Archive for the ‘Politics (General)’ Category

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu calls for early election

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

PM Netanyahu, who has been in office since 2009, called for an early general election this past Tuesday. The election, which could occur as soon as January, was originally scheduled for October of 2013. According to Haaretz News, Israel’s next election is to be held on January 22, 2013.

For nearly four years, Binyamin Netanyahu has presided over a conservative coalition that has proven stable in a country where governments rarely serve out a full term. If Netanyahu is able to complete his term it will be the first time a PM has done so in many years.

The Washington Post said, “Israeli parliamentary elections are usually called early, and Netanyahu’s announcement was widely expected.”

Netanyahu said he had decided to pull the date forward because bickering among his coalition partners had made it impossible to pass a the 2013 budget. Netanyahu has been unable to agree the annual budget with his coalition partners, a disagreement that ended up sparking Netanyahu’s call for an early election.

In a public speech Netanyahu said, “At this time, in the face of the turmoil around us, it is my obligation as prime minister to put the national interest above all. Therefore I have decided for the benefit of Israel to hold elections now and as quickly as possible.” At the time of his speech Netanyahu did not set a date, but rather said it would be preferable to have as short a campaign as possible.

Netanyahu is expected to be re-elected as prime minister due to the fact that the opposition is “fragmented and leaderless”, according to Aljazeera.

The immediate reason for the snap elections was the coalition’s inability to pass a 2013 budget by a December 31 deadline, but people are speculation that Netanyahu is trying to capitalize on his current standing amongst the Israeli people. Given his high standings in opinion polls and the lack of a clear rival, Netanyahu has taken the chance of calling elections early with hopes of remaining PM.

In a televised announcement Tuesday, Netanyahu said the election was necessary to ensure “a responsible security and economic policy” in the face of the economic downturn and threats to Israel’s security from Iran and elsewhere.

A victory would allow Netanyahu to press ahead with budget cuts opposed by coalition partners and sustain his push for aggressive action against Iran. Reelection also would cement Netanyahu’s mandate ahead of an expected economic slowdown and possible pressure from a newly elected U.S. president for peace talks with the Palestinians, which have effectively been frozen for two years. Netanyahu is hopeful that he will be able to continue putting pressure on Iran, challenging their nuclear program.

Discussion Questions: How will the early election of Prime Minister in Israel change the election process? Will the effects be overwhelmingly positive or negative? If Netanyahu had chosen not to call an early election, how would the next nine months have played out? Would the government have been able to come to terms over the budget for the upcoming year?

Sources: BBC News, Aljazeera, CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post, Guardian and Haaretz

Chavez Stands with Syrian Government

Wednesday, October 10th, 2012

Following his fourth presidential victory, Hugo Chavez spoke briefly of his opinions about the Syrian conflict. Throughout his presidency, Chavez has always supported Syrian leader Bahsar  al Assad, sending the country three shipments of oil and speaking out against the actions of the countries aiding the rebels. Chavez has criticized the United States and European governments for aiding the so-called “terrorists” who are fighting to gain political control. Chavez used this opportunity to reiterate his approval of the current Syrian government and to condemn the United states and “the European governments” for their interfering actions. Chavez alleges that the United States involvement prolonged the conflict  which has been going on for nearly twenty months, and added to the death toll, which has surpassed 30,000 people.  But even more than this, Chavez believes the United States is most responsible. “They killed thousands of innocents just to kill a president,” he says. “How can we not support the government of Bashar al-Assad if it’s the legitimate government of Syria?”

 

What qualifies a government as “the legitimate one?” Based on what you know about Chavez, why do you think he supports the Syrian government? What about Chavez supporting the Syrian government surprises you? Do you think his point is valid?

PressTV with video clip

An interesting bias from the SunHerald, which seemed to emphasize Chavez’s politcal legitimacy

Brief summary from Today’s Zaman

 

Rift Grows Between Israeli Leaders Over Relations With U.S.

Thursday, October 4th, 2012

A growing rift between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, a political rival, centers on Israel’s strategic relations with the United States as Mr. Barak tries to turn the tension between Mr. Netanyahu and Washington to his political advantage.

After years of a close alliance during which the pair almost exclusively directed Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak have been trading the kind of barbs that would appear, at least for now, to mean an end to that kind of intimate cooperation.

With the elections coming up in Israel, the issues are becoming more and more important to the two of them. Policies dealing with both Iran and Palestine are major issues. The choice that the people have to make is who is going to best lead them through this.

Israeli general elections are scheduled for October 2013, but Mr. Netanyahu has made it known that if he cannot reach agreement with his coalition partners on what he calls a “responsible” budget within 10 days, he will call an early vote.

