Is Male Guardianship Over Women Supported By Law?: New Age Islam's Selection, 30 September 2016
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
30 September 2016
• Is Male Guardianship Over Women Supported By Law?
By Haya Al-Manee
• New Impetus to Turkish-Saudi Alliance
By Sinem Cengiz
• Drones Killing More Civilians
By Emran Feroz
• Sunni Blocs Oppose Legal Immunity for Popular Mobilization Forces
By Omar Sattar
• Iran and Daesh Are JASTA’s Only Beneficiaries
By Faisal J. Abbas
• Is Netanyahu Ready To Join Forces With Opposition Leader?
By Mazal Mualem
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Is Male Guardianship Over Women Supported By Law?
By Haya Al-Manee
Sep 30, 2016
Let us first agree on the fact that many Saudi laws treat women as if they are incompetent. If you disagree with me, then go and read these laws and see for yourself. The Basic Governance Law is the only one that puts women on equal footing with men and treats them just as competent as men without any discrimination.
It is funny that male minors become adults and are treated as such after they attain the age of 18 while women continue to be treated as incompetent no matter how old they become. That is why the guardianship system should be abolished and the above laws amended.
Princess Sarah Al-Faisal, Dr. Latifa Al-Shalan, myself and Sheikh Nasser Bin Dawood, who are all Shoura Council members, have called for amends to the Civil Status Law and for allowing women to get their own ID cards, regardless of whether they are widows, divorcees or married. After all, women are citizens and should be entitled to the rights granted to citizens. This is a basic right.
A group of Shoura Council members, including myself, have submitted a proposal to amend the law relating to issuing passports to women. In our proposal, we stated that women have the right to apply for and be issued with a passport without her male guardian’s consent. We emphasized that women are Saudi citizens and all citizens are entitled to a passport and should get one whenever they want to.
The proposal explained that this law, which regulates the process of issuing passports, does not mention anything that states a woman should not be allowed to travel without her male guardian’s consent. It only says that Saudi women who want to travel abroad should be allowed in line with the pertinent instructions. This clause is unclear and can be construed to mean social traditions and norms. As you probably know, traditions and norms are incompatible with and violate the legal text.
Therefore, the first thing we should do is to amend the laws that treat women as incompetent, give women their full legal rights and end the male control over women. All legal texts should be redrafted to reflect the fact that women are citizens and should be regarded as such in terms of rights and penalties. Strangely enough, a woman who commits a crime is sentenced without the presence of her male guardian but she needs her male guardian’s consent if she wants to travel abroad for higher studies. How paradoxical is that?
We hope that the pertinent authorities work together with the Shoura Council to amend the said laws in line with the Sharia, not in line with social traditions and norms.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/local-viewpoint/male-guardianship-women-supported-law/
----
New Impetus to Turkish-Saudi Alliance
By Sinem Cengiz
30 September 2016
The relationship between Turkey and Saudi Arabia has been limited since the establishment of relations due to different political considerations and Turkey’s security-oriented foreign policy toward the Middle East. However, the internal transformations in the two countries and the developments in regional and international level changed the course of their relations during the 2000s.
On the Turkish side, the coming to power of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2002 with a new discourse toward the Middle East has been important. On the Saudi side, the late King Abdullah’s accession to the Saudi throne in 2005 paved the way for the two countries to come closer. The official visits from both sides and several agreements signed between the two countries further developed the relations. The problematic issues in the Middle East, such as the Palestinian issue, Syrian conflict, Iranian nuclear threat, instability in Iraq and common security concerns pushed the two countries toward further cooperation. Thus, the emergence of new challenges in the region has contributed substantially to the start of a new era in Turkish-Saudi relations.
During the Arab uprisings, which changed the course of Middle Eastern history, Ankara and Riyadh, two regional heavyweights, managed to cooperate in certain fields in order to secure their own interests as well as to enhance their positions in the politically-fragile region.
Ankara and Riyadh increased their cooperation on Syria, in which both countries sought the fall of Bashar Assad. The ouster of Muhammad Mursi in Egypt through military intervention in 2013 led to a strain in Turkish-Saudi relations. However, that was short-lived and relations were soon back on track.
