One issue won’t be discussed at DNC
Al-Ittihad, UAE, August 13
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
Democrats are gearing up for their convention with a keen awareness of the critical issues at stake in this election. There is widespread concern about what a second Trump administration would mean for women’s rights, civil rights, environmental protections, immigration policy, civil discourse, and the bedrock of US democracy.
These topics, among others, are extensively covered in this year’s Democratic Party platform and will be highlighted by speakers at the convention. However, what will not be discussed are the war in Gaza, the ongoing erosion of Palestinian rights in the occupied territories, and the role of the US in supporting Israel’s violations of international law. These issues deserve discussion but will be conspicuously absent.
In response, the Arab American Institute, in collaboration with Rev. Jesse Jackson’s organization and other prominent progressive groups, will host three days of programming before the formal convention kicks off. The topics to be covered during these events organized by the Arab American Institute include topics like the role of money in politics. This segment will explore how pro-Israel organizations spent over $35 million this year to smear and defeat two progressive Black members of Congress who advocate for Palestinian rights. This kind of money has been a growing issue over the past three election cycles.
Efforts to pass resolutions banning its use in Democratic Party primaries have been blocked by party leaders. Without regulation, the problem will worsen, allowing not only pro-Israel organizations, but also other special interest groups (such as Big Pharma, banks, and health insurance companies), to exploit loopholes and inundate our elections with unlimited funds.
Another planned session is titled “Congress’s Role in Sponsoring Legislation To Silence Free Speech.” As the American political debate over Israel/Palestine intensifies, pro-Israel groups are working with some members of Congress and state lawmakers to silence critical voices and punish dissent. By expanding the definition of antisemitism to encompass most criticism of Israel and denying Americans the right to boycott or call for sanctions, free speech is being increasingly restricted. More than 30 states have enacted such laws, and Congress is currently debating legislation that would equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism and obligate universities and other federally funded institutions to establish enforcement mechanisms.
A third session, titled “The Role of the War on Gaza in Changing Public Opinion and Its Impact on the Future of the Democratic Party,” will focus on how a majority of Democrats oppose Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war, advocate for a ceasefire, support restricting US aid to Israel, and back justice and Palestinian rights. These views are particularly strong among young voters, progressive Jewish organizations, and Black, Latino, Asian, and Arab Americans, all crucial demographics for Democratic victories.
In addition to the three-day event, other organizations aiming to push the establishment to alter its stance on various significant issues will also host events. However, this particular event is singular in its challenge to the party to confront the big elephant in the room: its unwavering support for Israel in its relentless campaign against the Palestinians. It is an issue that most Democrats want their party to address, and a policy they hope the administration will change. – James Zogby
Iran’s response: All parties reviewing calculations
An-Nahar, Lebanon, August 12
It is no longer a secret that the diplomatic efforts to address the crisis following the assassinations of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Hezbollah military commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut have gained significant momentum in recent days. The situation is more complex than just retaliating for an assassination here or an affront there. This time, the repercussions will be severe if Tehran and its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, follow through on their threats to deliver a harsh, painful blow to Israel.
Observers of the propaganda campaign in both Iran and Lebanon, in the wake of these high-profile killings, recognize the moral quandary that Tehran and Hezbollah find themselves in. The ongoing conflict in Gaza has not ceased despite pressure from Israel’s northern border and Yemen. The Israeli government is not in a rush to conclude the war, considering its broader strategic calculations beyond merely responding to the Aqsa Flood operation.
For Israel, the stakes are existential, both in Gaza and its periphery. The prevailing belief among Israeli elites is that Gaza should never again pose a threat to Israel. The situation in Lebanon shares similarities with Gaza, but there is a notable distinction. Israel is attempting to alter the status quo through diplomatic channels and international guarantees of security and political stability, aiming to avoid a war it does not currently seek. Nonetheless, Israel acknowledges that a decisive war with Hezbollah is inevitable, though the present government, preoccupied with the Gaza conflict, prioritizes resolving the challenges there before addressing Lebanon, which will eventually become an existential issue in the medium term.
Iran is acutely aware that the key issue is not just responding but responding to a potential retaliation. Therefore, Tehran is weighing its options on three fronts: military engagement, the significant Western pressure that exacerbates the cost of any response, and the internal political dynamics post-recent presidential elections. These internal dynamics reflect the renewed struggle between the conservative and reformist factions, particularly following Masoud Pezeshkian’s presidential victory and the subsequent appointment of former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as vice president for strategic affairs.
However, Zarif’s recent resignation, under ambiguous circumstances, has added another layer of complexity. Leaked statements reveal his opposition to prioritizing the Palestinian issue over domestic concerns, positioning him as a critical voice within the administration, albeit one that is now potentially sidelined. The internal debate, particularly regarding how to respond to Israel, underscores a significant issue within the new government. It is evident that the new president is not averse to responding but advocates for a measured approach. He supports a restrained response, akin to the limited attack that occurred on April 13-14, to avoid escalating the conflict, which could empower the Revolutionary Guards faction and jeopardize his administration’s standing.
