Latest news with #USpoliticians
The National
3 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Is peace in three years possible in the Middle East?
The northern rim of the Arab world is a mess, any way you look at it. Some US politicians, echoing Israel's position, speak glibly (and dishonestly) of a transformed or new regional order. In reality, the situation has worsened. Israel has accelerated its war on Gaza, its violent land-grabbing in the West Bank and occupations and deadly bombings of Lebanon and Syria. Meanwhile, Palestinians are without inspired leadership capable of projecting a strategic vision. Instead, they are mired in the muck of failed ideologies or imposed structures of governance. Before anyone can speak of a transformed Middle East, two things must occur: Israel's occupations and out-of-control brutal behaviour must be stopped, and new Arab leadership must emerge that can project a vision for the future that can inspire and transform the politics of Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. This discussion of vision reminds me of a meeting I had a decade ago at my office with the leader of the Syrian National Coalition. Our exchange was pleasant and yet unmemorable – until he was about to leave. He paused at the doorway and turned to ask me: 'What is your long-term vision for the region – from Iraq to Lebanon? And what do you see for us in the next three years?' These are exactly the questions that should be asked and answered by leaders on all levels of government and civil society across the Middle East. It is critically important to have a broad strategic vision of the future that embodies the values and aspirations of your people. And it is equally important to be able to project how that vision can be implemented in the short term. It is critically important to have a broad strategic vision of the future that embodies the values and aspirations of your people My initial response was a bit flippant, saying that looking 100 years down the road I can see an Arab boy from Amman marrying an Israeli girl from Tel Aviv and taking a job and settling down in the suburbs of Damascus. I quickly added that what I meant was that I envisioned a region at peace with itself, with integrated societies, economies, and open borders (or no borders at all) allowing for the free movement of people and commerce. Given the bloody wars of the past several decades and continuing tumult and tension, such a vision might appear fanciful. Naysayers will go so far as to argue that it is not in the genetic makeup of either side to ever accept peace or integration. But I'm convinced they are wrong. No group of people is uniquely indisposed to peace and integration, and no people are immune from the inevitable pressures of history. In this regard, the Middle East is no exception. It's true that the region is plagued by war and upheaval, but which region of the world hasn't been so plagued? The same despair was once widespread across Europe. That continent had, for centuries, been the setting for bloody conflicts pitting nations and sects against each other, culminating in the 20th century's two devastating World Wars. Who, in the midst of those horrors, could have imagined a Europe at peace with itself? In the past few decades, Europe formed an economic union and then ended a Cold War that had divided the continent. Though still not a 'perfect union', the profound and positive transformations that have occurred and are still unfolding across that once-tormented region are impossible to ignore. What is important is that, in the midst of conflict, people be given a vision of the future and the possibility of change, precisely so that they do not surrender to despair. Projecting such a vision can inspire and motivate societies to move forward, rejecting the paralysis that comes from feeling trapped by present-day 'realities'. By projecting a progressive vision of the future, leaders are also able to present a stark contrast between the idea of the world they seek to create with notions advocated by those operating without such a vision. When applied to the conflicts raging across the Levant, the matter becomes clearer. What, for example, would be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's or Hamas 's visions of the future? And who would want to live in the future projected either by the past or current Syrian leadership? Is there anyone who hopes that 100 years from now Lebanon is still divided by sect, with power monopolised by the same families who have governed their clans or regions for the past century? Having a progressive vision of the future allows one to challenge those who can't think beyond the dead-end constraints of the present. It rejects those who for reasons of power and personal privilege want to freeze current realities or elevate them to the status of the eternal, and those whose blasphemous distortions of religion cause them to envision the future as a return to an idealised past. Thinking about the future means we do not create 'false idols' of the past or present, or become so arrogant that we project our ideologies onto God, seeking to validate our whims and fancy. It also requires that we reject the temptation to use means that contradict the very ends we seek to accomplish. This leads me to consider my Syrian friend's second, no less important question: to envision the Levant in three years' time. This more difficult challenge forces us to directly confront the constraints of the present. I believe that 100 years from now there will be no latter-day 'Al Assad' on the scene, no 'religious' fanatics tormenting the 'less pure,' and no clan leaders or ultra-nationalists – precisely the characters who define life today. They must be defeated, but how they are defeated matters. That's why a future vision based on values is important. Fighting evil with evil, repression with repression, and fanaticism with fanaticism, are no-win propositions. New ideas matter and so do means by which to bring those ideas to life. I thank my Syrian friend for asking his thoughtful questions and for the discussion that followed. It provided us both with an opportunity to reflect on means, ends and goals. The very fact that he asked these questions made me appreciate his leadership. I would love to hear this challenge put to other leaders, on all levels, across the Levant. Their answers would be revealing.
