" The Dinar Daily ", Saturday, 5 October 2013
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: " The Dinar Daily ", Saturday, 5 October 2013


    
  1. #1

    " The Dinar Daily ", Saturday, 5 October 2013

    KRG Oil Minister: Dana Gas Breached Confidentiality, Owes KRG Significant Sums
    By RUDAW

    “The ongoing breaches of the commitments owed by Dana Gas and its affiliates to the KRG have resulted in significant (and increasing) damage to the KRG,” says Mr. Hawrami’s letter.

    ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—Kurdistan’s Minister of Natural Resources, Ashti Hawrami, has dismissed as “inaccurate and misleading” claims by Dana Gas that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) owes the company millions of dollars in overdue payments.

    “The statements made in the press briefing are materially inaccurate and incomplete,” says Mr. Hawrami in a letter sent to Dana Gas managing director, Majid Hamid Jafar.

    A Reuters report on September 26 said that the KRG owed Dana Gas $380-390 million in payments in return for fuel supplied to the autonomous region.

    “The KRG does not owe Dana Gas the sum referenced or any other sum, and the statement that the sums are “overdue” from the KRG is inaccurate and misleading to investors,” reads Mr. Hawrami’s letter, an exclusive copy of which was obtained by Rudaw.

    Dana Gas has been operating in the Kurdistan Region since 2007.

    According to the Reuters report, because of delay in payments in Kurdistan and Egypt, “Dana Gas become the first United Arab Emirates company to miss a bond redemption when it matured late last year,”

    The Kurdish Natural Resources Minister however, says the company’s action is “a breach of confidentiality duties owed by Dana Gas to the KRG,”

    “The ongoing breaches of the commitments owed by Dana Gas and its affiliates to the KRG have resulted in significant (and increasing) damage to the KRG,” says Mr. Hawrami’s letter.

    We require, he says, that Dana Gas desist from such breaches in the future.

    On Thursday, Goran Azad, an MP from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and former member of the parliamentary Oil and Gas Committee told Rudaw TV, “We have got documents that says it’s Dana Gas that has not fulfilled its commitments to the KRG and that it’s Dana Gas that owes compensations to the Kurdish government.”

    Reuters reported that “The Abu Dhabi-listed company completed repairs to its liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) facility at the Khor Mor field in Kurdistan in mid July, but it has not restarted production because no buyers have contracted supplies from it yet.”

    But the Kurdish minister says, “It is Dana Gas and its affiliates that owe the KRG significant sums, not the other way around,”

    Mr. Hawrami’s letter goes on to say that to compensate losses caused by Dana Gas’s actions, “the KRG will retain the proceeds of condensate sales to protect its entitlement to adequate compensation.”

    Rich with billions of barrels of untapped oil and natural gas, the Kurdistan Region has become an attractive spot for many international oil giants, chief among them Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Total.

    http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/0....fGTMTESc.dpuf



  2. #2
    Time for Some Parties to Close Shop
    21 minutes ago




    Time for Some Parties to Close Shop
    By Hiwa Jamal

    The final results of last month’s parliamentary elections in Kurdistan highlight the existence of some groups which call themselves political parties, but whose being should be seriously questioned.

    These groups did not win enough votes to secure even one seat in parliament, yet they get all the privileges of a seasoned political party. They waste hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money.

    These groups have occupied many buildings and properties in Kurdistan and in the disputed territories.

    They may argue that the number of votes is not the criterion for deciding a party’s standing in society. But can they tell us what is?

    They may say that they have central committees that provide good ideas, but where are the products or projects of their ideas? Some may say that these groups contribute to pluralism and democracy in Kurdistan, while in fact they have sometimes stood in the way of democracy.

    Another negative aspect of these small groups is that they are used as a cover-up for the unilateral decisions of the major parties.

    I would like to explain how these parties are detrimental to the process of democracy, particularly when decisive decisions are made. There are many examples of course, but the most recent was during the crisis over the constitution. Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani declared that 36 parties had approved of the constitution. But some of them were parties which did not win a single seat in last month’s parliamentary election.

    If a party cannot win the votes of 20,000 people – the minimum required for a parliamentary seat -- why should it be given a chance to sit next to some parties that have won hundreds of thousands of votes?

    Perhaps one of the first tasks of the new parliament should be to reassess the law that deals with political parties and their budgets.

