Netanyahu cannot yet oppose him because so far he
has done nothing objectionable, and alienating the White House for no good
reason is beyond the pale even for a cynic like Mr. Netanyahu. The opposite is
also true: Mr. Biden has not yet proved himself to be Israel’s friend as
president, and so the prime minister’s rivals must be careful not to portray
themselves as his admirers.
The more
complicated explanation concerns America’s interest in the Middle East and the
country’s relative irrelevance to much that is happening in the region. The
United States was unsuccessful in its halfhearted quest to contain Iranian
expansion; it was missing in action in the Syrian civil war; it bet on wrong
horses during the so-called Arab Spring; it has alienated the Saudis, let
Russia take over Libya and did nothing of value to resolve the Palestinian
issue. The list goes on.
In fact,
the only true achievement of the United States in the region in recent years is
the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreement between Israel and the Gulf
Arab countries, which was orchestrated by the Trump administration. But this
significant move was achieved not as a triumph of the traditional American
policy but because American diplomacy was on leave — temporarily occupied by
the revolutionary troops of the Trump administration.
If
America’s leaders are just tired of being involved in Israel’s never-ending
political process, I can’t fully blame them. We Israelis are all tired of it,
too. We would all wish for a little break. And yet an Israeli election with no
America as background noise is disturbingly strange. Is this another proof that
America is less interested in the country that much depends on its support? Are
we being demoted?
In more
than one way, the policy of the Biden administration seems to be moving along a
trajectory that assumes a less central role for Middle East affairs in
America’s foreign policy. So it’s quite possible that Israel’s needs are
becoming less urgent and that who leads Israel matters less in the eyes of the
United States. In such case, the proper election question for Israelis is no
longer “Which leader could better deal with America?” but “Which leader can
better manage without America?”
----
Shmuel
Rosner is the editor of the Israeli data-journalism site TheMadad.com, a senior
fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute and a contributing opinion writer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/opinion/israel-election-biden.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-----
10 Years
On, the Birds Of Prey Circle over Syria
By
Tasneem Tayeb
March 18,
2021
Torture,
forced disappearance, displacement, chemical attacks, butchery, loss of lives
and limbs, death of family and friends, mass murder: the Syrian people have
been through it all in the last 10 years.
It all
started with protests on March 15, 2011 triggered by a graffiti on a school
wall in the southern province of Deraa, which read: "It's your turn now,
doctor!" It was written by some students who were clearly not happy with
the state of affairs under the leadership of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The doctor in the graffiti referred to the president, who had served as a
doctor in the Syrian Army. His specialisation was ophthalmology.
The
graffiti was a manifestation of the elephant in the room, and the common people
started to rise up to voice their dissatisfaction. Set against the backdrop of
the newly-lit flames of the Arab Spring, the protests soon gained momentum and
spread like wildfire from one province to another, and eventually throughout
the country.
The
crackdown on protesters by the Assad regime had been swift and brutal, and soon
the protests turned into a civil war, with the people fighting for or against
the government. The Syrian political landscape—already rife with factional
divisions among the Kurds, the Salafi jihadists, the Sunni groups, and other
factions trying to leverage the people's anti-government sentiment to serve
their vested interests—splintered into many rebel groups. This is where Syria
fell apart.
Foreign
powers, regional and global, soon joined in the mad dash for geopolitical
power, siding with one party or another. The US, Russia, France, the UK, Iran,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, along with other countries, got involved in the
war in some way or another. While Iran backed the Hezbollah fighters in support
of the Assad regime, Qatar and Saudi Arabia facilitated the rise of various
predominantly Sunni militant factions. Turkey's tussle with Syrian Democratic
Forces—engaged in the fight against terrorist groups, specifically the
ISIS—across the northeastern border of Syria played a role in strengthening the
base of the terrorist group.
The swift
emergence of militant outfits in the war-torn country, facilitated by the power
vacuum in leadership, turned Syria into a lucrative spot for foreign
intervention. Under the pretext of fighting international terrorism, many
western powers including the US intervened with military measures, all vying
for greater control in this resource-rich region. And of course, many of these
countries engaged in profitable arms trade thanks to the perpetual state of war
in the country.
The result:
387,118 casualties till December 2020, more than one-third of them civilians
(116,911 civilians, to be more precise). This data was published by the
UK-based monitoring group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).
In
addition, around 205,300 people remain traceless—either dead or just
missing—including more than 88,000 civilians who are "believed to have
died of torture in government-run prisons", as reported by the BBC.