When King Salman became the Kingdom’s ruler, he reshuffled the priorities of Saudi Arabia’s foreign policies and began a real shift in evaluating Riyadh’s relations with the main powers in the region and Turkey was first priority on the list.
The recent exchange of visits from both sides can be considered as a significant indicator of the improving ties between two states. Particularly the ongoing visit of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif can be considered “highly significant and extremely timely.”
The crown prince, who arrived in Ankara on Thursday afternoon, was welcomed by Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim at an official ceremony. He came to Turkey with a full agenda for his two-day visit.
First, the crown prince is visiting Turkey for the first time since the bloody coup attempt against the Turkish government on July 15. His visit shows the supportive Saudi position concerning the coup attempt and this is highly praised and valued by Turkey.
Second, the crown prince’s meetings with Turkey’s top officials, particularly with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday, will be a good opportunity to share opinions on ways to foster regional stability and security. It is crucial as it will provide a chance for both sides to highlight once again their concerns with current developments in the region.
The visit will also be a chance for the two sides to lay the groundwork for strategic cooperation involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. One of the most important topics on the table will be the economy. In the meetings between the two sides, Turkey’s signing of the free trade agreements with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries is expected to be addressed. Needless to say, the crown prince will also meet leading Turkish businessmen to discuss ways of increasing economic relations and investment opportunities in Turkey. Currently, 700 Saudi companies operating in Turkey have more than $2 billion worth of incentives. In addition, Turkey hopes to announce new incentives that will encourage more Saudi and Gulf companies to invest in Turkey by the end of the year. The timing of the crown prince’s visit is also significant in one other aspect. At a time when Moody’s, the credit ratings agency, has downgraded Turkey’s sovereign credit rating, Gulf support to Turkey is appreciated. We take the message from this visit that Saudi Arabia has full faith in the Turkish economy regardless of negative ratings and looks forward to following the path it has adopted.
When looking at the visit’s timing and current developments in the region, beneficial outcomes are expected by both countries. It will be in the best interest of both Turkey and Saudi Arabia to carry their relations developed over the past decade to a new level amid the instability in the region and to shape their foreign policies according to their own best interests, while also considering many other areas of cooperation.
Source: arabnews.com/node/991566/columns
----
Drones Killing More Civilians
By Emran Feroz
September 30, 2016
It was not even clear at first that Mullah Mansour had been killed. While the Americans and the Afghan government in Kabul were sure they had gotten their man, many others demanded proof.
When Mohammad Azam started his shift on May 21, it was just another sunny morning in Taftan, a small desert town in Pakistan's Balochistan Province. Like taxi drivers around the world, he planned to spend this day waiting for customers, and navigating through traffic when he could find a fare. He had no idea it would be his last day alive.
By that evening, Azam's body had been found burned to death, barely identifiable. He had the bad luck of picking up the target of an American drone strike: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, who was then leader of the Afghan Taliban. And so Azam was killed like so many other people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. And unlike Mullah Mansour, Azam's name hardly registered in the first wave of international coverage of the strike.
It was not even clear at first that Mullah Mansour had been killed. While the Americans and the Afghan government in Kabul were sure they had gotten their man, many others demanded proof. At times, media outlets and government officials have claimed that a militant leader has been eliminated by a carefully executed drone strike, only to have him appear alive again.
In the case of Mullah Mansour, his identity was finally confirmed when Pakistani authorities matched the victim's DNA with one of the Taliban leader's relatives. And then the case was closed. Days later, an even more ruthless and radical leader stepped in to fill Mullah Mansour's shoes. The other victim of the strike, Azam, a taxi driver, was little more than an afterthought.
This didn't sit well with Mohammad Qasim, Azam's brother. "My brother was innocent," Qasim insisted to me when I spoke to him this summer. "We all are sure that he didn't know anything about his last passenger's identity. Like many other drone victims, Azam wasn't connected to any militant group."
The United States Department of Defense, for its part, says that, according to its intelligence, it "has assessed Mullah Mansour's driver to be a combatant," but has offered little else by way of explanation. But, as The Times and others have reported, the United States frequently treats any military-age male killed in a strike as a combatant.
