The Currency of Convenience: Democracy, Human Rights, and Terrorism in the U.S. Foreign Policy

The Currency of Convenience: Democracy, Human Rights, and Terrorism in the U.S. Foreign Policy

    Friday, October 30, 2026   No comments

In the theater of global diplomacy, principles are often the first casualty of power. Yet, rarely has the gap between proclaimed values and actual practice been as stark, or as damaging, as it is today in United States foreign policy. A closer examination of two recent, seemingly disparate events—the granting of a U.S. visa to a fugitive Brazilian politician following a democratic election, and the White House reception of a former al-Qaeda operative turned Syrian leader—reveals a profound crisis of credibility. When placed side by side, these actions demonstrate that the Western rhetoric of championing democracy and combating terrorism has not merely faded; it has evaporated. What remains is a naked transactionalism where designations and recognitions are not matters of principle, but instruments of convenience, susceptible to corruption and personal indulgence.

The Brazilian Precedent: Subverting Democracy for Convenience

The erosion of U.S. moral authority is vividly illustrated by the decision to grant an entry visa to Flávio Bolsonaro, a failed Brazilian political candidate who fled his country to avoid criminal charges and corruption probes involving his family. This decision was accompanied by baseless claims that the Brazilian presidential election had been “rigged,” despite offering no evidence to undermine an electoral system widely considered one of the most secure in the world.

By offering a legal lifeline to a figure whose political immunity ended with his electoral defeat, the U.S. administration actively rejected the outcome of a legitimate democratic process. This move serves as a protective shield for a right-wing political dynasty with close ties to longtime political advisers, while brazenly ignoring the fact that the incumbent won the election fairly. The message is clear: when a democratic outcome displeases Washington, the U.S. is willing to harbor those who seek to overturn it, rebranding fugitives facing corruption charges as political refugees.

The Syrian Paradox: From a $10 Million Bounty to a White House Handshake

If the Brazilian case represents a rejection of democratic outcomes, the Syrian case represents the complete abandonment of counterterrorism principles. Following the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, the U.S. government signaled its willingness to recognize and support a new Syrian government. However, the reality of this "new government" is led by Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly known as al-Joulani), a former senior al-Qaeda operative who was once imprisoned by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Not long ago, the U.S. State Department had a $10 million bounty on al-Sharaa’s head for his involvement in terrorism. Yet, in a striking illustration of moral fluidity, he has been systematically rehabilitated. This transformation culminated in his diplomatic reception at the White House, marking the first such visit by a Syrian leader. This handshake completed al-Sharaa’s journey from jihadist leader to head of state, despite the glaring fact that he did not come to power through any democratic election, nor has he committed to allowing elections to take place in Syria.

The media and political establishment have facilitated this shift, glossing over his violent past and reframing his extremist history as a mere relic of a bygone era, rather than demanding genuine accountability. The former terrorist becomes a relatable figure and a symbol of resilience, while the victims of his past fade from the frame.

The AI Reality Check: When Fiction Becomes Foreign Policy

The sheer absurdity of this geopolitical whiplash is perhaps best captured by a recent, telling experiment. When prompted to analyze these very events—the harboring of a fugitive Brazilian politician and the White House reception of a former al-Qaeda leader—advanced AI models rejected the premise entirely. Trained on decades of historical data, diplomatic norms, and the stated principles of the liberal international order, the algorithms flagged the scenario as pure fiction, a hypothetical construct too radical to align with verified reality.

The AI’s skepticism is profoundly revealing. It takes a machine, unburdened by political spin or the desire to rationalize the indefensible, to point out that these actions represent a complete departure from the rules-based order. If an artificial intelligence cannot compute these events as plausible, it is because they defy the very logic of the principles the United States claims to uphold. This is not mere chaos; it is the logical culmination of a doctrine stripped of all pretense: the relentless pursuit of perceived interest through the application of unconstrained will.

The Evaporation of Principle

When the Brazilian and Syrian events are viewed in tandem, the sheer disconnect in U.S. foreign policy becomes impossible to ignore. On one hand, the U.S. administration rejects the verified outcome of a democratic process in Brazil, hosting a losing candidate who claims to be the legitimate leader while fleeing corruption charges. On the other hand, the same administration invites to the White House a Syrian leader who rules without a democratic mandate, has not committed to elections, and was recently the subject of a multi-million-dollar terrorism bounty.

The rhetoric of Western governments supporting democracy and fighting terrorism evaporates under the weight of this contradiction. How can the U.S. credibly condemn authoritarianism abroad while providing safe haven to those who undermine democratic institutions? How can it claim to lead a global coalition against terrorism when a former al-Qaeda operative is granted the ultimate diplomatic seal of approval without any meaningful reckoning for his past?

This selective redemption reveals a disturbing truth: labels like "terrorist," "democrat," or "corrupt official" are not fixed moral categories in Washington. They are flexible tools of foreign policy, applied or discarded based on geopolitical utility. The West’s willingness to forgive and legitimize former extremists based on political need sends a dangerous message to allies, adversaries, and citizens alike: justice is negotiable, and principles are subordinate to power.

A civilization in decline

The granting of a visa to a fugitive Brazilian politician and the White House reception of a former al-Qaeda operative are not isolated diplomatic missteps. They are symptomatic of a deeper rot within the U.S. approach to global leadership. Together, they spell out the sheer disconnect and lack of principle that now defines American statecraft.

Designation and recognition are no longer instruments of a rules-based international order. They are instruments of convenience, deployed without consistency and corrupted by personal and political indulgence. Until the United States reconciles its actions with its stated values, its foreign policy will remain devoid of credibility, and its calls for democracy and human rights will ring hollow across the globe. The world is watching, and the verdict is already in: when principles are for sale, trust is the first thing to go bankrupt.

    

How Israel’s Recent Elections Expose the Apartheid Reality of its "Democracy"

How Israel’s Recent Elections Expose the Apartheid Reality of its "Democracy"

    Wednesday, October 28, 2026   No comments

 The Ballot and the Barrier

As the dust settles on the late October 2026 Israeli elections, the political maneuvering and frantic rhetoric of the past few weeks have laid bare a profound and uncomfortable truth. Israel continues to project itself to the international community as the "only democracy in the Middle East." Yet, the recent electoral cycle has stripped away this veneer, exposing a political structure and a societal schizophrenia that fundamentally contradict democratic principles. The reality is stark: when the indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel—those living within the 1948 borders—exercise their democratic right to vote, their participation is not celebrated as a triumph of democracy. Instead, it is criminalized, demonized, and ultimately excluded from the levers of power.

This paradox was perfectly encapsulated by US ambassador to Israel, who casually posted that "Arabs vote same as Israelis." While intended as a compliment to the electoral process, the statement inadvertently highlighted the deep cognitive dissonance at the heart of the Israeli project. The state demands the international legitimacy of a liberal democracy while enforcing the demographic and political control of an ethnocracy.

Nowhere was this schizophrenia more evident than in the reactions to the historic surge in Palestinian voter turnout. In the Bedouin community of Atawna, for instance, voter turnout skyrocketed from 41% in the previous election to 64% just halfway through the polling day. Rather than viewing this as a healthy civic engagement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to X (formerly Twitter) in sheer panic: "EMERGENCY: THEY ARE TRYING TO STEAL THE ELECTION FROM US!" He baselessly claimed that "Muslim brotherhood supporters are raiding polling stations and stealing the election!" and even accused senior financial officials of the Ra’am party of carrying envelopes of cash to bribe voters.