    On no account should these groups be allowed to continue as parasites on this country’s resources. They should not be used to cover up the deeds of the ruling parties. They should either close up shop or merge with other groups with whom they share some common ground.

    http://rudaw.net/english/opinion/051....3NZLmwfL.dpuf

  3. #3
    Elections Not Enough To Solve Iraqi Crisis
    By: Mustafa al-Kadhimi for Al-Monitor Iraq Pulse Posted on October 4.

    Iraqi politicians are obviously unwilling and probably incapable of offering any consensual solutions to the exacerbating Iraqi crisis before the Iraqi parliamentary elections likely to be held in the middle of next year.

    Summary :
    The 2014 elections are unlikely to salvage what remains of the Iraqi state after years of bitter political divisions.
    Original Title:
    The Iraqi Negotiating Table ... The Shortest Yet Most Complex Way
    Author: Mustafa al-Kadhimi
    Posted on: October 4 2013
    Translated by: Pascale El-Khoury

    The main reason for this conviction is that the various parties are still hoping the elections will solve the crisis. This is not based on a firm conviction that elections are a democratic means for changing power, but rather on the hope that elections will change the current political map in favor of one party or another, allowing it to impose its vision of the solution.

    The truth is, while elections represent a suitable track for venting political tensions, they are not sufficient as an end goal to a crisis, such as the one currently faced by Iraq. This is a country that remains unable to overcome its transitional phase, and is embroiled in conflicts over the foundations of its political processes and the dispute over the method of the state administration, in addition to major security collapses.

    In this volatile atmosphere and in light of the security collapse, the only available solution involves securing a public consensus on getting through this ordeal. The need for such a consensus after the coming elections will be the same as the need for it prior to these elections. Iraq has always been in need of an agreement on common grounds between its components and political parties. This agreement was postponed pending the 2005 elections, and again pending the 2010 elections, without any significant change to the prevailing situation. For this reason, the 2014 elections are not expected to lead to such long-awaited consensus.

    What Iraq needs today is for the political parties and social and religious leaders to assume their responsibility of urging that a national conference take place to discuss all of Iraq's problems.

    Does this require exerting internal pressure on the leaders of political blocs and parties to attend this meeting? Yes: Iraq needs internal and external pressure to force political leaders to spare the country the ongoing game of mutually dismissing each other. Moreover, Iraq desperately needs these leaders to head to the negotiating table bearing in mind a solution and not a crisis.

    The main reason for the complexity of the current political situation is that the various Iraqi parties are unwilling to make concessions on the negotiating table, thus pushing for elections, in the hope that these elections will create a new environment completely different from the current one.

    This is a risky venture since terrorist powers that lie in wait for Iraq are not wasting any time. They exploit the current political meltdowns to gain new space and greater ability to implement major Iraqi genocides.

    The burden is borne by the current Iraqi leaders as they face the risk of wasting time and gambling with the future of the country. They are bound to take the shortest way to resolve the Iraqi crisis, i.e., via the negotiating table, even if it seems too complex today.

    Mustafa al-Kadhimi is an editor and columnist for Al-Monitor Iraq Pulse. He is an Iraqi writer specializing in defense of democracy. He has extensive experience in documenting testimony and archiving documentaries associated with repressive practices.

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2gomyMI5W

  4. #4
    The Israeli-Sunni Coalition
    Against Iran

    By: Ben Caspit for Al-Monitor Israel Pulse Posted on October 4.

    "What Iran wants is to reach Japan or Germany's capability," a high-ranking Israeli diplomatic official who is actively involved in Israel's most sensitive decision-making told me earlier this week. I asked him to elaborate.

    Summary :
    Is there a quiet coalition among the Gulf states and Israel to thwart a possible thaw in US-Europe-Iran ties?
    Original Title:
    The Israeli-Sunni coalition against Iran
    Author: Ben Caspit
    Posted on: October 4 2013
    Translated by: Simon Pompan

    "Japan and Germany can assemble a nuclear bomb. They have the scientific, technical and logistical infrastructure. They're not interested in that. But if they were, they would need five to seven weeks to do it, were such a decision made. That's where Iran wants to be, and that's where it is going to be very shortly, unless the West comes around and understands that it is playing for time."