Israeli leader’s strained relations with Washington are emerging as a hot electoral issue in Israel. Israelis are anxious about the prospect of an attack on Iran without close American coordination, and they generally view strong ties with the United States as crucial, framing Mr. Netanyahu’s clash with the White House as a rare political weakness.

According to political experts here, Mr. Barak had wanted a guarantee from Mr. Netanyahu that he would continue to serve as defense minister in the next government, but there was strong opposition from within Mr. Netanyahu’s party.

Instead, Mr. Barak has been trying to carve out an agenda of his own to appeal to voters. With the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations long stalled, he recently proposed a unilateral plan for creating a separate Palestinian state that would have Israel annexing parts of the West Bank and withdrawing from others.

Question: Why is it so important for Barak and Netanyahu to put aside there different idea and come together on the issues? What will happen if they continue to disagree with each other?

 

 

NY Times

 

Abbas’s UN speech brings different reactions

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

A year ago Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked for a full membership of the United Nations which didn’t work out. This year he came back to announce his intention to ask the General Assembly to upgrade the status of a Palestinian state to a non-member in UN like the Vatican – a less ambitious status.

Palestinian’s current status is that of an “observer entity” not a full-state. Upgraded status for a Palestinian state would not be pleasurable for Israel as it will give Palestine Authority various political privileges that didn’t exist as an “entity”.

Upgraded status for a Palestinian state would also mean Abbas will be able to procure the path to the two-state solution. The two-state solution refers to the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict currently under discussion; it calls for two separate states for two peoples which will provide definitive borders for the divided territory. What is required for this solution was that acceptance of an independent Palestinian state.

Abbas said that approving the application would mean that a Palestinian state would be under occupation of another country. “We have no problem with this because then we will have a state and not a disputed land,” he said. “This land is ours. It is occupied land, no matter how many settlements there are and how much they grow.” He also highlights for a need of immediate end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also continues to emphasize the need for the Palestinians to be given its own independent state, “The settlements and settlers must leave,” he continued, “This land and Jerusalem belong to us. There will never be a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu replied shortly after Abbas, dismissing Abbas’s speech as “libelous”. He also made clear that he was not pleased with the Palestinian address. Netanyahu addresses his opinion about the speech, “We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes, the one and only Jewish State.”

Questions:

Should Palestinian state be allowed? If yes to what degree? (full member of UN, non-member in UN)

Will two-state solution end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Jerusalem Post, Aljazeera

Clinton Continues Lobbying for Middle Eastern Aid

Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

Back storyIn mid March, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton waived a decision the United States had made to withhold financial aid from Egypt until Egypt became a democracy. She decided, to mixed reactions, to allow approximately $1.5 billion dollars in aid to continue to be sent on to Egypt. Some politicians felt that to give Egypt the money before their government had achieved democracy was encouraging the current Egyptian government to remain in power. Others thought that economic aid should not be used as a bargaining tool at all, and so supported Clinton’s action.

Current Event: Recently, following the attacks on the Libyan embassy,Clinton began lobbying for continued support of aid to the Middle East. Attempts have been made to begin an investigation regarding the necessity of the aid to Egypt. Earlier this week, the House of Foreign affairs tried to hold a public hearing during which they would cover  economic aid to Egypt , but the Obama administration did not send witnesses and instead opted for a private briefing with lawyers, adding fuel to the anti-aid fire. Now tied in with economic support of Egypt is the concern of Americans’ safety in Arab countries. Despite, or some would say, in light of, the attacks, Hilary Clinton has decided to go ahead with  her plan of giving $1.3 billion to Egypt for its military, up to $1 billion for its debt relief, and around $800,000 in aid to other Middle Eastern countries. She believes that continued support of countries is the Middle East is crucial during this time of cultural strife. Adding to the controversy is the United State’s own debt, causing some to claim that the US does not have the means to continue giving aid to foreign countries. Still others say that boosting relations with Egypt will only strengthen the United Sates economy in the long run.

 

Do you think the US should continue giving aid to Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries? Why or why not? How do foreign opinions change (if at all) when economic aid is given to them by the US?

 

Bias: JPost and Al Aarabiya covered the story with a distinctly anti Obama administration slant. The Cable and Business Week seemed relatively neutral

BBC Web Page on the Politics of Egypt

Monday, July 9th, 2012

Keep up with the changing political situation in Egypt:  BBC, Egypt in Transition.

