分类： politics

Iraq’s parliamentary elections commenced on Tuesday, marked by a subdued voter turnout and widespread calls for a boycott, notably from influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Over 7,740 candidates, including a significant proportion of women, are vying for 329 seats. Preliminary results are anticipated by Wednesday, though final confirmation may extend over several weeks, as seen in previous elections. Reports from AFP correspondents indicate a notably low voter presence at midday, likely influenced by Sadr’s appeal to abstain from voting. In a recent social media statement, Sadr criticized the electoral system for perpetuating the dominance of corrupt politicians, urging Iraqis to reject the status quo. Despite relative stability since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, persistent issues like corruption, inadequate public services, and infrastructure decay have eroded public trust in the electoral process. Sadr’s supporters dominated the 2021 elections, which recorded the lowest turnout since 2003, but withdrew from parliament in June 2022 following a government formation deadlock. Sadr and others advocate for a comprehensive overhaul of the parliamentary system, which is widely perceived as sectarian and clientelist. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani aims to retain his position, with his success hinging on the Coordination Framework, a dominant Shia alliance. Sudani has navigated Iraq through regional tensions, including the fallout from the Gaza conflict and the strained relations between the US and Iran. Armed groups linked to the Coordination Framework have targeted Israeli and US interests, demanding the withdrawal of American forces. A recent Reuters report highlighted a US-Iraq agreement to reduce the American military presence by September 2025. Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a key figure in the elections, opposes Sudani’s re-election and emphasizes resisting foreign interference. Maliki criticized Sadr’s boycott calls, underscoring the challenges in conducting the elections amidst various obstacles.

A comprehensive review conducted by the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice has raised significant concerns about the broad application of British counterterror laws, particularly in light of the recent ban on Palestine Action. The three-year review, led by former judge Sir Declan Morgan and 14 commissioners, has called for a tightening of the UK’s definition of terrorism and a major overhaul of the Prevent counter-extremism programme. The report, released on Tuesday, emphasizes that without precise calibration, counterterrorism powers risk being applied too broadly, capturing behavior that is harmful but not necessarily terrorist. This follows the controversial proscription of Palestine Action as a terror group, which has led to the arrest of nearly 2,000 protesters under the Terrorism Act. The report argues that proscriptions should only be used to protect the public from terrorism and should expire after five years unless renewed by the government. It also highlights the confusion and strain on community relations caused by existing counterterror laws, particularly when banned groups pursue political objectives. Palestine Action is noted as the first organization to be proscribed primarily for property damage and the first direct action group to face such measures. The report further criticizes the lack of parliamentary oversight in the proscription process, noting that the order banning Palestine Action included two other groups, limiting parliamentarians’ ability to oppose it selectively. The commission has also called for a significant overhaul of the Prevent programme, which it deems unfit for purpose. Data reveals that 90% of the 58,000 individuals referred to Prevent since 2015 were not considered counterterrorism concerns, with 9% of recent referrals being suicide risks. The report criticizes Prevent’s radicalization model, arguing that it relies on assumptions not consistently supported by empirical evidence. It suggests that Prevent should be integrated into a broader, locally led safeguarding framework to address diverse vulnerabilities and violence, rather than focusing narrowly on terrorism. The report also highlights concerns about the potential harm caused by Prevent referrals, particularly among young people with complex needs. The case of Axel Rudakubana, who was referred to Prevent multiple times before committing a triple murder, underscores the programme’s limitations. The report concludes that Prevent is picking up many individuals who need support but are not terrorism-related, straining the system and potentially missing genuine threats.

Israel’s parliament has taken a significant step toward granting the government sweeping powers to shut down foreign media outlets deemed a threat to national security. On Monday, the Knesset passed the first reading of a bill that would allow authorities to close foreign media without requiring a court order. The proposal, introduced by Likud MP Ariel Kallner, was approved by a narrow margin of 50 to 41 votes. It still requires two more readings before becoming law. The bill, formally titled the Law to Prevent Harm to State Security by a Foreign Broadcasting Authority, would empower the communications minister to block or shut down foreign channels, seize their equipment, and raid their offices without judicial oversight. Additionally, new amendments would enable the minister to instruct internet and satellite providers to restrict online content or disrupt broadcasts. Critics argue that the bill could lead to broad government control over foreign media, regardless of the security situation or international objections. The legislation comes amid growing concerns over Israel’s crackdown on press freedom, particularly during its ongoing war in Gaza. Earlier this year, Israel banned Al Jazeera and other outlets from reporting in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, citing national security concerns. The move has been widely condemned by rights organizations, journalists, and the United Nations, who view it as a violation of press freedom and human rights.

A contentious bill proposing the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners convicted of killing Israelis on nationalistic grounds has cleared its first reading in Israel’s Knesset. The legislation, which passed with 39 votes in favor and 16 against, was celebrated by Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, who distributed sweets in parliament. The bill, however, excludes Israelis who kill Palestinians under similar circumstances, sparking accusations of discriminatory practices. To become law, the bill must undergo two additional readings in the Knesset. The move has drawn sharp criticism from Palestinian factions, with Hamas labeling the legislation as ‘fascist and sadistic’ and calling for international sanctions against Israel. Islamic Jihad described the bill’s advancement as a ‘dangerous criminal escalation.’ Israeli security officials had initially opposed the measure, fearing it could endanger Israeli captives held by Palestinian groups. However, following the release of surviving hostages by Hamas last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved the bill’s progression. Critics argue that the legislation exacerbates Israel’s systemic human rights abuses against Palestinian detainees, with reports of torture, medical neglect, and starvation in Israeli prisons. Human rights organizations have condemned the bill as a ‘grave escalation’ in Israel’s apartheid regime, emphasizing its exclusive application to Palestinians. Currently, an estimated 9,250 Palestinian prisoners are held across 23 Israeli detention facilities, with additional unaccounted-for detainees in military camps.