    This is the essence of the current Israeli posture vis-a-vis the burgeoning "Iranian Spring." When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya'alon and Knesset member Avigdor Liberman look out the window, what they see is not spring but fall.

    "The hardest thing to do," the senior official told me, "is to enrich uranium to a 3% grade. The initial enrichment — from zero to three — is the hardest phase. Later in the process, enriching it to 20% is relatively easy. It's a function of centrifuges and time. And that's why Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium on its soil, even if it is the so-called low-grade enrichment. Iran doesn't have an ‘inherent right’; there is no such legal or international concept. The pressure must not be let up until the Iranians understand that they have to forego enrichment."

    Liberman, chair of Yisrael Beitenu and former foreign minister (and perhaps also the future one, if he is acquitted later this month of the criminal charges pressed against him), posted on his Facebook page on Oct. 2 a snapshot of the New York Times headline from 1938, featuring the newspaper's exhilaration upon the signing of the Munich Agreement. The headline reads: "Hitler gets less than his Sudeten demands." It welcomes the bold peace agreement that lifted the danger of war off of Europe.

    "And we all know how that ended," Liberman remarked.

    That was Liberman's retort to the New York Times scathing editorial against Netanyahu's UN address just a day earlier on Oct. 1. The relationship between Netanyahu and Liberman is seriously strained at the moment, but Israeli politics is one thing, and combatting Iran's nuclear program is a different ball game altogether. This is where Netanyahu gets Liberman's unwavering support.

    As I reported earlier, Israel welcomed the "Syrian Agreement" that was brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Now it is possible to disclose that Israel was a party to promoting it. Netanyahu, Ya'alon and Liberman pushed for and encouraged the agreement, although they believe it would have been far more effective following an American strike rather than being in its stead.

    "An airstrike," says a high-ranking Israeli defense official, "would have rehabilitated American deterrence in the region and placated all of America's allies. But more importantly, it would have instilled real concern and recognition in Tehran that the military option is not mere lip service but a bona fide option. Without that recognition, it will not be possible to get Iran off of its nuclear high horse."

    Furthermore, the model for a diplomatic arrangement in Syria was devised in Jerusalem at the very outset of Netanyahu's incumbent government earlier this year. It was drawn up by Ya'alon and Netanyahu. Its underlying tenet was that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad isn't the problem. Even if he were eliminated, the crisis would not be over — perhaps the opposite. All the parties with a vested interest in restoring quiet to Syria should be galvanized to find a solution. And there is no shortage of such parties the world over: Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Europe, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). General elections should be announced in 2014, when Assad himself will not run. Until that time, a transitional government should be set up with an all-inclusive representation, including the Alawite regime, provided none of its members have blood on their hands.

    Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice president under voluntary house arrest, is one of the names that have come up in this context. US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed this idea last May. Ya'alon advanced it to the Americans, and Netanyahu to the Americans, the Russians and the Europeans.

    But then Assad started winning battles, recapturing al-Qusair and making strides in Homs. This prompted all the parties to freeze the idea of an agreement. The Syrian president realized that he was on his way to a final victory while the rebels did not want to embark on negotiations from an inferior position. The chemical weapons crisis jump-started the diplomatic negotiations and creative ideas, although the conditions on the ground had changed. Assad is still not in a place where he understands that it's better to get off at this stop. He keeps on fighting. And the Russians? They're still on his side, albeit not at all costs.

    "We don't have a lifelong contract with Assad," the Russians reportedly told the Americans (according to a very senior Israeli official). "But we do know that wherever you interfered militarily, it ended up with al-Qaeda." Putin says that all he is trying to do is to prevent the establishment of "another Afghanistan." He has interests in Syria — a big port, intelligence and collaboration with the regime. If these interests are preserved, Putin will go for a broad deal, with or without Assad.

    And speaking of a broad deal, the agreement to disarm Assad of his chemical weapons emerges as a big success. All the credit goes to Putin. Assad complies and abides by all his commitments only because Putin gave his word to Obama and the rest of the world in public.

    "When it comes to the Russians," says a senior Israeli defense official, "keeping your word is a big deal. Maintaining one's credibility is a very sensitive issue with them. Once Putin pledged to remove chemical weapons from Syria, Assad understands that this weaponry will be removed. Putin doesn't make do with just having averted an American strike and having clenched a deal. He wants the agreement to be implemented in letter and spirit. And typically, what Putin wants, Putin gets."