Egypt Has a New President

Sunday, June 24th, 2012

Egypt's new President Mohammed Mursi addresses the nation. Al-Jazeera.com, June 24, 2012

But, how much actual power the army will let him wield is another question. Translation of the Arabic in the box:

Headline – “Mursi seeks to reassure and promises to continue the Revolution”

Text – “Egyptian President-elect Mohammed Mursi delivered his first speech hours after he was declared the winner of the presidential race reassuring all parties on the domestic front and the world at large that the 25 January Revolution will continue as a mark of faithfulness to the souls of the martyrs who paved the way toward this historic event.”

It truly is a historic event: Mursi ran on the Muslim Brotherhood ticket and therefore becomes the first Islamist president as well as the first civilian president in Egypt’s history.

Coverage at the BBC

UPDATE — June 25, 2012 — This week’s issue of The Economist  (June 23, 2012) features an editorial, “Egypt in Peril” on p. 13 that contains the following:

“This newspaper did not want the Islamists to trounce the secular reformers, but they did. The best way to tame the Islamists, as Turkey’s experience shows, is to deny them the moral high ground to which repression elevates them, and condemn them instead to the responsibilities and compromises of day-to-day government.”

The editorial sees Turkey’s experiment with a moderate (or  ”mild”) Islamist government as a model for Egypt to emulate:

“Turkey has suffered more than its share of coups and political violence. But those dangers have receded as the Islamists have proved moderate and popular, winning three fair elections in a row and whittling away the generals’ power. Although the ‘deep state’, sinister and pervasive in Turkey as it plainly still is in Egypt, lingers in the apparatus of security and repression, Turkey’s Islamists have won the moral authority to send the soldiers back to barracks, and have exercised it. If Egypt follows this path, nothing the generals have done this week will stop the march to democracy for long.”

UPDATE — June 27, 2012 —  Oxford historian weighs in on the question of whether an Islamist democracy is possible in Egypt — Article at CNN.com. 

Gerontocracy in Saudi Arabia

Friday, June 22nd, 2012

Saudi Arabia’s rulers have grown old, and the nation has grown increasingly unstable.

Summary at Economist.com

Detailed report (“Briefing”) from Economist.com

Economist calls for political reform

Lebanon: Proxy Battleground for Foreign Powers

Tuesday, June 12th, 2012

Al-Quds al-Arabi, June 12, 2012

This cartoon is running in today’s Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.  The caption at top right reads: “Lebanon and foreign acts of interference.”  Lebanon has a long history serving as a proxy battleground for contending foreign powers supporting contending local interests.  These outside powers  include Syria, Israel, the Palestinians, Iran, and the United States.

There are signs that the troubles in neighboring Syria are beginning to spill over into Lebanon.

More on Lebanon

The Understanding of Democracy in the Arab World

Saturday, June 2nd, 2012

Majd Kayali wrote recently about the challenges facing the budding democracies of the Middle East in the wake of the “Arab Spring” revolutions.  Here is a key passage from the column, which appeared on Al-Jazeera.com on May 25, 2012:

هذا ما يفسّر أن الديمقراطية عندنا تبدو ناقصة، أو غير ناضجة، أو مختلفا عليها، والسبب يكمن في ضعف أو تشوّش مفاهيم الحرية والفردية فيها، على عكس وضعها في أوروبا. وبديهي أن الحلّ يكمن في تحقيق التلازم بين الديمقراطية والليبرالية، وتأسيس المجتمعات على أساس المواطن باعتباره الوحدة الأساسية في المجتمع، لا الجماعات الدينية أو الإثنية، وإعلاء شأن الحريات الفردية في الدساتير، فهذا وحده ما يضمن تخليص مجتمعاتنا من واقع التسلّط والاستبداد والفساد، ومن سياسات الهويات المغلقة والمتناحرة والمتنازعة والمتمايزة، ومن شبهات تسلط أكثرية ما   على أقلية ما

“This explains why democracy for us seems incomplete or immature or different.  The reason lies in weakness or confusion over the concepts of freedom and individualism, as opposed to the place of these concepts in Europe.  It goes without saying that the solution lies in realizing the inseparability of democracy and liberalism and establishing societies on the basis of the citizen as the fundamental unit of society, not religious or ethnic groups, and upholding individual freedoms in the constitutions. Only this can guarantee our societies will be rid of overweening power, tyranny, and corruption along with policies of dark and obscure origin that lead to characteristic internecine slaughter and rivalries. It is also the way we shall be rid of mutual suspicions between majorities and minorities.”

(my translation)

Majd Kayali, “The Arab Revolutions in the Context of World Revolutions: An Initial Approach,” Al-Jazeera.com, May 25, 2012