Ukrainian parliament approves Yulia Svyrydenko as new prime minister, lawmaker says
He said 262 lawmakers voted for Svyrydenko, a comfortable majority in the 450-seat parliament.
Developing
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
EU defends Trump trade deal as critics call it a ‘capitulation'
In this episode of W News Extra, presented by Jono Hayes, we cover a range of stories, including the newly struck trade deal between the United States and the European Union. The EU is defending the agreement with President Donald Trump amid sharp divisions among European capitals and business leaders, with some critics calling the deal a 'capitulation.' Guests: Michael Jabri-Pickett Lubna Hamdan
Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
Why Macron's recognition move is significant
Sacre bleu. France will recognize a state of Palestine. Is this a shock or not something to get worked up about? This was posted on social media by President Emmanuel Macron last Thursday. He said he would formalize recognition at the UN General Assembly in September. This was much touted, not least by the French leader himself, even when addressing the UK Parliament. Finally, he has confirmed his commitment, no doubt trying to carve out some legacy in his last two years of office and to show that France is still relevant on the world stage. Will this matter? France joins 147 other states in making this move. It will be the first G7 member to do so. Sweden, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia are so far the only EU member states to have made the move while being part of the bloc, so Macron's announcement is significant. Several other European states did so in the 1980s, including Poland and Hungary during the communist era. Who else might follow suit? France's move will look wiser if others follow. Belgium is a candidate. It has been one of Europe's most ardent critics of Israel. Reports indicate it might make a decision in early September. Canada is also a possibility. However, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni veered away from this. And Germany is unlikely to shift. Then there is the UK. Many hoped that Prime Minister Keir Starmer would consent to a joint position with France. A British-French recognition would have carried more weight. The two colonial powers, the co-authors of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the two European members of the UN Security Council working together symbolically would have had strength. This option has been much debated in Britain over recent months. The government never ruled it out, arguing it was waiting for clarity from the French side. In the end, Starmer has not bitten despite 221 British members of Parliament writing to him to push for this. Starmer had a choice: either side with US President Donald Trump or join Macron. He chose the former. It is a reward for the Palestinian national movement, represented by the PLO and dominated by Fatah. Chris Doyle Palestinians have tended not to be nearly as excited as some politicians in Europe, or even the Western media. Why, many ask, was this not done more than a decade ago or even earlier? Then, there would have been a genuine dynamic toward some form of solution. Why only now as Gaza burns and the Israeli colonization of the West Bank is on steroids? It is now only recognizing a failed dream, not a likely reality. In a choice between recognition and a ceasefire with proper aid access, those in Gaza would definitely take the latter. Talking to Palestinians in Gaza, many dismiss such symbolic gestures. To survive, they need food and water, even above a ceasefire. Death by bombing or shelling is far more preferable for them and their families than the horror of death by starvation or thirst. Recognition will not save a single starving baby. It will not provide lifesaving medicine for those struck down with disease. It will not stop the Israeli attacks on tents in the so-called safe zone. Critics, largely American and Israeli, say Macron is just trying to appease his Muslim voters or attract investment from rich Gulf states. This ignores the massive public support in France for Palestinian rights. Another absurd argument is that this is a reward for Hamas and the atrocities it perpetrated on Oct. 7, 2023. This was trotted out by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among many others. Why is it absurd? Hamas has not been calling for a two-state solution or pushing for the recognition of a Palestinian state. Every single propagandist for Israel has routinely reminded the world that Hamas wants, in their view, to destroy Israel. If this is a reward for Hamas, it is not one it wished for. It is a reward for the Palestinian national movement, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization and dominated by Fatah, the rival of Hamas. This is the movement that Western states, certainly European ones, have been supporting. They back the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah in spite of all its flaws. One of Hamas' criticisms of the national movement — one that often hits home among frustrated Palestinians — is that the PLO recognized Israel but the recognition was not mutual. Israel did not recognize a Palestinian state. The PLO abandoned violence but Israel did not. The PLO sought to achieve Palestinian liberation through negotiation but could not liberate one inch of Palestine. This is why recognition matters to the PLO, the party that abandoned the armed struggle and is prepared to talk to Israel, unlike Hamas. So, failing to recognize a state of Palestine undermines the nationalists and boosts the Islamists, which in theory runs against the agenda of European states. Macron deserves some praise. He could have done nothing. But his moral responsibility toward Palestinians is not anchored in recognition. Real leadership demands action to stop the genocide in Gaza. On that front, he is failing just like the rest of the world's leaders. If you cannot stop the genocide, recognition means nothing. • Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
The poisons of power balances