    Israel is also pleased with the agreement. The list of chemical sites and depots that Assad submitted has turned out to be genuine.

    "There are sites that we hadn't even heard of," said an Israeli official. Now we're waiting for the new and more detailed list. Meanwhile, the process of destroying the equipment and the infrastructure is already under way. The timetable is a challenge. Yet, it seems that the UN inspectors, backed by the Russians and the Americans, have taken on this assignment seriously, and at the moment it also seems that the Syrians are being cooperative. This can change in a split second, but at this juncture it looks like a resounding success.

    The concerns that the Syrians might attempt to transfer some of these chemical weapons to Hezbollah are so far groundless.

    "Hezbollah doesn't want to get anywhere near chemical weapons," Israeli defense officials have said. "[Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah knows that this will be disastrous for him. He wants to stay out of trouble, much like Assad, who has realized that his survivability rides on getting rid of the chemical weapons. All of this is happening right now, and what we have to do is monitor the situation."

    The recent developments following the Syrian agreement and Iran's charm offensive have given rise to a complex and dynamic reality in the Middle East. The following is the current map of axes: The Shiite axis is still led by Iran, in conjunction with Assad and Hezbollah. Iran is stirring the pot in Bahrain (with a Shiite majority), in Yemen (with a Shiite minority) and even in Saudi Arabia (where 3% is Shiite). At this stage, Israel perceives Iraq to be an Iranian satellite following a military agreement both countries are expected to sign. This camp also employs the regime of President Omar al-Bashir in Sudan as well as the one in Eritrea.

    Juxtaposed against the Shiite axis, the Sunni one seems to have splintered into two main forces. The moderate Sunni axis is led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt together with the UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen. Alongside this is the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Sunni axis under Turkey's leadership. Until recently, Egypt was one of its senior members. But following the military coup that made ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi disappear, Egypt switched from this Sunni camp to the other.

    Qatar may also be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood camp, although it's straddling the sidelines, considering its moves and flirting with the Saudis. Hamas may be associated with the Brotherhood as well. At this point, the Muslim Brotherhood axis is on the defense and sustained a major blow when it lost Egypt overnight. Qatar, for example, has taken a time-out to regroup. The new Qatari leader has instructed Al Jazeera to keep its tone down. The Qatari support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria continues, as does its civilian aid for building infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. But the Qataris are reassessing the situation, trying to bat for both teams.

    Either way, the prevailing sentiment from just a few months ago to the effect that the Muslim Brotherhood was poised to take over the Middle East has vanished. The Brotherhood is on the defensive and fighting for its survival.

    What's amazing about all of this, Israelis are saying, is the American wager on the Muslim Brotherhood, which was premature and proved itself as wrong, naive and unfounded. Now the Americans feel like the village idiot. With Morsi in prison, they are forced, while gritting their teeth, to support Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who aspires to be the present-day successor of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

    So where is Israel in all of this? Deep down. The recent events as well as America's waning resolve vis-à-vis Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's "charm offensive" have made the ties Israel has fostered with senior states from the Sunni axis much less secretive than they used to be. What we have here, in essence, is a quiet coalition between the Gulf countries and Israel versus America and Europe — with Iran being the only topic on the agenda.

    Ben Caspit is a columnist for Al-Monitor's Israel Pulse. He is also a senior columnist and political analyst for Israeli newspapers, and has a daily radio show and regular TV shows on politics and Israel. On Twitter: @BenCaspit

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2gopWZOKP

  5. #5
    The Israeli-Sunni Coalition
    Against Iran

    By: Ben Caspit for Al-Monitor Israel Pulse Posted on October 4.

    "What Iran wants is to reach Japan or Germany's capability," a high-ranking Israeli diplomatic official who is actively involved in Israel's most sensitive decision-making told me earlier this week. I asked him to elaborate.

    Summary :
    Is there a quiet coalition among the Gulf states and Israel to thwart a possible thaw in US-Europe-Iran ties?
    Original Title:
    The Israeli-Sunni coalition against Iran
    Author: Ben Caspit
    Posted on: October 4 2013
    Translated by: Simon Pompan

    "Japan and Germany can assemble a nuclear bomb. They have the scientific, technical and logistical infrastructure. They're not interested in that. But if they were, they would need five to seven weeks to do it, were such a decision made. That's where Iran wants to be, and that's where it is going to be very shortly, unless the West comes around and understands that it is playing for time."