To the Israeli right, the democratic participation of Arab citizens is not a civic duty; it is an existential threat.

This reactionary panic is driven by a simple mathematical reality that the Israeli political establishment is desperate to ignore. With the final counts placing Netanyahu’s bloc at 54 seats, the opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot at 48, and Arab parties securing a historic 18 seats, the opposition holds a potential 66-seat majority. However, this majority only exists if the Arab parties are counted.

Instead of embracing this democratic mandate, the political establishment has drawn a hard red line. Netanyahu declared that "the Zionist majority must come to its senses" and insisted, "We must not form a government that relies on anti-Zionist Arab parties." Eisenkot, positioning himself as the secular, security-minded alternative, also categorically ruled out governing with Arab parties during the campaign.

The hypocrisy of this exclusion is staggering when contrasted with who these leaders are willing to partner with. Israeli leaders have no moral or political qualms about forming governments with extremist settler parties. Figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, whose racist and hateful rhetoric has led to them being sanctioned by several European governments, are welcomed as legitimate coalition partners. Yet, Arab citizens who participate in the democratic process, run for office, and win seats are deemed "anti-Zionist" and unfit to govern.

Former deputy foreign minister Sharren Haskel perfectly articulated this toxic consensus. Blaming Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for driving up Palestinian turnout, she explicitly called for a broad national unity government composed exclusively of Jewish factions: "Without the Arabs!" Even Yair Golan, leader of the so-called "Democratic Party," who bravely called for a government in partnership with Arab parties and condemned the distinction between Jewish and Arab votes as racist, had to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the system. Golan noted that Netanyahu’s bloc includes 16 ultra-Orthodox MKs who are arguably "non-Zionist" and dodge military draft exemptions, yet their votes are counted as legitimate, while the votes of Palestinian citizens in Tayibe are treated as suspect.

This dynamic, coming in the bloody aftermath of the war on Gaza, exposes the true nature of the Israeli leadership's identity project. In the wake of the devastation in Gaza, Israeli leaders have aggressively forged a national identity strictly on security grounds—one that inherently excludes non-Jews. But this security-obsessed identity is built on a demographic house of cards.

Even if Israel manages to permanently exclude the Palestinians in the occupied territories through walls, checkpoints, and annexation, its leaders have no viable plan to address the internal demographic issue. The Arab population within the 1948 borders continues to rise naturally. Concurrently, there is a growing trend of reverse migration, with many Israelis who originally emigrated from Europe and North America choosing to leave the country. The "demographic threat" that keeps right-wing politicians awake at night cannot be solved merely by occupying the West Bank; it is breathing, voting, and living inside Israel’s recognized borders.

The refusal to form a government with Arab representatives is not merely a tactical political dispute; it is the logical endpoint of the state's foundational ideology. The real danger Israel will continue to face is one created on the foundation of Zionism itself. Built on a framework of narrow ethnic nationalism, Zionism, by definition, requires the exclusion and subjugation of non-Jews to maintain its character as a "Jewish state."

As long as Israel prioritizes its ethnic demographic majority over the democratic rights of all its citizens, it will remain trapped in this schizophrenic loop. It will continue to claim the mantle of democracy while treating its indigenous Arab citizens as a demographic enemy to be managed rather than a populace to be represented. The recent elections did not just determine the composition of the Knesset; they served as a glaring indictment of an apartheid state that fears the very ballot box it claims to revere.

Current Events: Ujjain and the Steady Erosion of Muslim Rights in Modi's India

Current Events: Ujjain and the Steady Erosion of Muslim Rights in Modi's India

    Friday, October 02, 2026   No comments

 When the Bulldozer Comes for the Mosque

The demolitions arrive quietly at first — a notice, a deadline, a municipal order about traffic flow. Then come the bulldozers, and then the batons.

In Ujjain, one of Hinduism's seven sacred cities and home to the famous Mahakal temple, authorities have begun removing part of the historic Shahi Masjid. The official explanation is mundane: road widening, part of the city's preparations for the Simhastha, the massive religious congregation that will draw tens of millions of pilgrims to the city in 2028. Historic mosques, it seems, stand in the way of progress.

The scene that accompanied the demolition was anything but mundane. Footage circulating from the site shows several police officers surrounding a single Muslim protester, striking him repeatedly with batons — and continuing to strike him after he falls to the ground. The image is a compact summary of a decade of Indian politics: a Muslim citizen objecting to the erosion of his community's patrimony, met not with dialogue but with state violence, carried out in full view of cameras and in the name of public order.

The Road Widening That Only Runs One Way

Infrastructure has become an unexpectedly revealing instrument of majoritarian politics in India. Again and again since 2014, encroachment-clearance drives, traffic projects, and beautification campaigns have targeted Muslim homes, shops, and places of worship — while equivalent structures owned by Hindus on the same streets remain untouched. In Uttar Pradesh, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath made the bulldozer so central to his governance that the machine itself became a campaign mascot, its image emblazoned on election posters. Entire neighborhoods in Prayagraj, Saharanpur, and Kanpur watched homes of Muslims accused — often merely accused, never convicted — of crimes being reduced to rubble within hours.

The pattern repeated in Delhi's Jahangirpuri in 2022, where demolitions of Muslim-owned structures followed communal clashes and were halted only by a Supreme Court intervention. Critics have a name for it: "bulldozer justice," the substitution of municipal machinery for due process. When the accused are Muslim, the state skips the courtroom entirely and goes straight to the excavator.

Ujjain's Shahi Masjid now joins this long list. The mosque's centuries of history weigh nothing against a road project timed to a Hindu festival; the protester lying on the ground beneath police batons is simply the human cost of keeping that project on schedule.

Citizenship as a Conditional Privilege

The demolition in Ujjain is a local event, but it cannot be separated from the national architecture of exclusion built over the past decade.

The most dramatic example came in December 2019, when Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act. The law created a fast track to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan — pointedly omitting Muslims. On its face, the CAA is about immigrants. But government ministers had spent years speaking of a companion project, the National Register of Citizens, and the combination was understood immediately: a registry that demands proof of ancestry from every Indian, paired with a citizenship law that offers salvation to everyone except Muslims. As the logic runs, those who fail the paper test and cannot claim the CAA's shelter would face detention or statelessness.

The fear was not theoretical. In Assam, which conducted an NRC under Supreme Court supervision, nearly two million people — a disproportionate share of them Muslim, many of them poor and illiterate — were left off the final list in 2019, cast into a legal limbo of foreigners' tribunals where the burden of proof falls on the accused. Nationwide protests against the CAA-NRC project in late 2019 and early 2020 were met with a ferocious crackdown: police stormed university campuses, and in Delhi, communal violence that killed over fifty people — most of them Muslim — erupted as protests continued.

When the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, it provided the pretext to clear the protest sites. The women of Delhi's Shaheen Bagh, who had kept a peaceful sit-in alive through the winter, went home. The citizenship machinery, however, merely paused.

The Loss of Institutional Shelter

What distinguishes the Modi era for India's roughly 200 million Muslims is not only episodic violence but the systematic withdrawal of institutional protection — the slow transformation of the state from a neutral arbiter into something closer to an interested party.