But the
worst sufferers have perhaps been the children. "Almost 12,000 children
were killed or injured in the past decade, according to verified data—an
average of more than three children a day," reported the Unicef on March
10 this year.
Unfortunately,
in the last 10 years, children were not only killed in Syria, but also
recruited to fight in the war. According to Unicef data, more than 5,700
children have fallen victim to the bloodthirsty predators. Some of the recruits
were as young as seven. And no one knows how many have died in the line of
fire.
Thousands
of children have been separated from their families or just orphaned with
nowhere to go or turn for support. What of those children born of the fighters?
Hundreds and thousands of them are living miserable lives in the various camps
across Syria. Case in point: camps across northeast Syria, including the infamous
Al-Hol camp, which house around "27,500 children of at least 60
nationalities and thousands of Syrian children associated with armed
groups," as reported by Unicef.
The Unicef
report further added that more than half a million Syrian children under the
age of five suffer from stunting due to chronic malnutrition. The prices of
food went up by 230 percent in 2020 alone. The Syrian economy has crumbled
under the pressure of the war.
Al Jazeera
cited a UN report saying that more than 80 percent of the Syrian population is
now living below the poverty line. The Syrian pound has plummeted to 4,000
against one US dollar in the black market. The economic cost of the war over
the last decade has been north of USD 1.2 trillion, according to World Vision.
"Even
if the war ended today, its cost will continue to accumulate to the tune of an
additional USD 1.7 trillion in today's money through to 2035", the World
Vision report added.
Yet, those
who have been lucky to survive amidst the massacre and the mayhem live on the
charity of donors, at times the same ones who had sold arms at lucrative prices
to fuel the war. And many have been forced to flee, often multiple times, to
survive the carnage of the warring parties.
In the last
decade, more than 12.3 million people have been displaced. While 5.6 million
Syrians have been registered as refugees outside the country, around 6.7
million have been internally displaced. The total number of displaced is more
than half of the pre-war Syrian population of around 22 million.
While
efforts have been made, especially in recent years, to diffuse tensions in
Syria, many of the refugees do not ever want to return to Syria. They just want
peace and a life as normal as it can get.
And with
the Assad regime still wielding strong political power and control over the
majority of the land, one can only wonder why the refugees are unwilling to
return to their motherland. Assad's ruthlessness in dealing with dissent is
known to the world—156,329 of all the casualties are attributed to the Syrian
government—and fear of repercussions remains high among the anti-establishment
population.
The
protests in Syria, along with the spirit of change that sparked those protests
in the first place, have died down, and the country has been crushed by the
decade-long conflict. The country has gained nothing in the last 10 years; if
anything, it has lost its people, its resources, its infrastructure, its
control over itself.
One of the
main reasons why this has happened is the inability of the various factions to
unite for one single cause: democracy and change. Except for the common people,
who had solely taken to the streets imbued with the inspiration of the Araba
Spring, all the actors in the Syrian war had been only interested in serving
their individual political gains, and it is this failure of the actors to unite
behind one cause that has been self-defeating for the common Syrians.
In fact,
most of the actors had not been fighting for democracy; they just capitalised
on the pro-democracy movement of the people to push for their own control over
the land. And this is where the movement died and turned into a bloody
mess.
Ten years
on, Syria is a country nearly destroyed. Ten years on, efforts to rebuild the
nation are meagre. The involvement of the foreign powers—especially those that
had been fuelling this crisis—in these rebuilding measures has little
visibility. And one only wonders how long it would take for the country to come
out of the mess that the political ambitions of the warring parties has
created.
With the
birds of prey pecking on the carcass of a defeated nation, the future for the
Syrians looks grim, if there is a future at all.
----
Tasneem
Tayeb is a columnist for The Daily Star. Her Twitter handle is: @TayebTasneem
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/closer-look/news/10-years-the-birds-prey-circle-over-syria-2062305
-----
Can
Myanmar’s Civil Disobedience Movement Restore Democracy?
By
Nicola Williams
March 18,
2021
Since
Myanmar's military coup on February 1, the commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw,
General Min Aung Hlaing, has been working to remake the country's political
landscape by removing the National League for Democracy (NLD) party, detaining
its leadership and installing a military junta. But the success of the coup is not
guaranteed, given the junta's lack of control over parts of the state
apparatus, population and the spiralling economy.