Irish Times
7 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Occupied Territories Bill: Poll finds many voters now want economic implications examined
Is the public having second thoughts on the Occupied Territories Bill ? Perhaps. Friday's poll numbers suggest that there is a growing awareness of potential economic consequences and that many voters want those consequences to be examined fully before the Oireachtas passes the Bill into law. This is not, it should be stressed, a finding that the public has turned against the idea of the Bill. The proportion of those who say it should be shelved completely is just 10 per cent, down from 12 per cent when the issue was last asked about in an Irish Times opinion poll. There a definite shift in the public mood on the issue, all the same. Though the questions differed slightly, back in April a majority of those who gave an opinion wanted to proceed with the Bill immediately; now a majority does not, split between those who want to examine the consequences first and those who oppose the Bill outright. READ MORE The proposed legislation has begun to command significant international attention. This week, a series of US politicians spoke out against it, a move that suggests Israel's formidable lobbying power in Washington is being deployed against the measure and this State. Last week, a legal opinion commissioned by a pro-Israel group in New York suggested that US companies operating here under the proposed legislation would fall foul of US federal and state laws. [ Ireland's dissatisfied voters are moving, but not towards the left Opens in new window ] There is also significant interest in and support for the Bill in the European Union, however, which has seen many member states move to a position much more critical of Israel over the last 12 months. The Republic has emerged as something of a leader of the pro-Palestinian cause in the EU and passing the Bill, say supporters, would be the strongest statement yet against Israel's conduct in Gaza and the West Bank. The heads of the Bill – a summary of what it intends to do – is being discussed by the Oireachtas foreign affairs committee, which will forward its report to the Government, probably before the end of this month. The committee is certain to recommend proceeding, and may recommend the inclusion of services in the actual text to be submitted to the Dáil in the autumn. The Government will also consider a revised legal opinion on that question, as well as an impact assessment. But then it will have to make some very tricky decisions, with significant consequences either way. Tariffs: Why has Donald Trump threatened the EU again? Listen | 47:35 The decisions on the Bill will be made against a background of extreme economic turbulence. Today's poll reveals that the public is split on the best approach to the ongoing negotiations with the US. Asked if the EU should agree a 10 per cent tariff to secure a trade deal with the US, or if the EU should negotiate harder and risk a trade war, there's not much between the two views: 39 per cent of respondents want to cut a deal at a 10 per cent tariff rate, while slightly more, 42 per cent, want to tough it out. These findings were somewhat overtaken by US president Donald Trump 's announcement over the weekend that he would impose a 30 per cent tariff on August 1st if there was no deal with the EU. If Trump proceeds in that direction, the bloc will have little option but to fight a trade war until a better deal is reached. [ The Irish Times-Ipsos B&A poll July 2025: the full results in charts Opens in new window ] Following recent public divisions on the question in the Coalition, voters were also asked their attitude to third-level fees, and the possibility of them being restored to €3,000 a year from the current €2,000. The results are not, perhaps, surprising. Three-quarters of all respondents (75 per cent) say that this is not the right time to restore the €3,000 level, with just 16 per cent agreeing. Among Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael voters, there is a bit more support for restoring fees to €3,000 – but not all that much. A fifth (20 per cent) of Fianna Fáil voters and a bit more than a fifth (23 per cent) of Fine Gael voters favour fees going up – but really, the move would be unpopular across the board. With the Government committed to a tighter budget in the autumn and a removal of all the one-off cost-of-living payments that were part of the last three budgets, these numbers show just how hard it will be to take away benefits to which voters have become accustomed.