The courts, for decades the last refuge of India's minorities, have delivered a series of blows. In November 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of building a Hindu temple at Ayodhya on the site where the Babri Masjid stood before a mob of Hindu nationalists demolished it in 1992 — a judgment that, whatever its legal reasoning, rewarded the destruction of a mosque with the consecration of a temple. In January 2024, Prime Minister Modi presided over the inauguration of the Ram Mandir at the very spot, an unprecedented merging of his office with a religious ceremony on contested ground. Encouraged by the precedent, claims have been filed over mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, and a lawsuit over mosques across India sits before the courts. Each generation of litigation moves the boundary of the unthinkable a little further.

Legislation has followed the same vector. The 2025 amendments to the Waqf Act restructured the administration of Muslim religious endowments in ways Muslim organizations warned would facilitate the transfer of waqf properties — including, they argued, land attached to mosques — to state control. Muslim lawmakers' objections were overridden; the bill passed on the strength of the government's numbers.

The police, meanwhile, have acquired a reputation for two speeds. When Muslims are victims — of lynchings by cow vigilantes, of pogroms like the 2020 Delhi riots or the 2023 violence in Haryana's Nuh — prosecutions are slow, hesitant, or quietly dropped. When Muslims are accused, bulldozers arrive within days. The baton strikes in Ujjain, continuing after the victim is prone and defenseless, are not an aberration but a routine whose brutality is usually edited out of the official account.

The Background Music of Hate

None of this occurs in a vacuum of rhetoric. Over the past decade, India's Muslims have endured a steady drumbeat of dehumanization from senior political figures and religious leaders — with near-total impunity. A union minister exhorted crowds to "shoot the traitors." A chief minister mused about "killing 100" in retaliation for one. At gatherings of Hindu religious figures, speakers have openly called for genocide against Muslims, advocated economic boycotts of Muslim businesses, and urged crowds to keep weapons at home — and prosecutors have declined to act. Social media, much of it generated from within the ruling party's own ecosystem, circulates conspiracy theories and calls for violence at industrial scale.

The violence has been physical as well as verbal. Mob lynchings in the name of cow protection became a signature atrocity of the Modi years: Mohammed Akhlaq, beaten to death in his home in 2015 over rumors about his refrigerator; Pehlu Khan, a dairy farmer murdered on a highway in 2017 while his killers filmed; Junaid Khan, a teenager stabbed on a train the same year. Karnataka banned Muslim girls from wearing the hijab in classrooms, and the courts let it stand. Muslim vendors have been driven from temple fairs, Muslim homes from mixed neighborhoods.

An Election, and What It Changed

To be fair to the record — a virtue this government rarely extends to its critics — the 2024 general election delivered a partial corrective. Denied an outright majority for the first time in a decade, the BJP was forced into coalition, and some of its allies balked at the most aggressive anti-Muslim measures. The national implementation of an NRC has been conspicuously postponed. Muslims voted in large numbers, and in places like Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal, their political weight proved decisive.

But the fundamental architecture remains. The CAA is law. The Waqf amendments are law. The temples rise where mosques stood. The bulldozers keep their schedules. And in Ujjain, a historic mosque loses a wall to a road project, and a man who objected is beaten to the ground by the very officers sworn to protect him.

The Simhastha of 2028 will be magnificent — widened roads, restored ghats, processions of the devout flowing smoothly past the gap where part of the Shahi Masjid once stood. The pilgrims will not be told what made the road so straight. They rarely are.

Media Review; Current Events: The $5,000 Anti-Communism Dividend

Media Review; Current Events: The $5,000 Anti-Communism Dividend

    Friday, October 02, 2026   No comments

Red Scare, Green Scare, and the Irony of Buying the Vote

There is a special kind of irony that doesn't just make you chuckle — it makes you rub your temples and stare quietly at the wall. Donald Trump, head of the United States government, has promised that if voters hand Congress to the Republicans, every adult citizen in the country will receive a $5,000 check. The stated purpose of this transaction? To stop communism.

Let that marinate. The plan to defeat an ideology famously associated with state-controlled redistribution of wealth is... having the state redistribute wealth. And the targets of this anti-communist crusade are telling: in recent cycles, "communism" has become the preferred slur against Muslim politicians climbing into American power — Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Zohran Mamdani in New York City. Two fears, packaged into one product: red scare meets green scare, sold at a single price.

The Twin Boogeyman

Consider what the word is being asked to do. El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official, ran for governor of Michigan on a platform of healthcare and water safety and now running for a US senate. Mamdani, a democratic socialist — note: socialist, not communist, which in Trump's telling is apparently a distinction the left "skipped" — won the New York mayoralty on rent freezes and buses. Their actual politics are standard progressive fare, the kind found across Scandinavia and, frankly, across much of American history.

But "progressive" doesn't test well as an attack. So the label gets laundered: Muslim candidate plus left economics equals "communism," a word that still carries the Cold War voltage needed to make voters flinch. It couples two anxieties at once — fear of a foreign ideology and fear of a religious minority — into one efficient package. You don't have to argue that El-Sayed's health policy is bad; you just have to imply he's a sleeper agent of a global movement that ended three decades ago. You don't have to debate Mamdani's housing plan; you just have to make "Muslim" and "communist" rhyme in the voter's ear, even though the actual combination is historically exotic — theocratic states and Marxist states have been, to put it mildly, not close.

Enter the $5,000 Check

And then comes the punchline. The man leading the charge against these supposed communists — the man whose movement has fused anti-communism and Islamophobia into a single campaign weapon — announces his own plan for direct government cash transfers to every American adult.

The communist label gets applied to Muslim politicians for supporting universal programs. The anti-communist solution is... a universal program. The federal government, under Republican control, will cut a check to the entire population to defeat the ideology of government checks. One almost admires the audacity: it takes a particular kind of political gymnast to warn that Zohran Mamdani will destroy America by making things affordable, then promise to buy every voter's loyalty with a stimulus payment signed by the state.

Strip away the ideological garnish and the structure is remarkably candid: a cash payment to voters, contingent on an electoral outcome, justified by the need to stop politicians whose crime is wanting to give people things. Historically, when a candidate dangles money in exchange for votes, we call it vote-buying, and it sits somewhere between "campaign finance scandal" and "criminal offense." Here it is simply scaled up — from the discreet envelope to a national sweepstakes — and aimed at the same constituencies told to fear "communist" handouts from the other side.

The Deeper Joke

The true irony isn't even the redistribution. It's that the whole performance reveals what it was always about. If communism can be redefined at will — stretched to cover a Muslim doctor in Michigan, a Muslim assemblyman in Queens, and anyone else whose policies threaten donors — then it was never an economic argument at all. It was a bludgeon. And bludgeons, it turns out, are indifferent to consistency. The same hand that labels El-Sayed a red menace can promise $5,000 to every household in Dearborn, Muslim voters included, no ideology quiz required.

Presidents, of course, don't get to appropriate money; Congress does. And the promise requires the very Republican Congress the checks are meant to purchase — a self-funding prophecy in which the bribed and the briber share a mailing address. The checks are likely as hypothetical as the communism they're meant to stop.

Still, if the envelopes do go out, every recipient should savor the moment. It may be the only time in American history when the government pays you $5,000 to be reminded that redistribution of wealth is tyranny — unless, apparently, you vote correctly, in which case it's patriotism. The red scare was never about the money. But the money, one suspects, was always the point.