The civil
disobedience movement is spreading across key ministries. Staff from the
Central Bank of Myanmar and from commercial banks are striking and limitations
placed on withdrawals indicate a looming liquidity crisis. Foreign trade is
frozen, with exports down by 90 percent. Medical professionals are striking and
two-thirds of the country's hospitals are not functioning properly during a
pandemic. Some members of the police have also joined protests, refusing to do
the "dirty work" of the military.
A
groundswell of protests has swept across the country, with Myanmar's tech-savvy
youth proving to be a creative, mobilising force that the old guard has not
faced before. As Min Aung Hlaing sports bulletproof vests in rare outings and
uses state media to blast the civil disobedience movement and protesters, the
junta's own propaganda machine suggests the resistance is having an impact. Can
the military maintain internal cohesion facing off against a nation and
multiple crises? Based on 2020 election
results, there may even be hints of support for the NLD within the military.
A number of
possible scenarios are emerging with different enabling factors, not least of
which is the Myanmar people's sheer determination to achieve democracy.
One
scenario is a return to absolute military rule. The junta would use the crises,
violence and coercion to remove any semblance of social order, and then present
a false dichotomy to the population: anarchy or dictatorship. A delay in
holding elections for several years would be justified under the guise of
restoring stability.
A second
scenario follows the path set by General Hlaing: hold elections within a year
and reinstall a semi-elected parliament. The military has likely realised by
now that the political system they had designed under the constitution does not
guarantee its political victory. The military-backed Union Solidarity
Development Party (USDP) has been unable to secure enough seats to outnumber
the NLD, even with the advantage of a quarter of parliamentary seats being
assigned to the military.
In such a
scenario, the junta may attempt to redesign the electoral system from
first-past-the-post to proportional representation, framing this as an
opportunity for ethnic and other political parties to gain more seats in a new
election. A sham election could then take place with the NLD removed from the
electoral map.
While ASEAN
countries initially seemed tempted by this track, it does not provide a pathway
to de-escalate resistance. A rigged military-run election would fail to
transfer the electoral legitimacy that voters bestowed on 2020-elected
officials, some of whom have formed the Committee Representing the Union
Parliament in opposition to the junta.
In a third
scenario, the coup neither clearly fails nor succeeds, creating a protracted
crisis. For over 70 years, the Myanmar military has failed to win a number of
asymmetric internal armed conflicts. The battle for state control would become
another front line of drawn-out crises, where the use of state-based violence
breeds further resistance and new support for the civil disobedience movement.
A
protracted crisis could also materialise if there is significant reorganising
of power within the military, leading to unforeseen contests. Potential
stalemates due to the military and civilian blocs not recognising each other
for negotiations, as called for by several ASEAN countries, could also prolong
events.
In scenario
four, the coup fails and there is a return to the hybrid government under the
2008 constitution, with NLD members released and the 2020 election results
honoured, as called for by the United Nations and much of the international
community. For the coup to fail, the civil disobedience movement would need to
sustain popular and financial support, and continue to impact the junta's
control over the economy and administration. This scenario hinges on the
possibility of support for Min Aung Hlaing's leadership waning as multiple
crises hit regular military families and businesses.
But
scenario four is unlikely with Min Aung Hlaing at the helm of the armed forces.
It would also require Western countries to hold off on normalising relations
with the junta, and ASEAN countries pursuing negotiations between the elected
government bloc and the military, not just with military-appointed officials.
In a final,
fifth scenario, the coup fails and the civilian government leads a new
transition. Many protesters and groups are calling for a new political
arrangement through the removal of the military from political life and the
military-drafted 2008 constitution. Rather than exclusively supporting the NLD
or Aung San Suu Kyi, many in Myanmar are marching for democratic federalism—a
system ethnic minorities have been striving for since 1947.
For this
last scenario to take hold, a counter-coup within the military may be needed to
deliver a new leadership willing to work under the civilian government—a tall
order indeed. Elected officials would take up their positions and an inclusive
constitutional committee could be established (including armed groups, civil
society and ethnic political parties) to draft a new constitution. While Nepal
provides an example of a federal transition following civil war and a people's
movement, this process is complex and loaded with challenges.
Ultimately,
the people of Myanmar must choose their system of government—and thus, their
fate—for it to be legitimate. A prolonged return to military rule or an
illegitimate government will only perpetuate continued suffering and
instability.
----
Nicola S
Williams is a PhD candidate at the Crawford School of Public Policy, The
Australian National University.
