Shahmahmood Miakhel

Read the full article on LobeLog.

When the Nidaa Tounes (“Call for Tunisia”) party was formally licensed in July 2012, it positioned itself as a “modern” alternative to the Islamist Ennahda party. Led by former interim prime minister Béji Caid Essebsi, Nidaa Tounes drew a wide range of people, including supporters of Tunisia’s Destourian (“Constitution”) movement, trade unionists, leftists, and independents, as well as former members of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali’s Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD) party.

This article was first published on The National Interest.

A proposed deal to export Israeli natural gas through Egypt has the potential to enable Israel’s entry into its first major export markets, help Egypt escape a deepening energy crisis, and welcome the first European players into Israel’s natural gas industry. However, the deal is complicated by political realities and a history of deeply rooted grievances between the two countries, made worse by the recent violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Ever since the triumph of Iranian Shi’a revolutionaries against the shah in 1979, the Malaysian government has been wary of the dangers of the revolution being exported across its borders. The author argues that rather than oppressing and vilifying indigenous Shi‘a citizens, the state should engage them intellectually, socially, and perhaps even religiously, in the spirit of Prime Minister Najib Razak.

When US commanders in Iraq in 2006 were trying to figure out the best way to approach the burgeoning insurgency, two points of view emerged from the debate. 

Historically, the Yezidis — an ancient Kurdish-speaking ethno-religious community — have been subject to discrimination and violence. The current status of this community in Iraq and Syria is precarious, at best.

The Indonesian experience suggests that an over-reliance on hard power may actually be counter-productive, inadvertently strengthening rather than weakening the violent Islamist extremists. The author explains the need for an indirect strategy in which calibrated hard power is subordinated to and supplemented by softer measures aimed at diminishing the underlying conditions that give rise to violent extremism.

Amb. Philip Wilcox, MEI scholar and president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, discusses the motivations that led to the current escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, and why Israel decided to pursue a ground assault in Gaza.

Israel’s ground assault continues an historical pattern of dealing with threats from adversaries. How well has this strategy worked before?

Israel’s ground offensive against the Gaza Strip will make already dire humanitarian conditions for Palestinians there much worse.

A few days ago, heavy court sentences were imposed on seven men who were convicted of attempted rape, attempted murder, and torture, in a ruling seen by many as unprecedented in Egypt. In the words of one activist, the verdict was “a strong message to all harassers that their actions are no longer tolerated or accepted.”[1]  This comes in the wake of the government’s vows to combat the problem of sexual harassment; a new law passed last month criminalized sexual harassment for the first time.

Just 48 hours before handing over the reigns to now President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt’s interim President Adly Mansour signed into law a controversial piece of legislation that regulates elections for Egypt’s new House of Representatives.[1] Since the law was announced in early June, it has generated conflicting analysis regarding its impact on the nature of the electoral system, the character of the legislature that will be elected as a result, and the extent to which it might further empower the president.

This article was first published in The Diplomat.