UK parliament to debate probe into Israeli lobbying grip on British politics

UK parliament to debate probe into Israeli lobbying grip on British politics

    Saturday, May 30, 2026   No comments

Over 116,000 people have signed a petition demanding an inquiry into how pro-Israel organizations shape UK government decisions, party policy, and public debate.

British lawmakers are set to debate on 22 June whether to launch a formal inquiry into Israeli lobbying influence over UK political decision-making. 

The petition demands accountability for what they describe as a systematic Israeli effort to control Britain's political agenda.

“We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinize how pro-Israel organizations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate,” the petition read.

Ali Al‑Zaidi’s Nomination and Iraq’s Fragile Path to Regional Stability

Ali Al‑Zaidi’s Nomination and Iraq’s Fragile Path to Regional Stability

    Monday, April 27, 2026   No comments

 

In a development that could reshape Iraq’s political trajectory and ease mounting regional tensions, the Coordination Framework, Iraq’s dominant Shiite parliamentary bloc, has nominated Ali Al‑Zaidi as its consensus candidate for prime minister. The announcement came after weeks of intense internal negotiations and marked a potential turning point in a political crisis that had paralyzed Baghdad since the November elections. The selection of Al‑Zaidi was neither straightforward nor predetermined. The Coordination Framework’s deliberations unfolded in three distinct phases. Initially, former Prime Minister Nouri al‑Maliki appeared poised for a comeback, securing support from ten of the framework’s twelve key members after incumbent Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al‑Sudani stepped aside. This momentum stalled, however, when U.S. President Donald Trump publicly warned that Washington would no longer help Iraq if Maliki returned to power, citing what he called Maliki’s insane policies and ideologies. With Maliki’s path blocked, attention shifted to Bassem al‑Badri, who reportedly secured seven signatures within the framework, but this support proved insufficient to overcome internal divisions, turning his candidacy into a proxy battle between competing factions. In marathon sessions hosted by Falih al‑Fayyad, head of the Popular Mobilization Forces, negotiators finally converged on Al‑Zaidi, a figure described as a technocrat with economic expertise who could bridge ideological divides without granting decisive victory to any single camp. President Nizar Amedi formally tasked Al‑Zaidi with forming a new government, granting him thirty days under Article 76 of Iraq’s constitution to assemble a cabinet and secure parliamentary confidence.

Ali Shakir Mahmoud Al‑Zaidi was born in Baghdad in 1978 and brings a profile distinct from Iraq’s traditional political class. He holds a PhD in public law with a specialization in constitutional law, as well as bachelor’s and master’s degrees in finance and banking. He has served as chairman of Al‑Janoob Islamic Bank and CEO of Dijlah TV. Notably, Al‑Janoob Islamic Bank was among several Iraqi financial institutions sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury in 2024 over allegations of facilitating dollar transfers to Iran, a detail that underscores the delicate balancing act Al‑Zaidi must now perform. In his first statement as prime minister‑designate, Al‑Zaidi emphasized continuity and pragmatism, declaring that the upcoming government program would complement previous efforts to improve service delivery and social conditions, while pledging to position Iraq as a balanced country regionally and internationally.

Al‑Zaidi’s nomination arrives at a moment of extraordinary regional volatility. Iraq finds itself caught in the crossfire of an escalating U.S.‑Iran confrontation, with Iranian‑backed militias launching hundreds of attacks on American interests since the outbreak of wider conflict in February 2026. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has repeatedly warned of imminent threats from these groups, while Tehran insists that Iraq’s leadership choices must remain purely based on the decision of Iraqis. On the potential stabilizing side, Al‑Zaidi’s economic background may appeal to international donors and investors seeking stability over ideology. His emergence as a compromise candidate suggests broad, if reluctant, acceptance across Shiite factions, a prerequisite for governing effectively. By selecting a figure less overtly aligned with Tehran than Maliki, the Coordination Framework may be signaling openness to renewed dialogue with Washington. Yet persistent risks remain. Al‑Zaidi’s association with a sanctioned bank raises questions about whether the Trump administration will extend full cooperation to his government. The continued political weight of Iran‑aligned armed groups within the framework could constrain Al‑Zaidi’s ability to pursue independent security policies. And with the Coordination Framework controlling roughly 162 to 185 of parliament’s 329 seats, Al‑Zaidi will need support from Kurdish and Sunni blocs to pass legislation and approve his cabinet.

Al‑Zaidi’s immediate challenges are formidable. He must assemble a diverse and competent team capable of addressing Iraq’s chronic service deficits, corruption, and unemployment. With oil revenues under pressure from regional conflict, prudent fiscal management will be critical. Balancing relations with both U.S. forces and Iran‑aligned militias requires diplomatic finesse of the highest order. Moreover, many Iraqis demand changes to the political system that has produced repeated cycles of deadlock. The Coordination Framework’s praise for Maliki and al‑Sudani’s decision to step aside, reflecting concern for supreme national interests, suggests an awareness that continued obstruction would risk broader instability. Yet rhetoric alone cannot resolve the structural tensions that have plagued Iraqi politics since 2003.

Ali Al‑Zaidi’s nomination represents not a definitive solution but a provisional opportunity. In a region where miscalculation can trigger escalation, Iraq’s ability to form a functional, inclusive government carries implications far beyond its borders. If Al‑Zaidi can leverage his technocratic credentials to deliver tangible improvements in governance while navigating the treacherous waters of great‑power competition, his premiership could become a modest anchor of stability. If he fails, the consequences could reverberate from Baghdad to Beirut, from Tehran to Washington. For now, the world watches as Iraq attempts to turn a moment of compromise into a foundation for renewal. The stakes could not be higher.

More details about US-Israel plans to overthrow the government of Iran revealed

More details about US-Israel plans to overthrow the government of Iran revealed

    Monday, April 06, 2026   No comments

Trump admits US sent arms to Iran protesters but says Kurds kept the weapons. On 5 April, 2026, US President Trump admitted for the first time during an interview with Fox News that the United States attempted to ship "a lot of guns" to anti-government protesters in Iran. 

While confirming the intent to arm the uprising that began in late 2025, Trump claimed the operation failed because the Kurds, who were used as the delivery channel, "kept the weapons" for themselves instead of passing them to the demonstrators. 

This blunt disclosure not only provides the Iranian government with direct evidence of US interference but also publicly blames the US’s Kurdish allies for the missing arms.

Iranian Kurdish groups reject Trump claim they received US weapons to aid Iran riots

Leaders of Iranian Kurdish parties have denied reports that they were given weapons by the US to support riots inside Iran, contradicting claims made by US President Donald Trump. 

According to media reports, Siamand Moeini, a senior figure in the armed Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), said the group had not received any weapons and declined to speak for others. Hana Yazdanpanah, foreign relations coordinator for the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), added that their arsenal remains limited to older weapons used in the fight against ISIS and those abandoned after the group’s defeat. Both parties insisted they have not received any support from the US.

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

    Tuesday, September 02, 2025   No comments

In the ancient lands of the Levant, where history is measured in millennia, a modern curse condemns nations to a purgatory of weakness. This is not a curse of geography or resources, but one of design—a political architecture built not on the bedrock of principled compromise and shared national vision, but on the shifting sands of sectarian appeasement. The fates of Lebanon and Syria stand as stark, bloody testaments to a brutal truth: a government forged in the fire of sectarian civil war is destined to be weak, illegitimate, and a prelude to the next conflict.