The first component of wisdom is a precise assessment of the balance of power. It is indispensable in war, revolution or a coup d'etat. The balance of power is an almost inescapable consideration that cannot easily be written out of the equation. Ignoring it usually leads to catastrophic consequences, but while force wins wars, it does not necessarily guarantee durable stability. Vladimir Putin read the balance of power. He knew that the West would yell after waking up to see Russian tanks erasing what it called an international border with Ukraine. However, NATO would not risk sending troops to defend a country that is not a member of the alliance. The US would impose sanctions and make threats, but it would not send its forces and risk raising the specter of a third world war. He calculated correctly and now his army is continuing to devour more territory, having already secured control over the lands annexed by Russia. However, history shows that coercion and subjugation cannot become the basis for lasting stability. The people of the Middle East have their own long and painful history with the balance of power. In 1967, Gamal Abdel Nasser did not dwell on the regional balance of power or its equations. His announcement of the closure of the Straits of Tiran and decision to mobilize Egypt's army drove Israel to launch the war that led to the occupation of Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights — a war that only deepened the glaring imbalance of power in the region. Anwar Sadat concluded that Egypt could not tolerate the occupation of Sinai. He coordinated with Hafez Assad and waged the war of 1973. Despite the achievements of the Egyptian army, the course of the war ended up being a stark reminder of the balance of power's painful dictates. Sadat realized that Sinai could not be taken back by force; accordingly, he chose to accept the facts on the ground, eventually recovering the land through the Camp David Accords. Assad launched a vicious campaign against Sadat, but he too quietly accepted the harsh logic of the balance of power and understood that forcefully reclaiming the Golan Heights was impossible. Instead, he opted to compensate for this loss. 'Recovering' Lebanon was within reach and he managed the country and consolidated the presence of his forces. This is what makes the two-state solution, a cause that Saudi Arabia has played an active and influential role in pursuing, so important. Ghassan Charbel When Fatah fired its first shot on the first day of January 1965, Yasser Arafat was dreaming of reclaiming all his people's occupied land with the barrel of his gun. His long and bitter battles taught him cruel lessons about the realities of the balance of power from Tel Aviv to Washington. That is how we got the scene of Arafat shaking hands with Yitzhak Rabin in the Rose Garden of the White House, and why we saw him accept the dream of a state on part of this land and the painful concession of the rest. From his residence in France, Ayatollah Khomeini spoke candidly to Saddam Hussein's envoy. He told him that the overthrow of the 'infidel Baath regime' was the second item on his agenda, after toppling the shah's regime. Khomeini's dream was to take down Saddam's regime, especially when Iran gained the upper hand in the war with Iraq. However, the balance of international power did not allow Khomeini to realize his dream and he was ultimately forced to swallow the bitter poison and accept a ceasefire. Saddam, for his part, ignored the realities of the balance of power when he ordered his forces to invade Kuwait. He did not consider the need to avoid an American invasion of Iraq, framing the event as 'a battle for the dignity of the nation,' as Yemen's former foreign minister Abu Bakr Al-Qirbi told our newspaper. Let us leave the past and turn to the present. When the Israeli air force began destroying the weapons of 'Assad's army,' President Ahmad Al-Sharaa had no choice but to accept the constraints of the balance of power. This imbalance only deepened after Israel succeeded in driving Iran out of Syria and dealt a painful blow to Hezbollah and its leadership in Lebanon. When the crisis erupted in Sweida, Al-Sharaa found himself with no option but to heed the balance of power's dictates once again. President Joseph Aoun, along with his government, is now experiencing the bitterness of this power balance and its shifts following 'the flood.' Israeli drones continue to violate Lebanese airspace, carrying out targeted assassinations. The president knows that disarming Hezbollah is the condition that the US and international community have demanded of Lebanon for reconstruction and aid. We must not forget the poisons of the balance of power and the constraints they have imposed on the Palestinian Authority. Since Hamas' attack on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has been in a frenzy of vengeance and the pursuit of victory. There is no denying that its war machine, with backing from the US, succeeded in crushing Gaza, asserting control over multiple regions' airspace and carrying out incursions into Syrian and Lebanese territory. The current balance of power is clear: the Palestinians are not well placed to reclaim their rights by force, neither now nor in the foreseeable future. The same can be said of Syria, which must prioritize building a state of institutions that preserves unity and coexistence, opening the door to stability and prosperity. Lebanon's Hezbollah is similarly incapable of launching a new war against Israel, neither now nor in the foreseeable future. Faced with imbalances of this magnitude, the weaker side has no real options. It can only turn to international legitimacy. The principles of international legitimacy offer protection from the injustices currently imposed by the balance of power. It is also essential for addressing the key issue: the injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people, which has been the root cause of instability across the Middle East. The poisons of the balance of power can only be remedied by returning to the principles of international legitimacy. Only these principles can guarantee a just peace. That is what makes the two-state solution, a cause that Saudi Arabia has played an active and influential role in pursuing, so important. The most recent fruit of this diplomatic momentum was the French president's announcement that his country would recognize the state of Palestine. Brutality, domination and erasure can only leave the Middle East sleeping over barrels of gunpowder. Its nations need a moment to catch their breath, fight poverty, allow the displaced to return, pursue development and join the modern world. The solution is not to surrender to the dictates of the balance of power. The solution is to do everything possible to empower international legitimacy. • Ghassan Charbel is editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. X: @GhasanCharbel This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.