    This is the essence of the current Israeli posture vis-a-vis the burgeoning "Iranian Spring." When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya'alon and Knesset member Avigdor Liberman look out the window, what they see is not spring but fall.

    "The hardest thing to do," the senior official told me, "is to enrich uranium to a 3% grade. The initial enrichment — from zero to three — is the hardest phase. Later in the process, enriching it to 20% is relatively easy. It's a function of centrifuges and time. And that's why Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium on its soil, even if it is the so-called low-grade enrichment. Iran doesn't have an ‘inherent right’; there is no such legal or international concept. The pressure must not be let up until the Iranians understand that they have to forego enrichment."

    Liberman, chair of Yisrael Beitenu and former foreign minister (and perhaps also the future one, if he is acquitted later this month of the criminal charges pressed against him), posted on his Facebook page on Oct. 2 a snapshot of the New York Times headline from 1938, featuring the newspaper's exhilaration upon the signing of the Munich Agreement. The headline reads: "Hitler gets less than his Sudeten demands." It welcomes the bold peace agreement that lifted the danger of war off of Europe.

    "And we all know how that ended," Liberman remarked.

    That was Liberman's retort to the New York Times scathing editorial against Netanyahu's UN address just a day earlier on Oct. 1. The relationship between Netanyahu and Liberman is seriously strained at the moment, but Israeli politics is one thing, and combatting Iran's nuclear program is a different ball game altogether. This is where Netanyahu gets Liberman's unwavering support.

    As I reported earlier, Israel welcomed the "Syrian Agreement" that was brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Now it is possible to disclose that Israel was a party to promoting it. Netanyahu, Ya'alon and Liberman pushed for and encouraged the agreement, although they believe it would have been far more effective following an American strike rather than being in its stead.

    "An airstrike," says a high-ranking Israeli defense official, "would have rehabilitated American deterrence in the region and placated all of America's allies. But more importantly, it would have instilled real concern and recognition in Tehran that the military option is not mere lip service but a bona fide option. Without that recognition, it will not be possible to get Iran off of its nuclear high horse."

    Furthermore, the model for a diplomatic arrangement in Syria was devised in Jerusalem at the very outset of Netanyahu's incumbent government earlier this year. It was drawn up by Ya'alon and Netanyahu. Its underlying tenet was that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad isn't the problem. Even if he were eliminated, the crisis would not be over — perhaps the opposite. All the parties with a vested interest in restoring quiet to Syria should be galvanized to find a solution. And there is no shortage of such parties the world over: Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Europe, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). General elections should be announced in 2014, when Assad himself will not run. Until that time, a transitional government should be set up with an all-inclusive representation, including the Alawite regime, provided none of its members have blood on their hands.

    Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice president under voluntary house arrest, is one of the names that have come up in this context. US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed this idea last May. Ya'alon advanced it to the Americans, and Netanyahu to the Americans, the Russians and the Europeans.

    But then Assad started winning battles, recapturing al-Qusair and making strides in Homs. This prompted all the parties to freeze the idea of an agreement. The Syrian president realized that he was on his way to a final victory while the rebels did not want to embark on negotiations from an inferior position. The chemical weapons crisis jump-started the diplomatic negotiations and creative ideas, although the conditions on the ground had changed. Assad is still not in a place where he understands that it's better to get off at this stop. He keeps on fighting. And the Russians? They're still on his side, albeit not at all costs.

    "We don't have a lifelong contract with Assad," the Russians reportedly told the Americans (according to a very senior Israeli official). "But we do know that wherever you interfered militarily, it ended up with al-Qaeda." Putin says that all he is trying to do is to prevent the establishment of "another Afghanistan." He has interests in Syria — a big port, intelligence and collaboration with the regime. If these interests are preserved, Putin will go for a broad deal, with or without Assad.

    And speaking of a broad deal, the agreement to disarm Assad of his chemical weapons emerges as a big success. All the credit goes to Putin. Assad complies and abides by all his commitments only because Putin gave his word to Obama and the rest of the world in public.