One would think that healing and reconciliation should follow three decades of peace. Yet Lebanon, whose 15-year civil war ended 35 years ago, is a nation frozen in time, a ghost haunting its own corpse. It is not a healed nation but a palimpsest of its former conflicts, its power structures meticulously drawn along the very sectarian lines that once tore it apart.

This is a country still ruled, in effect, by unelected leaders. The current president was appointed after years of vacuum, his ascent only possible by twisting the constitution to bypass a rule prohibiting active military officers from political office. The prime minister, a respected former international judge, was less elected than selected, installed through backroom compromise and heavy-handed pressure from foreign capitals like Washington, Paris, and Riyadh. Even the speakership, held by an elected MP, is shackled to a sectarian quota, its legitimacy perpetually questioned.

This patched-together entity now dares to act as a legitimate government, attempting to change the very practices its own flawed existence perpetuates. But a house divided against itself cannot stand, and a government built on sectarian compromise cannot govern. It will either fracture under the weight of its own contradictions or push ahead with its agenda, inevitably alienating one faction or another and risking a return to the civil war days it was designed to prevent. In Lebanon, the peace is the war, continued by other means.

This tragic model is not unique. Libya, shattered since 2011, is a mosaic of rival fiefdoms. A weak, internationally recognized government controls the capital, while the rest of the country answers to another regime in Benghazi or to autonomous tribal forces. There is no central authority, only a precarious and violent stalemate.

But it is Syria that presents the most chilling and recent case study. After a decade of brutal war exacerbated by a proxy conflict involving regional and global powers, the Baathist regime finally collapsed nearly a year ago. The rebels, aided by Turkey and Qatar and spearheaded by factions with extremist ideologies, seized their moment amidst the regional instability sparked by the war in Gaza.

Their victory, however, was merely the prelude to the next chapter of failure. The new Damascus regime, finding its authority challenged, has already resorted to the same tactics of its predecessor: massacres in Alawite and Druze regions, sowing fear among all ethnic and religious minorities. This has not consolidated power; it has shattered it further. The powerful Kurds, along with other groups, are now arming themselves for survival, refusing to hand their weapons to a central government they see as just another sectarian predator.

The outcome is inevitable. Syria is rapidly descending into the Lebanese and Libyan model—a central government that lacks both the legitimacy to command respect and the power to enforce its will. It rules not by consent but by fear, and fear is a fuel that quickly burns out, leaving only the ash of resentment.

When you add Iran to the mix, a country that was destabilized by US invasion and governed through a power-sharing arrangement still, the entire Levant thus becomes a powder keg, its nations condemned to cycles of violence by a refusal to transcend sectarian and tribal identities. The power of the gun, mistaken for political power, creates only a brutal illusion of control. True legitimacy is not seized through the barrel of a rifle or assigned by religious quota; it is earned through the principled compromise of a social contract that serves all citizens equally.

Without this fundamental transformation—without building states for all citizens rather than fiefdoms for sects—the next ten years will not bring peace. They will bring more transformative, and likely armed, events. The civilians of this ancient region will be lucky to witness change that is not delivered by a bullet. For now, their destiny remains held hostage by the very structures claiming to save them, guaranteeing that instability is not a phase, but a permanent condition.

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

Media review: How Democracies Fail to Confront Corruption

    Tuesday, July 01, 2025   No comments

 At the Edge of Accountability 

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump, who himself has faced 88 criminal and civil indictments and was nonetheless elected to a second term, issued a public demand that Israel’s judicial system drop all charges against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump called the trial a “travesty of justice,” labeling the Israeli legal proceedings a “witch hunt,” and implied that U.S. aid to Israel might be contingent on ending Netanyahu’s prosecution. This unprecedented intervention—an indicted American leader defending an indicted Israeli leader, who is also facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court—raises a profound question: How does democracy, if it is to be taken seriously as a system of values and not merely of process, guard against corruption and the rise of authoritarian figures cloaked in democratic legitimacy? This moment is not just politically volatile; it exposes uncomfortable contradictions within how democracies perceive themselves and others.

The indictment of elected leaders in democracies such as Israel and the United States raises difficult and urgent questions about the integrity of democratic systems. When prime ministers or presidents face criminal charges—whether for corruption, abuse of power, or other serious offenses—it is natural to wonder whether democracy has failed to produce ethical and responsible leadership. But while such developments highlight vulnerabilities in democratic practice, they also reveal certain institutional strengths. Democracy does not guarantee virtuous leadership; it guarantees the opportunity for accountability. Whether that opportunity is seized—or manipulated—depends on the strength of institutions and the moral commitment of both leaders and citizens.

One of the core principles of a functioning democracy is that no one, however powerful, is above the law. The fact that legal institutions in places like the United States or Israel can bring charges against sitting or former leaders speaks to the resilience of the rule of law. In authoritarian systems, leaders often operate with impunity; in democracies, they may still face scrutiny and legal consequences. In this respect, the indictment of a head of state can be viewed not as a failure of democracy, but as evidence that democratic institutions are, at least in part, doing their job.

However, this view becomes more complicated when we consider how democracies respond to similar situations in different parts of the world. When elections in the Global South produce leaders with questionable records or populist agendas, Western democracies are quick to dismiss those outcomes as the result of “sham elections” or “corrupt processes.” Yet when similarly compromised figures rise to power within the West—figures under indictment, or credibly accused of serious misconduct—those same governments often insist that the outcome must be respected as the will of the people. They demand deference to the democratic process at home, while undermining or delegitimizing it abroad. This double standard reveals a deeper truth: in many cases, democracy is treated less as a value system than as a political instrument—embraced when convenient, disregarded when not.

Such inconsistencies are damaging not only to international credibility, but to democracy itself. If democratic legitimacy is defined not by values—such as accountability, justice, and equal representation—but by outcomes that serve particular interests, then democracy becomes hollow. The insistence that democracy must be respected when it produces indicted or corrupt leaders in Western nations, while being denied that legitimacy elsewhere, exposes the erosion of democratic ethics. It becomes clear that the principle of democracy is sometimes wielded more as a shield for power than as a reflection of shared values.

Moreover, in deeply polarized societies, even the mechanisms of accountability begin to fracture. Voters may see legal indictments not as a signal of wrongdoing, but as a partisan attack. In such an environment, democratic institutions remain formally intact, but their moral authority is weakened. Leaders who are under investigation—or even convicted—may be rewarded with public support rather than rejection. Far from being disqualified, their defiance becomes a badge of honor. This speaks not only to the failings of political elites, but to a broader cultural crisis in democratic societies: the erosion of civic norms, the rise of partisan loyalty over public ethics, and the loss of a shared commitment to the common good.

While the indictment of elected leaders does not necessarily prove that democracy is broken, it does serve as a warning. It reveals the tension between democratic form and democratic substance—between holding elections and cultivating a culture of accountability and ethical governance. The fact that such tensions are more readily condemned in the Global South than confronted at home suggests that democracy, in the hands of powerful nations, is often invoked more as a geopolitical tool than as a universal standard.

Ultimately, the health of democracy cannot be judged solely by whether elections occur, or whether leaders are indicted. It must be measured by the integrity of institutions, the honesty of public discourse, and the degree to which citizens demand responsibility and justice from those who govern them. Democracy may still provide the tools to hold leaders accountable, but those tools are only effective if people are willing to use them—not selectively, not cynically, but consistently, and in defense of the values democracy is supposed to serve.