According to Qasim, on the day of his death, Azam was informed that a local businessman was waiting for a cab. Mullah Mansour routinely traveled with a fake passport under a different name. Posing as a businessman, he often crossed international borders. After the strike, it became clear that the Taliban leader had visited different Arab countries several times in recent years. Mullah Mansour's last trip was reportedly to Iran, though Iranian authorities denied that he had entered the country at the time. Given all of the tricks and subterfuge Mullah Mansour used to conceal his identity, it is hard to imagine that a regular taxi driver could have discovered the terrifying truth about his passenger.
According to Qasim, his brother was the sole breadwinner for his wife and four young children. The month Azam was killed, Qasim filed what is known in Pakistan as a First Information Report at a local police station in Balochistan, initiating a criminal investigation into his murder. In the report, Qasim demanded justice and singled out the United States as the culprit in his brother's death.
The family is also pressing for a lawsuit against the American government. Qasim said he wanted the Pakistani and American governments to recognize his brother's innocence. He is also demanding financial compensation for his family, which now lacks a source of income.
Months later, Qasim and his family feel alone and powerless. "Nobody is interested in my brother's death," he told me. "Not a single politician expressed condolences."
Earlier this month, the American government agreed to pay more than $1 million to the family of Giovanni Lo Porto, an Italian aid worker who was killed by a drone strike while being held hostage by Al Qaeda in Pakistan in 2015. An American hostage, Warren Weinstein, was also killed in the strike, for which President Obama personally apologized.
Many, if not most, relatives of drone strike victims are simply too poor to generate the kind of political pressure that would lead to international recognition of their plight, and perhaps a chance at justice. Whether they are from Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan or Somalia, where the Obama administration's assassination program has claimed hundreds of lives, there are countless families like Azam's. They hail from remote areas, mostly totally unknown to people in the West, victims of a war they never started and invisible to the world as its casualties.
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a London-based organization that documents casualties in the United States-led drone war, in Pakistan alone, drone strikes from January 2009 to December 2015 have killed between 256 and 633 civilians. In Yemen, American drone strikes are believed to have killed more civilians in 2015 than Al Qaeda did. These realities are scarcely mentioned in Western media accounts of the United States' assassination program.
While it will never be known if Azam knew his last passenger's identity or not, there is copious evidence to suggest he was just a humble cabdriver doing his best to feed his family who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Drone strikes, especially in official noncombat zones like Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, are carried out in clear violation of international law and well-established human rights standards. But even if Azam knew Mullah Mansour, we should still ask ourselves if it was legitimate to kill him.
Source: khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/drones-killing-more-civilians
-----
Sunni Blocs Oppose Legal Immunity for Popular Mobilization Forces
By Omar Sattar
September 29, 2016
The Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) do not hold any legal status in Iraq, with the exception of the Council of Ministers’ decision July 25, which considers the PMU a force working in parallel with the counterterrorism department at the Ministry of Interior. This means that anti-PMU parties or individuals can still press charges against some PMU elements. Therefore, the Shiite National Iraqi Alliance has been seeking to pass a new law it calls “PMU legal immunity” before battles against the Islamic State (IS) come to an end.
The proposal was put forth by parliament members in the Security and Defense Committee along with former Justice Minister Hassan al-Shamari.
During a press conference Sept. 18, Shamari requested that the largely Shiite PMU “not engage in battles and fighting in IS-controlled cities until said law is passed,” warning against “possible accusations of breaches against them following the liberation of some cities from IS clutches by the same groups who demanded they intervene to expel the terrorist group.”
Iskandar Watout, deputy head of parliament’s Security and Defense Committee, told Al-Monitor, “About 70 parliamentarians have signed the draft bill on legal immunity for PMU elements, whereby they would be treated on a legal par with any soldier in the Iraqi army.”
He said, “This immunity would define the rights and obligations of the PMU members and would consider their participation in the fighting against IS as ‘legal and official.’”
Watout added, “The immunity law would also guarantee the financial and legal rights of the security forces elements in the Interior and Defense Ministries.”
