Latest news with #YossiMekelberg
CNBC
28-05-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
'No end in sight' to Gaza war as Europe changes tone on Israel: Professor
Chatham House's Yossi Mekelberg tells Silvia Amaro "just suspending talks is not going to make a difference," after Germany becomes the latest European nation to change its tone on Israel.
Al Jazeera
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Is European pressure on Israel likely to make a difference?
Israel is facing condemnation from some of its strongest allies over its increasing aggression in Gaza. The UK is cancelling new trade talks and the EU is reviewing old agreements, while both are imposing sanctions on Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. The two powers say they cannot stand by while Israel expands military operations, increases air strikes and starves Palestinians in Gaza with its total blockade. But critics are asking why they did not step in before. Will the new measures be imposed? And most importantly: Will any of this change the reality on the ground for the Palestinians? Presenter: Folly Bah Thibault Guests: James Moran – Former EU ambassador to Egypt and Jordan Yossi Mekelberg – Senior consulting fellow at Chatham House Zaid Belbagi – Managing partner of Hardcastle Advisory and political commentator
Arab News
06-05-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Perfect storm brings UK and EU together
The upcoming summit could be a crucial step in restoring long-term cooperation for the benefit of the UK and EU (File/AFP) Short Url It is too early to predict the outcome of this month's all-important EU-UK summit, but there has already been a sea change in terms of more cordial language and a spirit of cooperation between the two sides that has buried the toxicity of the dreadful Brexit years. While the time that has elapsed since the UK left Europe has helped to heal some of the wounds, it is the decisive UK general election victory last year of the more pro-European Labour Party — combined with the dangerously chaotic new US administration's far-reaching implications for European security, prosperity and values — that has hastened the London-Brussels rapprochement. In the years since Brexit, the necessity for a new kind of UK-EU partnership has become obvious to both sides. This will not be one that opens old wounds by floating the prospect of Britain returning to the EU, or even to the single market, anytime soon, despite about 55 percent of British voters consistently expressing in opinion polls their support for rejoining the EU. Support for staying out is about 40 percent. However, last week's success for the anti-European and anti-immigration Reform UK party in the local elections, and its winning another seat in Parliament by way of a by-election, is a warning sign that Labour's declared reset of relations with Brussels must remain incremental, target specific areas of cooperation and bear tangible fruit for people up and down the country before any conversation about readmission to the EU can take place. The two sides are on the path to signing a formal declaration that commits to 'free and open trade' Yossi Mekelberg According to a leaked draft agreement, the UK-EU interlocutors preparing for the forthcoming summit are on the path to signing a formal declaration that commits to 'free and open trade.' In a snub to the Trump administration's declared trade war, this is a clear sign of trying to avert, or at least mitigate, the looming recession that is the consequence of Washington's protectionist policies. If, until very recently, the drive for resetting relations with the EU was more about economics, securing borders from illegal immigration and scientific and cultural cooperation, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the president's recent spat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky has shifted the center of gravity to defense and security. In the face of Russia's expansionism and the sense that, at present, the US is no longer a reliable ally with regard to winning the war in Ukraine or in the bigger picture of the defense of Europe as a whole, the UK and the EU have already accelerated their defense cooperation measures and have immediately eased their fiscal restraints on military spending budgets. Germany and Poland are leading this approach, but France and the UK are not far behind. The public show of support for Ukraine and for Zelensky personally by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, who convened a summit to respond to the new and threatening situation, was an important turning point in the continent's determination to develop a common foreign and security strategy to match external threats. Common interests derived from geography, history, enemies and shared values are almost self-evident, but it is also the conscious efforts to improve the general atmosphere between London and Brussels that is creating the conditions for close cooperation. Much of this is due to Britain's current prime minister being the most Europe-friendly since Tony Blair and can be felt in the manner of his engagements with other European leaders. For the slow-growing British economy, the issue of trade is crucial, even if under the pressing circumstances defense is topping the agenda in discussions with Europe. However, it is also a trickier issue in terms of the concessions Europe would expect it to make. In trade, figures rarely lie and, as a bloc, the EU is the UK's largest trading partner, accounting for 41 percent of its exports and 51 percent of its