The Western stance, articulated by the Quintet of the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, in strong support of Israel, along with an unprecedented American military presence in the region, underscores the caution Tehran must exercise. The message is clear: An excessive Iranian response would come at a steep price. Additionally, Israel is poised to retaliate forcefully, ensuring that Iran understands the severe consequences of targeting Israel under any circumstances. Nevertheless, the risk of miscalculation remains high, particularly on the part of Iran or Hezbollah, which could inadvertently trigger a severe confrontation. Such a scenario might be exploited by Israel to settle old scores with Hezbollah in Lebanon, under the pretense of reshaping the northern border dynamics.
Israeli security officials are acutely aware that Hezbollah’s capabilities must not be underestimated. However, their strategic thinking extends beyond the immediate concerns to contemplate what the geopolitical landscape will look like along the northern border by 2030 or 2035. This long-term perspective underscores the dual threat posed: to Lebanon’s stability and the broader Iranian expansionist ambitions. – Ali Hamada
Trump and Trumpism
Al-Ahram, Egypt, August 14
Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton signaled a profound shift in the mindset of the American political elite, echoing the seismic changes that followed the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the nation’s 20th-century emergence onto the global stage. His four years in the White House did not pass in vain for certain political currents that had previously existed on the periphery of American political life; under his administration, they moved to the forefront.
On the international front, during Trump’s tenure, he advocated for the US to retract its involvement in global affairs and focus inward, even scrutinizing its allies who, in his view, exploited America’s “generosity” and demanded protection while skimping on their own defense and security expenditures. Furthermore, Trump was skeptical about the idea of American leadership in the world, particularly from the standpoint of promoting democracy, liberalism, and human rights. He believed these values often blinded the US to the perils posed by engaging with a developing world that he perceived as inherently antagonistic towards the American state.
Trump’s ascent to the American political landscape coincided with the crystallization of an anti-globalization movement, encompassing issues from human migration to trade, and the institutions representing these phenomena. It became increasingly evident that the traditional right-wing perspectives on the role of the state in the economy and society could no longer align with the principles of globalization or the international system characterized by free trade.
Instead, right-wing ideologies gravitated strongly towards isolationism and withdrawal into the nation-state, fostering a significant degree of wariness towards other countries, even those bound by alliances, mergers, and integrations that transcended national borders. These new trends quickly began to manifest practically, most notably with Britain’s exit from the European Union. Trump’s election represented more than just the rise of a new president under the banner of the Right; it marked a pivotal moment signaling this broader shift in political dynamics. – Abdel Moneim Saeed
Immigrants needed – but not welcomed
Okaz, Saudi Arabia, August 14
Germany stands as the economic powerhouse of Europe, but this industrial might comes with a significant requirement: a robust workforce. The German government estimates there are currently over half a million vacancies across various sectors, especially in trades such as craftsmanship, mechanics, and construction work. To fortify its economy, Germany needs more than 400,000 new immigrants annually. Projections paint a daunting picture: By 2035, around seven million workers are expected to exit the labor market. Hence, the government must ramp up efforts to attract large numbers of immigrants.
In recent months, legislative changes to immigration laws and streamlined paths to German citizenship have been introduced, serving as potential incentives for new arrivals. Nevertheless, the global competition for skilled immigrants is fierce, with nations like the US, Canada, and other European countries also vying for talent that fits their labor market demands. The alarm over an immigration crisis is often a media construct rather than an economic reality. Take the UK, for instance. While it has seen around 100,000 illegal immigrants, the British government has simultaneously sanctioned the entry of over 800,000 legal immigrants to meet labor market needs.
Ironically, unemployment persists in certain segments because the typical Western citizen aspires to office jobs that align with their education and training. Beyond the sought-after roles of doctors, engineers, accountants, and programmers, there is an equally critical need for workers in construction, retail, and truck driving – jobs that demand physical effort and are often less appealing to native citizens.
The crux of the issue transcends the attraction of highly educated professionals. It is about the pressing need for manual laborers willing to accept lower wages for physically demanding work. This dynamic is unlikely to change as competition for these workers is set to intensify, especially with China’s growing demand for labor. China faces its own demographic challenges, borne out of the now-abandoned one-child policy. The nation is grappling with a rapidly aging population, projected to have 24% of its citizens over the age of 65 by 2035. This demographic shift will place immense strain on China’s social and healthcare systems and result in a worker shortage, with the labor force expected to shrink by 0.5% annually until 2030, accelerating to 0.9% annually until 2050.
Compounding this complex scenario is the rise of xenophobia and racism, which has bolstered far-right movements across multiple countries. The recent developments in Britain epitomize this contradiction; hostility towards immigrants stems less from economic concerns and more from issues of identity, globalization, political opportunism, and lingering racist sentiments from both distant and recent history. We are likely to see more of these phenomena in the near future, despite their incongruity with social and economic realities. Over short periods, political exploitation can overshadow societal and economic movements, creating a landscape fraught with contradiction and tension. – Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb.
Comments are closed.