As per Article 63 of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution, only members of parliament are granted diplomatic immunity, whereby they are entitled to express their views during parliamentary sessions without being subjected to litigation before courts or being apprehended.
Legally speaking, legal immunity means exempting certain individuals from certain obligation or liability, such as the application of general rules in judicial and criminal manners. Legal immunity is granted to parliamentarians at home and diplomatic figures during missions abroad. This means that such diplomatic figures would be exempted from the governing law in the state they are dispatched to in case of any criminal charges against them.
However, according to Haider Abdul Sahib, a member of parliament for the Rule of Law Coalition, the immunity law has its own legal justifications. Abdul Sahib told Al-Monitor, “PMU members need the immunity law in light of the delay in passing the law on preventing any possible litigation against them, as they ought to receive the same treatment as any member of the security institutions at the very least. This issue is the prerogative of parliament.”
“The security forces of the ministries of Interior and Defense do not represent themselves, but the ministry and the government. The PMU forces are elements that have volunteered to fight against IS without any financial and legal guarantees; hence, it falls upon the legislature to secure their legal rights,” he added.
In contrast, the parties opposing the draft bill to this effect believe it is anti-constitutional and a violation of the law. Hamid al-Mutlaq, a member of parliament for the Sunni Union of Iraqi Forces, is one of the advocates of this view. Mutlaq said that granting PMU forces and elements immunity would be a dangerous step “threatening the national security and [coexistence among Iraqis].”
“Legal immunity is not even granted to security forces in the police and the army, so how would it be granted to the PMU, especially with the large numbers of people affiliated [with] the group?” he said to Al-Monitor.
“We cannot deny that a lot of factions within the PMU have made sacrifices for the homeland, with many martyrs having died in liberating IS-controlled governorates. However, some of the members remain undisciplined and provoke matters and seek reprisals, violating human rights,” Mutlaq said.
He said, “All individuals should answer to the law, whether or not they belong to security institutions. If anything, a protocol or bylaws ought to be set to organize the work of the PMU, whereby they would be punished for any violations instead of resorting to an alien law, i.e., the immunity law for PMU.”
Many PMU members have recently been apprehended in Europe on terrorism charges, most recently in Austria, where the security forces on Sept. 20 arrested some elements belonging to the PMU-affiliated League of the Righteous on the grounds of being part of a terrorist group.
In this context, the immunity law seems more directed at protecting PMU elements abroad so that they will not be arrested outside Iraq.
The PMU members are practically part of the general command of the armed forces and therefore need a law to further legalize their status rather than an individual immunity law, observers say. This is especially true since no lawsuits have been brought against its members inside Iraq and it is unlikely that this will happen in the future.
The immunity draft bill could also be a response to the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq on Aug. 1 on what it called violations and breaches of the international human rights law and international humanitarian law on the part of Iraqi security forces and their affiliated forces, including the PMU and Peshmerga forces.
In any case, it is expected that a law regarding the PMU will pass, especially since a more powerful PMU — with its increased numbers and advanced weaponry — will emerge at the end of its fight against IS in Iraq. The pertinent question, however, is what form will the law take? Will it be a diplomatic immunity law that will be passed to the dismay of the opposing Sunni parties? Other question marks hover over this issue: Will the PMU be annexed to the Defense or Interior Ministries? Or could the PMU join the National Guard that possibly may be finally formed? All of these questions are likely to be answered following the end of the upcoming battle of Mosul, which will shape the country’s new phase after the city's liberation from the clutches of IS.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/legal-immunity-iraq-popular-mobilization-forces.html
----
Iran and Daesh Are JASTA’s Only Beneficiaries
By Faisal J. Abbas
30 September 2016
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter,” the great Winston Churchill once said. This statement has been proven yet again by the US Congress acting on behalf of the American people and overriding President Obama’s veto of JASTA.
However, while an educated voter would examine details prior to deciding how to vote, most of us are victims of self-serving politicians and behavior which may not serve the people’s interest, despite attractive and convincing names.
After all, how could anyone NOT support a bill which carries a “feel-good” name like the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA)? Or reject a bill marketed as a way to stand by the casualties of the atrocious Sept. 11 terror attacks?