imports. Meanwhile, for the EU, the UK is the second-largest trading partner, which makes the need to lay to rest any residue of bitterness and resentment that might still linger among EU officials over Brexit. Conscious efforts to improve the general atmosphere are creating the conditions for close cooperation Yossi Mekelberg The circle that must be squared in the negotiations leading to this month's summit is how to offset the damage Brexit has inflicted without being seen or suspected of toying with the idea of readmitting the UK to the EU by the back door, especially when it comes to freedom of movement. A major test for the UK's reset readiness is bound to be agreeing to a 'youth experience' program that would allow British and European 18 to 30-year-olds to travel and work freely for a limited time of one or two years. For Europeans, freedom of movement is as much a symbol of what the EU is all about — in terms of constituting a single vibrant continent that shares similar values — as it is a tool of conflict prevention for liberal-democratic multilateralism. Agreeing to this is not reversing Brexit but reintroducing, on a limited scale, a scheme for young people to enjoy the benefits of working and traveling abroad with minimal barriers. Should this scheme be approved, it would help create the good relations necessary to make progress on trade agreements. Considering that the UK is facing a blanket 10 percent US tariff while the EU faces 20 percent, an increase in trade between them has become more necessary and urgent. But many other issues that were taken for granted when the UK was an EU member and were not agreed on in its 'divorce' agreement also need to be reset. These include a veterinary services agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and help tackle the cost of food; agreeing to the same agricultural standards; securing a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications to help open up markets for UK service exporters; and removing barriers that hinder traveling artists. Many of these issues were not contentious to begin with and hardly played a role in how people voted in the 2016 referendum and, with a new and more pro-European government in London, they can be resolved in the spirit of two allies. The English Channel, or 'La Manche' as the French call it, which physically separates the UK from mainland Europe, was until recently perceived to be much wider than its actual 34 km at its narrowest point. But now, 8,000 years after the British peninsula was separated from Europe, and following the more recent and nasty nationalist storm of Brexit, both sides are thankfully reaching agreement on the issues that matter for their common security and prosperity. The upcoming summit could be a crucial step in restoring long-term cooperation for the benefit of both. Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view
Arab News
15-04-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Social benefits benefit everyone
A combination of domestic and global circumstances is being exploited, by some deliberately and by others inadvertently, and used against the welfare state. There are those who ideologically oppose the very notion of wealth distribution to create a more just society, while others, despite supporting it, are afraid that it is becoming unaffordable, especially at times when economic growth is sluggish and there are other urgent and compelling reasons to divert public money to competing public goods. Neither group is calling for the abolition of what amounts to a redistribution of wealth, but the first group would like it to be permanently limited to the very minimum, and the other only when its fiscally prudent. Both sides are missing the essence of the welfare state, which serves both the direct recipients of its benefits and those who pay for it through their taxes, for the good functioning of society as much as the moral reasons. The budgetary priorities set by the current Labour UK government, which came to power less than a year ago, are increasingly taking the affordability approach, and this is causing disquiet among its traditional supporters as well as many backbenchers in Parliament. In the past few months the government, rather shockingly, cut winter fuel payments to pensioners, as well as cutting disability benefits to the tune of £5 billion ($6.6 billion), leaving the most vulnerable in society exposed in these times of exponential rises in the cost of living. There can be a case for abolishing universal benefits, but not at the expense of those in desperate need. Come the next general election Labour will be largely held accountable by the voters if it has not managed to save the welfare state after nearly a decade and a half of its gradual and deliberately imposed decline under the Conservatives. A modern health service literally gets people back on their feet Yossi Mekelberg An earlier notion of the welfare state emerged in the 19th century, first in Bismarck's Germany, as an institutional response to negative side-effects of industrialization in order to protect individuals, workers, and their families from several risks during the course of their life. These were, most importantly, loss of income due to disease, work-related accidents, unemployment, and old age. In the UK, it was the adoption of the Beveridge Report, titled 'Social Insurance and Allied Service,' which proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly national insurance contribution, and in return benefits would be paid to those who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed. At