    "When it comes to the Russians," says a senior Israeli defense official, "keeping your word is a big deal. Maintaining one's credibility is a very sensitive issue with them. Once Putin pledged to remove chemical weapons from Syria, Assad understands that this weaponry will be removed. Putin doesn't make do with just having averted an American strike and having clenched a deal. He wants the agreement to be implemented in letter and spirit. And typically, what Putin wants, Putin gets."

    Israel is also pleased with the agreement. The list of chemical sites and depots that Assad submitted has turned out to be genuine.

    "There are sites that we hadn't even heard of," said an Israeli official. Now we're waiting for the new and more detailed list. Meanwhile, the process of destroying the equipment and the infrastructure is already under way. The timetable is a challenge. Yet, it seems that the UN inspectors, backed by the Russians and the Americans, have taken on this assignment seriously, and at the moment it also seems that the Syrians are being cooperative. This can change in a split second, but at this juncture it looks like a resounding success.

    The concerns that the Syrians might attempt to transfer some of these chemical weapons to Hezbollah are so far groundless.

    "Hezbollah doesn't want to get anywhere near chemical weapons," Israeli defense officials have said. "[Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah knows that this will be disastrous for him. He wants to stay out of trouble, much like Assad, who has realized that his survivability rides on getting rid of the chemical weapons. All of this is happening right now, and what we have to do is monitor the situation."

    The recent developments following the Syrian agreement and Iran's charm offensive have given rise to a complex and dynamic reality in the Middle East. The following is the current map of axes: The Shiite axis is still led by Iran, in conjunction with Assad and Hezbollah. Iran is stirring the pot in Bahrain (with a Shiite majority), in Yemen (with a Shiite minority) and even in Saudi Arabia (where 3% is Shiite). At this stage, Israel perceives Iraq to be an Iranian satellite following a military agreement both countries are expected to sign. This camp also employs the regime of President Omar al-Bashir in Sudan as well as the one in Eritrea.

    Juxtaposed against the Shiite axis, the Sunni one seems to have splintered into two main forces. The moderate Sunni axis is led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt together with the UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen. Alongside this is the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Sunni axis under Turkey's leadership. Until recently, Egypt was one of its senior members. But following the military coup that made ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi disappear, Egypt switched from this Sunni camp to the other.

    Qatar may also be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood camp, although it's straddling the sidelines, considering its moves and flirting with the Saudis. Hamas may be associated with the Brotherhood as well. At this point, the Muslim Brotherhood axis is on the defense and sustained a major blow when it lost Egypt overnight. Qatar, for example, has taken a time-out to regroup. The new Qatari leader has instructed Al Jazeera to keep its tone down. The Qatari support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria continues, as does its civilian aid for building infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. But the Qataris are reassessing the situation, trying to bat for both teams.

    Either way, the prevailing sentiment from just a few months ago to the effect that the Muslim Brotherhood was poised to take over the Middle East has vanished. The Brotherhood is on the defensive and fighting for its survival.

    What's amazing about all of this, Israelis are saying, is the American wager on the Muslim Brotherhood, which was premature and proved itself as wrong, naive and unfounded. Now the Americans feel like the village idiot. With Morsi in prison, they are forced, while gritting their teeth, to support Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who aspires to be the present-day successor of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

    So where is Israel in all of this? Deep down. The recent events as well as America's waning resolve vis-à-vis Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's "charm offensive" have made the ties Israel has fostered with senior states from the Sunni axis much less secretive than they used to be. What we have here, in essence, is a quiet coalition between the Gulf countries and Israel versus America and Europe — with Iran being the only topic on the agenda.

    Ben Caspit is a columnist for Al-Monitor's Israel Pulse. He is also a senior columnist and political analyst for Israeli newspapers, and has a daily radio show and regular TV shows on politics and Israel. On Twitter: @BenCaspit

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2gopWZOKP

  6. #6
    Kurdistan Alliance meet in Arbil to resolve the position of the Electoral Act
    Saturday, 05 October 1 / Okrudolf 2013 10:43

    Twilight News / Kurdistan Alliance revealed a meeting In Arbil with Kurdish leaders to discuss the electoral law and determine the final position of some of the paragraphs which they qualify.

    alt

    A member of the House of Representatives for the Kurdistan Alliance Hassan Jihad for "Twilight News" that the Kurdistan Alliance will hold a meeting during the next 48 hours in Arbil to resolve the position of some paragraphs of the election law, noting that the Kurds have objections and observations on how to calculate the votes and the distribution of compensatory seats.