Of course, this is not the first time US voters have been convinced to make decisions which were made to sound as one thing, but ended up being about something completely different.
Remember the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (Providing Appropriate Tools Required intercepting and obstructing Terrorism) Act of 2001? This cleverly branded bill got Americans to willingly allow US government agencies to intercept their communications and share their data — all without any legal barriers.
What did it end up doing? One has only to read the revelations made available by famous NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in order to understand how the act ended up being abused and infringing on the privacy of many innocent Americans.
The Masses Are Ignorant
But we can’t blame the masses, as they — perhaps since the times of the Romans — have always been categorized as ignorant, particularly by slick politicians with their own interests foremost.
Indeed, JASTA is the result of a long-lasting Arab and Muslim failure to effectively lobby inside the US. Yes, we — collectively — have failed to understand that facts — such as the famous and overhyped “28 pages” which were recently declassified and vindicated Saudi Arabia — DO NOT usually speak for themselves, and require efforts to spread them and counter popular narratives which are usually inaccurate due to ignorance or influence by parties who have opposing agendas.
For too long, regional leaders have relied on their personal relations for serving presidents and elected officials to foster relations, forgetting that these leaders can only act within the jurisdiction granted by their voters. This is why initiatives such as the recently announced Washington-based Saudi Arabian Public Relations Affairs Committee (SAPRAC) are crucial; unfortunately it arrived too late and is still too young to have been able to educate and influence the US public.
What is worth noting here is that President Obama certainly did not oppose JASTA because of a positive personal relationship with Saudi Arabia, but due to his genuine belief that the controversial bill actually damages American interests.
After all, anyone who has been closely following US-Saudi relations over the past eight years knows that they have often been unpleasant, with many serious disagreements on a number of serious fronts.
Yet, President Obama — with his access to confidential security files — knows far too well what Riyadh brings to the table in terms of security cooperation, and how dangerous the world would have been had it not been for the efforts it has made in the fight against global terrorism. He is also aware of the huge — local and global — financial implications JASTA might have if the Saudis felt their investments and interests were at risk.
Let us also not forget the fact that it sets an alarming precedent and opens the door for many Arab and Muslim countries to do the same against the US itself.
Most importantly, by targeting a country which is committed to the stability of the region and the fight against terrorism, JASTA only empowers the real “bad guys,” namely Daesh and Iran which, according NOT to Saudi but to US government reports, has harboured Al-Qaeda leaders and facilities and financed terrorist activities throughout the region.
Source: arabnews.com/node/991571/columns
----
Is Netanyahu Ready To Join Forces With Opposition Leader?
By Mazal Mualem
September 29, 2016
The secret contacts of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with opposition chairman Isaac Herzog on his joining the government with his Zionist Camp Knesset faction began immediately following the last elections in March 2015, and have been going on since. Both sides are interested. Netanyahu has been a caretaker foreign minister, saving the job for Herzog. Nonetheless, time after time these contacts end in bitter disappointment for Herzog, who is careful to deny their existence. The most recent report emerged last month, when Channel 2 disclosed that a secret meeting had taken place between the two men at Netanyahu’s private residence in Caesarea. That reported meeting was also denied, but Herzog seems to have finally understood that the window of opportunity for joining the Netanyahu government is gradually closing.
On Sept. 27, a day after his return from the United States, Netanyahu convened a meeting of the governing coalition’s Knesset factions to deliver routine updates and coordinate positions among the six parties on various issues ahead of the looming Knesset budget votes. Present were the chairman of the Kulanu Party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon; Shas Party chairman, Interior Minister Aryeh Deri; and Yahadut HaTorah Party chairman, Health Minister Yaakov Litzman. The heads of Netanyahu’s two other government partners — Yisrael Beitenu Party chairman, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman, and HaBayit HaYehudi Party chairman, Education Minister Naftali Bennett, were absent.
A senior political source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that at one point, Litzman suddenly turned to Netanyahu and asked, “Why aren’t you updating us about talk of a unity government?” Netanyahu responded, “There’s nothing new, but I make no secret of the fact that I want them to join the government.” Litzman was insistent. “Are you sure?” And Netanyahu, rather than move on to the next topic, answered, “Yes, I’m sure, but since you’ve already asked, do you have any objections to the Zionist Camp joining the coalition?” He then went on to ask each of those present whether they would be willing to accept Herzog. All answered in the affirmative.