the heart of the report was Beveridge's view of society and economy: He believed that vested interests should not hinder what he saw as the top priority for government, which was to abolish the 'Five Great Evils' that plagued society: want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. This led in the post-Second World War era to the establishment of the National Health Service, a major public housing program, and massive investment in public education. It was also obvious that it would not be enough to treat just some of the 'evils' and not others, but instead to address all of them concurrently, as they are in most cases interlinked. It was a departure from considering helping those in need as an act of charity. Alas, the establishment of a social security system is charitable, with strong moral and ethical underpinnings, but charity it is not, because when it is successful, it also enhances two of the most important pillars of society: prosperity and security. The classic argument against the welfare state is that it is bound to become a 'nanny state' that restricts initiative and enterprise, and anyway it is not the responsibility of the collective to cater for the needs of the individual, and certainly not to create social justice through redistribution of wealth. This argument looks at social security benefits, or universal services free at point of delivery, such as national health and education services, as a burden on a free market by imposing high taxes and therefore discourages those who work hard and contribute most to society. When the welfare state is at its best, it is inclusive of all in society Yossi Mekelberg Seeing society only through this narrow prism of a free market and low taxation is oversimplistic, and conveniently ignores, for instance, that a modern and efficient health service literally gets people back on their feet and back at work, enabling them to earn, spend, and pay taxes (and not live on benefits), which keeps the economy thriving. A first-class education system for all produces generation after generation of those who generate wealth, not to mention responsible citizens. When the welfare state is at its best, it is inclusive of everyone in society, including the less fortunate, but equally it must be seen as an investment. Those who oppose welfare are quick to blame the safety net of social security benefits for creating a culture of dependency, even a poverty trap, or say that there are those who find ways to defraud the system. Either argument points to a system that is not perfect and not free of loopholes. Nevertheless, in the UK, the estimated percentage of fraud in the social security system is around 3 percent of total benefit expenditure, and in most other OECD countries it is similar or even lower. This certainly calls for better safeguards against fraud, but it is hardly significant enough to do away with social security. Moreover, in the case of pensioners for instance, it is no more than partial repayment of what they paid into the system throughout their working lives; and furthermore, a healthy society should be proud of not leaving behind those who due to their unique circumstances need the support of the rest of us, even if it is for their entire lives. In times of slow economic growth and competing pressures on public expenditure, such as the current need to invest more in Europe on defense due to the war in Ukraine, the easiest route is that of cutting social security. However, there is a case to be made for increasing borrowing within strict rules and limits to protect the most vulnerable — otherwise by the time the economy grows again, the societal decline would exact much higher economic and social costs. After all, the welfare society is a marriage of morality and expediency, and both are united in the cause of creating a better and more prosperous society.
Arab News
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Palestinians' lives blocked by checkpoints
One of the most visible and disturbing symbols of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, one that makes the hardships of the Palestinians living there even more unbearable, are the checkpoints. The long wait to cross them, or often to be turned back, hinders people from getting to work, from getting to a medical appointment on time, from seeing family and friends or from reaching school. But above all it creates a strong sense of humiliation. If you are a Palestinian, regardless of age or gender, you are at the mercy of young soldiers, often teenagers, who, after hours of making you wait, can decide whether you can continue to your destination. You can stand there for hours on end exposed to the elements — in the scorching summer heat or the cold and muddy conditions of the winter — enduring this routine that is at least as much about grinding the local population into submission as it is about security. To be fair, many soldiers see their time on checkpoint duty as the worst part of their service because they feel the mental burden that comes with these daily episodes of friction with the local population. I recall a conversation with a young soldier who told me that the thought of the power asymmetry between himself, armed to the teeth, and the civilians whose fear he could see in their eyes while they presented their IDs and begged him to let them pass kept him awake at night. It made it even more difficult, he said, if they were frail or sick or on their way to receive medical treatment, sometimes even for a lifesaving procedure, or if they were pregnant and on the way to give birth. This routine is at least as much about grinding the local population into submission as it is about security Yossi Mekelberg However, there are also those soldiers who abuse this position of power — and they are usually able to do so with complete impunity. Above all, checkpoints represent the banal routine of an oppressive occupation that is a blight on the daily lives of ordinary people, as well as demonstrating the asymmetric power relations between the occupiers and the occupied. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, three Jewish Jerusalemite women of conscience, after encountering a military checkpoint in the West Bank for the first time, founded a nongovernmental organization and named it Machsom Watch (Checkpoint Watch). There are now 500 women activists who expose and document the ills of the occupation, but above all the mushrooming number of checkpoints and how they operate. For instance, they recently reported that on the first Friday of Ramadan, people who braved the wet weather from across the West Bank to reach the infamous Qalandiya Checkpoint, in the faint hope of reaching Jerusalem for prayers, were all turned back. Worse, they described the experience as follows: 'Unlike previous Ramadan Fridays, (on this day) no attempts were made to prettify toughness of heart, no holiday greetings from the ruler, no (relaxing of the rules) like humanitarian passage and/or lighter restrictions for women, children and the elderly. All people, rejected regardless of gender, age and state of health, no longer had the right to observe their faith and pray at their holy shrine.' In other words, not a semblance of pretense anymore that checkpoints are a necessary evil of Israel's security within the Green Line; instead, they are simply about control and treating the entire Palestinian population as the enemy. The network of checkpoints, dozens of them permanent, others temporary, was spread out all over the West Bank well before Oct. 7, 2023, and since then many more have been appearing suddenly and with no warning, immediately disrupting lives. In early 2023, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs documented 645 physical obstacles in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, ranging from 49 checkpoints constantly staffed by Israeli forces or private security companies to other occasionally staffed roadblocks, earth mounds, road gates, road barriers and trenches. The enormous number of restrictions suggests that the balance between security and oppression has long since tilted toward the latter Yossi Mekelberg This figure did not include the Israeli-controlled area of Hebron, where there are dozens more checkpoints and obstacles, many equipped with metal detectors, surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology, and with facilities for detention and interrogation. To ensure the security of about 1,000 ultra-extremist settlers, the movements of at least 30,000 Palestinians who live in the Israeli-controlled part of the city have been turned into a living hell. And all these restrictions and obstacles are for the benefit of those who declare that under no circumstances do they wish for peaceful coexistence between equals in this city. This extreme situation epitomizes the broader phenomenon of limiting the freedom of movement of Palestinians in the West Bank and the situation has worsened since the Oct. 7 attacks. Almost 100 more obstacles have been erected since then. This is in addition to the 712 km-long separation barrier, which Israel began building in 2002 and is the single largest obstacle to the free movement of Palestinians, but not Israelis. Admittedly, Israel began erecting this barrier during the Second Intifada, with the aim of containing terrorist attacks inside Israel, but this does not explain why it was not built along the Green Line. Instead, about 85 percent of the barrier's route winds through the West Bank, which is occupied by Israel, and restricts and disrupts the freedom of movement of Palestinians either permanently or irregularly. The original idea might have been security, but with the influence of the leaders of the settlements and their political allies, it has become more an instrument to further a future annexation. By now, the enormous number of restrictions by checkpoints that prevent, for instance, farmers from cultivating their land and people from getting to work or to worship, let alone the danger of being arrested and even shot should they be suspected of not following the instructions of those guarding the checkpoints, suggests that the balance between security and oppression has long since tilted toward the latter. When ambulances are treated at checkpoints like any other vehicle, as some evidence suggests, this is deliberately reckless and is simply about demonstrating who rules the roost in this land. For most Palestinians, this is their only engagement with Israelis and it leaves with them an extremely bad taste in their mouth. While the morality, or more accurately the immorality, of this situation does not need much elaboration, it leaves open the question: How do those who design and impose these policies think that they could possibly be serving Israel's interests? After all, they only increase resentment, damage the economy and leave many Palestinians feeling humiliated. But the messianic ultranationalists, in addition to satisfying their power trip, believe that all this expedites annexation and even transfer, leaving peace and reconciliation between the two peoples so much harder to achieve.