Turkey in Crisis: The Arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu and Its Far-Reaching Consequences

Turkey in Crisis: The Arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu and Its Far-Reaching Consequences

    Wednesday, March 19, 2025   No comments

Turkey is facing a period of heightened political and social unrest following the arrest of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu. This event has ignited massive protests, deepened tensions between the government and the opposition, and drawn international scrutiny over the state of democracy and rule of law in Turkey.

Mass Protests and Public Outrage

Thousands of Turkish citizens have taken to the streets in major cities, including Istanbul, Ankara, Trabzon, and Izmir, protesting Imamoglu’s arrest on charges of corruption and alleged connections to terrorist groups. The opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) has condemned the arrest as politically motivated, urging its supporters to mobilize nationwide in defense of democracy. The government, meanwhile, has cracked down on demonstrations, deploying riot police who have used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds.

A Politically Charged Arrest

Imamoglu, a prominent opposition leader and a key challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the upcoming 2028 elections, was detained following an early morning raid on his home in Istanbul. His arrest coincided with the cancellation of his university degree by Istanbul University, an act perceived by many as part of a broader campaign to discredit him.

Alongside Imamoglu, Turkish authorities have issued arrest warrants for 105 other municipal officials linked to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The charges against them include corruption, fraud, and alleged ties to the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), an organization affiliated with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Critics argue that these accusations are baseless and reflect the government’s increasing use of the judiciary as a tool to silence political opponents.

Government Restrictions and Crackdown on Freedoms

In response to the growing unrest, Turkish authorities have imposed stringent measures, including a four-day ban on protests and public gatherings in Istanbul. Internet access and social media platforms have been restricted, while metro and transportation routes leading to key protest sites, such as Taksim Square, have been shut down. Despite these efforts, demonstrations have persisted, with students and faculty from universities like Boğaziçi, Istanbul Technical University, and Yıldız Technical University joining the movement.

Impact on Turkey’s Economy and International Relations

The arrest of Imamoglu has triggered severe economic consequences, with the Turkish lira losing 12% of its value against the U.S. dollar. The Istanbul stock exchange also experienced a sharp decline, prompting a temporary suspension of trading. Economic analysts warn that these developments could further destabilize an already fragile economy and deter foreign investment.

Internationally, the European Union and other Western allies have voiced concern over Imamoglu’s detention. The Council of Europe issued a strong condemnation, describing the arrest as a move against the will of the Turkish people. European lawmakers and human rights organizations have called on Turkey to uphold democratic principles and the independence of its judiciary.

A Pattern of Political Repression?

Imamoglu’s arrest is the latest in a series of crackdowns against opposition figures, journalists, and activists. The recent imprisonment of Ümit Özdağ, leader of the nationalist Victory Party, further underscores Turkey’s deteriorating human rights record. Many fear that Erdoğan’s government is intensifying its efforts to suppress dissent and consolidate power ahead of the next elections.

An Uncertain Future for Turkey

The arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu marks a pivotal moment in Turkish politics. While the government maintains that the charges against him are legitimate, widespread public outrage and international condemnation suggest otherwise. With increasing economic turmoil, growing discontent, and the erosion of democratic norms, Turkey stands at a crossroads—one that could determine its future as either a democracy or an authoritarian state.

As the situation continues to unfold, all eyes remain on Turkey, watching whether its institutions will uphold justice or succumb further to political influence.

Current Events: What should the world think when a majority of the people in a country support a Genocidal regime?

Current Events: What should the world think when a majority of the people in a country support a Genocidal regime?

    Saturday, May 04, 2024   No comments

How should a nation whose majority support extremists be treated?

It depends.

If such a country is a non-Western nation-state, then that will make the entire country a terrorist country and genociding them by a “civilized” state will be acceptable.

If such a country is a “Western” nation-state, the will of the majority is sacred. That is what seems to be the implication of the extraordinary admission by head of the US State Department, Anthony Blinken.

US State Secretary Anthony Blinken said on 4 May that the genocidal actions undertaken by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza are "a reflection of where a large majority of Israelis are in this moment.”

“This is a complicated government. It’s a balancing act when you have a coalition. And if you’re just looking at the politics of it, that’s something that he has to factor in,” Blinken said at an event in Arizona.

"What’s important to understand is that much of what [Netanyahu is] doing is not simply a reflection of his politics or his policies; it’s actually a reflection of where a large majority of Israelis are in this moment,” the top US diplomat said.

Last month, a survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute revealed that three-quarters of Jewish Israelis support Netanyahu's much-anticipated ground invasion of Gaza’s southernmost city, Rafah, where about 1.3 million Palestinians are sheltering after being violently displaced from their homes.

Surveys conducted over recent months have shown a similar trend despite growing pressure to see Netanyahu removed from office.

In January, opinion polls showed that Israelis overwhelmingly agreed that “the best way” to obtain the release of captives held inside Gaza was “military pressure” against Hamas, falling in line with the same rhetoric Netanyahu and his war chief have been repeating daily since 7 October.

Polls have also shown a stern objection to delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza, even if the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is “replaced.”

The problem of seeing a majority electing demonstrably authoritarian, supremacist bigots is the true test of the limits and flaws of democracy. In the past, when such processes happened in non-Western  nation-states, it is often blamed on corruption and processes being flawed. Turkey, for example, over 4 decades voted for a conservative party and a conservative leader. The West dismissed these elections, because they simply thought of all Turkish people as backward, incapable of embracing "true democracy". 

However, with rise of extremist politicians through democratic processes, the West is now facing a moment of truth about democracy. In the past, when democracy did not represent any problems at home, Western leaders used it abroad as a political instrument to intimidate and subjugate other nations.

Anti-Genocide student protests go global

Anti-Genocide student protests go global

    Saturday, May 04, 2024   No comments

By mid-April, students attending wealthy private universities that have tens of billions of dollars in endowments invested in all forms of economic activities wanted their universities to be selective in their investments and divest from companies that produce anything tied to the Gaza Genocide. This happened after the International Court of Justice found that Israel is committing a plausible genocide and ordered it to take specificactions to stop the genocide. Since then protests spread to almost all Western countries, and there are signs that it will spread to poor countries though universities in such countries have no large investments in weapon manufacturing enterprises.

 Universities in France, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and Mexico are witnessing sit-ins and movements demanding an end to the war that broke out seven months ago on the besieged Gaza Strip. In America, the police, who attended in large numbers, broke up the camps set up by pro-Palestinian students at various universities, the most recent of which was the University of California - Los Angeles, where dozens were arrested.

 As the uprising of American university students continues to escalate in intensity, student mobilization is expanding in a number of countries in solidarity with the Gaza Strip, the day after US President Joe Biden called for order to prevail in American universities, while the French police evacuated the building of the Institute of Political Sciences in Paris of unarmed demonstrators. accidents.

 

On April 18, students who rejected the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip began a sit-in on the campus of Columbia University in New York, demanding that its administration stop its academic cooperation with Israeli universities and withdraw its investments in companies that support the occupation of Palestinian territories.

 With the intervention of police forces and the arrest of dozens of students, the state of anger expanded, and the demonstrations extended to dozens of American universities, including leading universities such as Harvard, George Washington, New York, Yale, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and North Carolina.