This might have been viewed as a spontaneous exchange, were it not for the fact that anyone who knows the parties involved, especially Netanyahu himself, understands that there was nothing random in such a conversation between him and the heads of the coalition factions. One cannot completely rule out that Litzman’s question was invited by Netanyahu, as the Zionist Camp suspects. Netanyahu is a crafty old hand at repulsing questions he doesn’t like. In this case, not only did he not ignore Litzman, but he expanded on his question, creating the sense that things were happening behind the scenes. This all took place in the absence of the government’s two right-wing standard bearers: Liberman and Bennett, with the latter possibly having to pay the price and finding himself on the opposition benches if Herzog joins Netanyahu.
Growing American pressure for a resumption of the diplomatic process before US President Barack Obama leaves office makes Herzog even more attractive to the prime minister. Netanyahu does not know for sure how far Obama will go in his remaining months in office. As Ben Caspit wrote for Al-Monitor Sept. 26 regarding Netanyahu’s nightmare scenario, the prime minister fears that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the Democratic presidential candidate will give Obama a green light to go all the way during the transition period until she is sworn into office and to push through a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state. This is a very disturbing scenario for Netanyahu. Inviting Herzog to join the government and appointing him foreign minister — in charge of diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinians — could turn things around. Herzog and Netanyahu have already spoken privately about a diplomatic move in the region. Herzog got the impression that Netanyahu understands the importance of the issue.
In his two previous governments, Netanyahu signed up ahead of time a centre-left party to join his right-leaning government to soften American attitudes toward him on the Palestinian issue. In 2009, it was former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party; in 2013, there were Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, of the Kadima and Yesh Atid parties. A veteran Netanyahu associate told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “Netanyahu believed at the time, and does now too, that it is always good to have in his government a centre-left party as a type of diplomatic shield. That’s why he hasn’t given up on Herzog. Who knows, maybe something will come together around Obama’s participation in the funeral” of President Shimon Peres.
Senior Likud officials are also concerned by the strong surge of Lapid and his Yesh Atid Party in the polls. According to them, assuming the position of foreign minister would improve Herzog’s public image by putting him at the forefront of Israel’s diplomacy as he tries to convene a regional peace conference. They hope that by doing so, the head of the Zionist Camp would overshadow Lapid’s self-appointed international diplomatic missions and restore to his party at least some of the votes it has lost to Yesh Atid. This, too, is part of Netanyahu’s considerations, with Lapid currently presented in the polls as Netanyahu’s major rival for premiership.
Another element making the current political manoeuvring Herzog’s almost final opportunity are his Labour Party primaries (Labour is the major partner within the Zionist Camp) set for July 2017, which leave him little time to carry out this dramatic move.
The most interesting question being asked in the political arena is whether — unlike previous opportunities — Herzog is near to realizing his dream of being appointed the foreign minister of the State of Israel. If there has, indeed, been progress behind the scenes, it will have to turn into something tangible pretty soon. At the end of October, once the Jewish High Holidays are over, the Knesset comes back from its summer break. The winter session starts with presentation of the state budget. The Zionist Camp, which is the main opposition party, has already put together an aggressive campaign against the budget.
This time, too, Herzog denied the resumption of his talks with Netanyahu, but his party has found out the hard way that his denials have nothing to do with his efforts to join the Netanyahu government. His decline in the polls (his party would get 12-13 Knesset seats as opposed to 24 it now has) — and the fact that within less than a year he will have to run once again for the party leadership — makes him highly suspect: In one fell swoop he can exchange his battle for political survival with a term as foreign minister and make himself relevant anew. Will he manage to push through the party institutions a motion of approval for joining the government?
According to the assessment of senior Labor officials close to Herzog, he will. But the price could be an internal split: Some of Labor’s Knesset members will follow him, while the rest conduct themselves as self-appointed backbenchers.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/isaac-herzog-benjamin-netanyahu-coalition-government-unity.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/is-male-guardianship-women-supported/d/108716