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/can-myanmars-civil-disobedience-movement-restore-democracy-2062317
----
By
Breaking the Silence about Patriarchy, Men Can Help End Violence against Women
By Harry
Ferguson
17 Mar 2021
The issue
of violence against women and girls is being widely discussed following the
death of Sarah Everard: women are expressing exhaustion at feeling afraid, and
anger and frustration at the same old conversations and being told to change
their behaviour. Yet while it is men who perpetrate most of the violence, many
have generally maintained a public silence.
This does
not mean that men are not saddened and repulsed by sexual and domestic
violence. A minority have expressed their disgust about misogyny on social
media, or shown support for the women close to them, but this is alongside
those whose reaction is defensive, insisting #NotAllMen are violent or are
dismissive or hostile, claiming that men are being demonised.
All men,
whether we like it or not, have become symbols of danger to women. This is not
the same as saying that all men are potential rapists, murderers or abusers. It
means rather that individual men’s violence keeps all women in a state of fear
and self-monitoring because women can never be sure that it will not be this
man who will stalk, rape, attack or attempt murder. Women are rendered cautious
and subordinated by patriarchy, which gives men the social power and legitimacy
to make the rules and to police them.
The
patriarchy ties violence and gender relations firmly to issues of power, and it
is crucial to the struggle for solutions that we see this larger picture. Men
gain a dividend from patriarchy in terms of honour, prestige, the right to
command, as well as a material dividend. The global average of women’s income
is about half of what men are paid, while just 11.9% of the world’s 2,825
billionaires are women.
As RW
Connell, a leading sociologist of masculinity, has argued, given these
inequalities, violence is inherent to a gender order which constitutes men as
an interest group concerned with defence, and women as an interest group
concerned with change.
The radical
feminist Andrea Dworkin once suggested that a productive step towards
eliminating violence against women would be for men to declare a 24-hour ceasefire.
It isn’t nearly long enough, but like those recent calls for a curfew on men it
would make women feel safer and could force men to think critically about
themselves and how it is men not women who need to change their behaviour.
However,
men overwhelmingly avoid talking about men’s violence, never mind really taking
on the issue. There is something in the shared unspoken bonds that unite men
that leads us to stay silent and not challenge one another. That “something” is
what Connell terms the “patriarchal dividend” – the advantages men in general
gain from the overall subordination of women.
Reproducing
masculinity means repudiating supposedly feminine characteristics such as
talking openly about feelings, crying, relationships, vulnerability and providing
care. Boys and men learn that maintaining control and silence about their
internal lives, and as a result their gender, is crucial to acceptance (and not
being humiliated or beaten up) by other men. Masculine ideals differ from
culture to culture, but in a British context it’s more often than not framed as
heterosexual, white, strong, rational and self-contained.
Indeed,
some men do badly out of patriarchy because it not only gives men collective
power over women, but over some groups of men, such as gay men who suffer
homophobic violence, black and ethnic minority men who experience racist
violence and men living in poverty.
Although a
majority of men are not criminally violent, research and intervention work with
those who are, such as domestic abusers, shows that they feel justified by
misogyny and an ideology of dominance over women. If we were to carry out a
ceasefire among men, as Dworkin suggested, it would have to include not just
stopping all acts of violence, but challenging the attitudes and the sense of
entitlement at large that play into the decisions some individual men take to
abuse women.
This means
men have to visibly move beyond a complicity with the patriarchal project to
speak out and act, demonstrating that we are taking the issue of women’s safety
very seriously by, for instance, not walking close to women, challenging men
when they make sexist comments and harass women – in person or online. The
White Ribbon organisation is a good example of a men’s campaign that is working
to do this. It asks men to promise “never to commit, excuse or remain silent
about male violence against women”, and it takes its public education work into
schools and other organisations and workplaces.
This kind
of public education work is not about demonising boys and men, but engaging
them in a process where they are able to learn how to listen and think and talk
about gender, relationships and power, that recognises their fears and their
capacity to love and care, and helps them to channel it and be accountable in
ways that can help keep women safe.
The
benefits of men struggling collectively to break the silence, reject the
patriarchal dividend, and promote justice and true personal safety are
potentially great, not only for women and children, but for men too, advancing
the conditions for safe, trustworthy and loving gender relationships. But first
the ceasefire among men must be announced and peace talks allowed to begin.
----
Harry
Ferguson is professor of social work at the University of Birmingham
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/17/breaking-silence-patriarchy-men-help-end-violence-against-women
----
URL: https://newageislam.com/world-press/world-press-bangabandhu,-israel’s-election/d/124564
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