 Later, the unprecedented student movement in support of Palestine in the United States expanded to universities in countries such as France, Britain, Germany, Canada and India, all of which witnessed demonstrations in support of their American counterparts and demands to stop the war on Gaza and boycott the companies that supply weapons to Israel.

 CNN reported that the administration of the University of California, Riverside reached an agreement with its students to ensure the end of their sit-in camp, after the university pledged transparency and disclosure of investments and academic cooperation programs with external institutions.

 CNN reported that the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences at Emory University in Georgia will vote in favor of no confidence in the university president, against the backdrop of his calling the police against the protesting students.

 The administration of the University of Chicago in the United States said that there was information “about the presence of physical altercations” on campus, indicating in a statement that in the absence of an agreement with the protesters, the time had come to disperse the crowd.

Students seem to know the consequences of their actions but act, why?

A report in the Times newspaper reviewed the story of Jewish student Iris Hsiang, who was among more than 100 people arrested, in television scenes that credited her with inspiring similar acts of protests on college campuses across the United States.

Hsiang was arrested along with dozens of students at Columbia University for refusing to leave the campus during protests in support of the Palestinians and rejecting the Israeli war on the besieged Gaza Strip.

The student who was suspended from her studies and did not know whether the university would allow her to continue her studies - explained to the newspaper, in a report written by Josie Ensor - the reason for her participation in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations and what prompted her to do so. She said that she was arrested, her hands were tied with ties, and she was placed in a detention cell at the police headquarters all night. .

Hsiang - according to the British newspaper - is now standing outside the gates of the Columbia University campus during the afternoon, because she was prevented from attending classes and accessing the library, dining halls and any other buildings on campus, and was only allowed to remain in her residence as part of the terms of her suspension.

Hsiang has been charged by Columbia University, based on a police indictment, with trespassing, vandalism and “disruptive behavior.” The climate science and human rights student has been suspended from her studies, but she asks indignantly, “How can I trespass on my property at my university?”

Hsiang, who wears a black-and-white keffiyeh as a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, faces a court hearing later this month and is awaiting the university's decision on whether she will be allowed to continue her studies.

She says that her parents (the mother is Jewish and the father is Asian) are worried about her like all parents, and they support her. She adds, “I grew up in a house where we stood up to injustice, so I formulated the matter to them as follows: What do we want people to do if we were in Gaza and this happened?” Happening to us?

However, the threat of a criminal record and permanent expulsion worries the outstanding student, especially since tuition fees at Columbia University cost $66,000 annually, and she will have to pay another year’s fees if she is forced to repeat her studies after missing crucial classes and exams during the demonstration.

Although a number of professors have reached out to students to offer their support, particularly criticizing the university's handling of the demonstrations, and at least 10 faculty members wearing orange jackets standing hugging each other in Central Park on Monday when the evacuation order was issued, Hsiang is disappointed. “I can't believe it has come to this.”

The newspaper reported that New York City officials ran out of patience due to the protests, and its Mayor Eric Adams called on the parents of the students who entered Hamilton Hall to “come pick up their children” and said that the campus must be a safe place for all students.

But Hsiang rejected the idea that Columbia had become an unsafe place for Jewish students. “I am Jewish and I am afraid to enter campus, but for a different reason. I was arrested for my peaceful protest,” she said. “There is a history of using Jewish identity as a weapon. Because I am Jewish, I support the Palestinians against persecution.” .

The newspaper concluded that Hsiang, even if she was not expelled, would have to repeat the academic year because she missed most of her final exams, although it is up to the individual professor to accept or reject the course work of the arrested protesting students, according to the university.

Hsiang concluded her interview with the newspaper by saying, “I am thinking about my future, but at the same time I am thinking about the students of Gaza, as there are no longer established universities. This will definitely change the course of my life, but I went into it knowing that it was a possibility. If Columbia University continues in this situation "There's not much this university can teach me."

Journalism: The protests in solidarity with Palestine revealed the flaw in Washington’s policy

Journalism: The protests in solidarity with Palestine revealed the flaw in Washington’s policy

    Sunday, April 28, 2024   No comments

The American magazine Foreign Policy published an article by Howard French, the magazine’s main writer and professor of journalism at the Graduate School of Columbia University, in which he says: “The revolution of universities in solidarity with Palestine revealed that the flaw is not in the students, but in the foreign policy of the United States of America towards Israel and the Middle East.” 

The writer in "Foreign Policy" describes the protests in Columbia and other universities as "extremely important," adding: "They in turn inspired a growing series of reactions by university administrators, politicians, and American law enforcement officials, respectively, who sought to reduce the student demonstrations." Or prevent, condemn or, in many cases, violently suppress it.” He added, "What this moment revealed most clearly to me is not the crisis of student culture or higher education in the United States, as some have claimed, but rather a crisis in US foreign policy, and specifically its long-term relationship with Israel." 

"What I have seen inside the university’s gates has generally been a picture of exemplary civility. For nine days now, there has been an orderly encampment of students, most of them chatting relaxedly, some of them with tents, occupying an expanse of lawn in front of Butler Library, the biggest of Columbia’s libraries."  ~ Howard French, Professor of Journalism, Columbia University.

Protesting students teach American society and the world about democracy and citizenship. The writer says that through peaceful protest, students at Columbia University and in an increasing number of other universities are teaching American society, and indeed the entire world, about true democracy and citizenship. This came to mind in conversations I had with students from China and other countries, who marveled at the ability of Columbia students to respond through protest. In the midst of atrocities, they say enough is enough, and they always do so peacefully. 

They say that confronting terror requires more urgency than letter-writing campaigns to members of Congress or waiting patiently to vote in the next election. He adds that Gaza is not the only horror in the world at all, and we can all benefit from the moral urgency and civility of these students. They put pressure where they can on the institutions they belong to, and as students, they are the bedrock of communities. If they cannot convince the US government to do something to stop the war in Gaza and in the West Bank, which is largely ignored, they can at least convince their universities to stop supporting it. 

This is what the divestment demand means: stopping institutional support and investments in the Israeli war effort. Many critics object that this demand is unrealistic and can never succeed. But what is the appropriate response for a citizen? Sitting and folding your hands, for example? 

The writer concludes that the threat facing Zionism in the world today does not come from the students demonstrating in American universities and elsewhere. Rather, he claims that the greatest threat to Zionism does not even come from Hamas. The greatest threat stems from the blurring of any dividing line between Zionism and the crushing of Palestinian lives and hope for the future, says the American writer and academic.

   

Pakistan government commissioner admits election fraud; Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of Pakistani Islamic Scholars Association, admitted that the overthrow of Imran Khan by Army Commander, General Qamar Javed Bajwa

Pakistan government commissioner admits election fraud; Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of Pakistani Islamic Scholars Association, admitted that the overthrow of Imran Khan by Army Commander, General Qamar Javed Bajwa

    Saturday, February 17, 2024   No comments

 Today, Saturday, a government commissioner surprised everyone when he publicly admitted that he had falsified the results of the general elections held on February 8, announcing his resignation from his position, and demanding that everyone who participated in the fraud be punished.

Liaquat Ali Chatha, a government commissioner in the city of Rawalpindi (southeast of Islamabad), admitted to falsifying the results of the elections that took place under his supervision in the city of Rawalpindi.

Meanwhile, protest demonstrations swept through many Pakistani cities against what they called the manipulation that occurred in the elections, demanding a recount so that the results are correct, stressing the right of supporters of Imran Khan, founder of the Tehreek-e-Insaf Party, to win more seats.

“I bear responsibility for all these violations,” Chatha said at a press conference in Rawalpindi on Saturday afternoon. "The Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are involved in this matter," he added.

"We made independent candidates who received between 70,000 and 80,000 votes lose by submitting fraudulent ballot papers," he added.

In a handwritten letter, Chatha said he was resigning from his position because he was deeply involved in the "serious crime of rigging the 2024 general elections."

The handwritten letter was addressed to the governor of the Punjab province, the interim prime minister of the province, Mohsin Naqvi, and the secretary general of the province.

In front of the media, Chatha said that he “stabbed the country in the back,” referring to election fraud, so he cannot sleep.

He further said, "I must be punished for the injustice I committed, and others who participated in this injustice must be punished."

Earlier, Chatha said that he was under intense pressure not to announce the fraud to the point that he thought about committing suicide, but he finally decided to present matters to the public.

In response to Chatha's allegations, the Election Commission of Pakistan said it "strongly rejects the accusations leveled against her or her boss."

In a press statement, the election monitoring body said that none of its officials had issued any instructions to Chatha to “change the election results.”

He added, "But the Election Commission will conduct an investigation into the matter as soon as possible."

For his part, interim Punjab Chief Minister Mohsin Naqvi ordered an “impartial investigation” into the allegations leveled by Chatha.

Yesterday, the leader of the Pakistani Islamic Scholars Association, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, detonated a heavy political bomb when he admitted that the overthrow of Imran Khan from power in April 2022 came based on directives from the then Army Commander, General Qamar Javed Bajwa.

Fazlur Rahman explained that he was personally against the move of no confidence in Imran Khan's government, but this position would not have worked in light of the insistence of other parties, most notably the Muslim League led by Nawaz Sharif and the People's Party led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

Fazlur Rehman was the head of the People's Democratic Movement coalition that ousted Imran Khan and the PTI in April 2022 and took power, after which Shahbaz Sharif led a multi-party coalition of the country for 16 months before handing over the reins to the interim government.

Regarding the recent elections, Fazlur Rehman pointed out that it is clear that fraud occurred in the elections, and that the PML-N party is the biggest beneficiary of that.

He said to me, "Parliament has lost its credibility." He added, "Decisions will no longer be made in Parliament, but will be taken in the streets," indicating that there will be protests in the country against the results of the elections, the validity of which is being debated.

Media review: Western democracy is declining and losing its value

Media review: Western democracy is declining and losing its value

    Sunday, February 11, 2024   No comments

Under the title “Democracy is declining in a number of countries that seek to achieve it and is losing its value in the democratic countries themselves,” Alain Frachon wrote in the French newspaper “Le Monde” an article in which he highlighted the decline of democracy in a number of countries, and considered that democracy has lost its ability to seduce. Its soft power was shaken under the weight of the blows received by Westerners as a result of their repeated betrayals of its principles.

Summary

Hail to democracy: In 2024, about half of the adults on this Earth are expected to vote. We can already hear skeptics about the results of this democratic activity even before it happens. Voting conditions are not the same in the United Kingdom and India under Narendra Modi and in the United States and Russia under Vladimir Putin if we take a few countries whose residents are asked to elect their rulers.

However, the call to go to the polls reflects an important dedication to the principle of democracy. The elections that will be held in several countries, in Azerbaijan, for example, which is ruled by Ilham Aliyev, the autocratic ruler believes that he is forced to hold them, even with his prior knowledge of the results.

Elections are a purely formal procedure, hypocritical, or whatever it is, but the tyrant sees it as a way to obtain the legitimacy and respect that the results of the ballot box give him, just as one puts on a tie or wears a hat to go to a wedding. It is certain that this process does not stem from a sincere belief in the principle of democracy, although it is felt as an obligation. Rather, it expresses a simple fact, even if in the subconscious mind, that the democratic character is taking a better turn.

This situation is not without contradictions. According to Janan Ganesh, a columnist for the Financial Times, the “man and woman of 2024” are the voters.

But democracy is “in decline,” according to American Larry Diamond, a professor at Stanford University. As for the number of countries that practice this system, it is declining. In the lands that established this system, especially in the West, this system lost its quality.

Democracy, in the broad sense of regular and fairly free elections, reached its peak in 2000, benefiting about 54% of the world's population, according to Freedom House, a non-governmental organization that conducts this type of statistics. This percentage then decreased to 50% in 2018, finally reaching 32% in 2019. This is mainly due to the reclassification of India, which today is the most populous country on this earth.

Only 34 countries are classified as liberal democracies, which includes elections, the rule of law, freedom of the press, powers, checks and balances, and minority rights, which in short constitute the complete and complex institutional arsenal of democratic life. American Samantha Power, who heads the US Agency for International Development, expressed this situation by saying: “For 17 years, freedom has been in decline.”

The export of democracy has declined, it has lost its ability to seduce, and its soft power has been shaken under the weight of the blows that Westerners are receiving as a result of their repeated betrayals of its principles. George W. Bush is considered one of the main contributors to changing the course of democracy after his invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Samantha Power continues by saying that the slide of some democracies towards authoritarianism puts us before a fundamental question about “which model [of government] will prevail in the coming years?” Estimates from the Cambridge University Center on the Future of Democracy indicate that China and Russia enjoy slightly more popularity than the United States. In the Global South, however, this information is difficult to confirm.

She adds that liberal democratic systems are eroding from within, which she calls "democracy fatigue." She believes that Western youth will move away from the chaotic and exhausting system, which decides slowly and always searches for short answers and confuses them with its ambiguous decisions. The contemporary voter decides according to what he wants from the list and not according to what is presented to him from the list. He is no longer loyal to his party affiliations; Accordingly, the popularity of the main institutions of democracy and political parties is declining.

Other risks loom in the digital environment, where the distinction between truth and falsehood is blurred by conspiracy theories and the dominance of social media over traditional journalism, as well as disinformation and manipulation of public opinion. According to what Lawrence Norden, an expert from New York University School of Law, told the New York Times, “Everything that has been threatening our democracy for some time may be exacerbated by generative artificial intelligence.” For example, false speeches attributed to President Joe Biden are circulating on the Internet.

According to opinion polls, the European Parliament elections that will be held in June herald the rise of far-right parties. In a climate that encourages taking advantage of elite parties' loss of credibility, these anti-investment parties are betting on contemporary problems, including immigration, economic and social disparity, and environmental restrictions.

These parties follow the approach of illiberal democracy, also known as “democracy,” and the champion of this democratic retreat was Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister.

The US elections scheduled for November 5 will determine whether the most powerful liberal democracies are willing to submit to “democracy” by returning Republican Donald Trump to the White House.

The dilemma of the times is that the announcement of this decline in liberal democracy comes at a time when it has proven its absolute superiority in its battle against the “Covid-19” pandemic. Also, the Polish "democracy" was defeated by the centrists led by Donald Tusk.

The West, which is described as a decadent and decadent entity, remains the preferred destination for an unprecedented migration movement. Crowds of hapless people from the Global South seem drawn to the promise of freedom and prosperity embodied by liberal democracy. Therefore, announcing her death seems very premature.