    Jihad said that the Kurdistan Alliance calls for making Iraq a single constituency to prevent loss and dispersal of the vote, but the political blocs refuses to do so, indicating that the Kurds have lost many seats in the previous parliamentary elections due to the electoral law.

    He added that "the previous election law denied many of the seats despite the large number of votes obtained by the Kurds in several areas.

    It is hoped that the Iraqi Council of Representatives vote on the election law this week after being deported to vote because of the points of contention between the political blocs.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c...uCrypw6sIxVfDQ

  7. #7
    Kurdistan Alliance meet in Arbil to resolve the position of the Electoral Act
    Saturday, 05 October 1 / Okrudolf 2013 10:43

    Twilight News / Kurdistan Alliance revealed a meeting In Arbil with Kurdish leaders to discuss the electoral law and determine the final position of some of the paragraphs which they qualify.

    alt

    A member of the House of Representatives for the Kurdistan Alliance Hassan Jihad for "Twilight News" that the Kurdistan Alliance will hold a meeting during the next 48 hours in Arbil to resolve the position of some paragraphs of the election law, noting that the Kurds have objections and observations on how to calculate the votes and the distribution of compensatory seats.

    Jihad said that the Kurdistan Alliance calls for making Iraq a single constituency to prevent loss and dispersal of the vote, but the political blocs refuses to do so, indicating that the Kurds have lost many seats in the previous parliamentary elections due to the electoral law.

    He added that "the previous election law denied many of the seats despite the large number of votes obtained by the Kurds in several areas.

    It is hoped that the Iraqi Council of Representatives vote on the election law this week after being deported to vote because of the points of contention between the political blocs.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c...uCrypw6sIxVfDQ

  8. #8
    Launch of demonstrations in five provinces to demand to cancel the pensions of Representatives
    05-10-2013 10:22 AM

    Baghdad (news) .. Dozens of citizens in the provinces of Babil, Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniya, Muthanna, demanding to cancel the pensions of deputies and privileges of officials.

    The reporters said the Agency (news): Dozens of people demonstrated this morning in the provinces (Babil, Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniya, Muthanna) demanding to cancel the pensions of Representatives and the three presidencies and the owners of the grades for.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c....nQ6jS8f8.dpuf

  9. #9
    Albulada: religious guidance on the law on political parties was in the interest of the people
    05-10-2013 09:33 AM

    Baghdad (news) .. MP for / coalition of state law / useful Albulada, that the reference guidance on the law on political parties were keen to benefit the people, calling for taking بتوجيهاتها the interest of the country.

    Baldawi said in a statement received by the Agency (news) copy of it: that religious authority is keen on the interest of the country, a safety valve being moving towards human and operate impartially high, so must taking بتوجيهاتها into account being the gracious invitation.

    He added: that the directives came reference in the interest of the people, stressing the need for controls and instructions within the law to organize work parties the fact that there are some parties are financed from abroad and receive foreign directives.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c....7E8XvWfQ.dpuf

  10. #10
    Jamal watermelon calls for the presidency of the parliament election law introduced to the vote and leave the clinching members

    05-10-2013 07:16 AM

    Pfdad (news) asked the Secretary-General of the white National Bloc MP Sheikh Jamal melon, chairman of the parliament election law introduced the House of Representatives for a vote next Monday and leave the discount to members of the council.

    The melon in a press statement to his press office and received the Agency (news) copy of it: that the election law of important laws and sensitive and that will determine the fate of the parliament and the government the next two and delay the approval will open the door to new demands may be the reason for the delay read it and to postpone the elections and thus aggravate the political scene in Iraq .

    He added: Electoral Commission need for at least six months to complete the procedures and continuing history and the roof will not end demands, therefore, leave this matter subject to the consensus that we do not see a real approved will make it difficult to approve the law on time.

    He continued: Federal Court challenged material and one of the law, and the Council was required to amend that paragraph impugned, but increased options and proposals in the draft law holding the general scene and leave the law on hold and Avrgh of the content of the original and that's what would make him vulnerable to challenge again in court and delay the elections.

    And watermelon explained: the presidency of the parliament have to put points on the letters and put the law to vote in accordance with legal mechanisms and leave a discount to its members in case it is not consensus on the draft and one next Monday.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.c....ge6Z6KgM.dpuf

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •