image source, Reuters
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
We begin our tour of newspapers from the British Guardian, which discussed the most important reasons behind the loss of the ruling party in Turkey, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in the local elections, and the factors that helped the opposition achieve this victory.
The newspaper said that less than a year ago, the Turkish president and his party were able to win the presidential elections despite the deteriorating economic conditions and popular dissatisfaction with the Turkish government’s response to the worst earthquake in several decades, which caused massive human and material losses.
“It is no wonder, then, that the stunning, unexpected turn – in the direction of the local elections in the opposite direction – led to wild celebrations until the early hours of the morning. In Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city, the incumbent mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu, defeated the candidate of Erdogan’s party. He also achieved The Republican People’s Party, led by Imamoglu, won a landslide victory over the AKP candidates in other major cities, as the opposition party won an overwhelming majority in the capital, Ankara, and achieved an easy victory in Izmir. What is even more surprising is that the CHP was able to achieve some victories in the towns. And the conservative villages that are considered strongholds for Erdogan’s supporters in Anatolia and the Black Sea region.”
The Guardian noted that although Erdogan and his party have tightened their grip on the state and its institutions for more than twenty years, it is still too early to consider these results as a radical shift in the political scene in Turkey. However, the British newspaper suggested that the opposition’s victory calls for widespread optimism among secular and liberal voters in Türkiye.
The Guardian editorial also saw that, amid “inflation rising to 70 percent, voter dissatisfaction with very high interest rates, and playing on the country’s Islamic identity with regard to issues such as LGBT rights, these may not be the appropriate political methods for the next stage,” after the Erdogan regime exploited them for many years. In managing the political scene.
In addition to these factors, which were likely behind the defeat of the Justice and Development Party in the Turkish local elections, is the austerity program that Erdogan began implementing immediately after his re-election as president of the country, which, despite its success in appeasing Western markets, angered many in the voting community that supports Erdogan.
The distinctive charismatic personality of Imamoglu, who won the local elections in Ankara at the expense of the Justice and Development candidate, makes him an opposition leader and a more powerful competitor to the Turkish president in the coming period compared to the leaders the opposition has produced in the recent period.
Did Netanyahu lose all the international and local support he received since the beginning of the war?
image source, Reuters
Netanyahu, despite continuing his war on Gaza, was unable to free the Israeli hostages
The Independent newspaper discussed in its editorial the remaining support papers in the hands of the Israeli Prime Minister, which he can use in the current conflict in the Gaza Strip.
The British newspaper reported that Israel, led by Netanyahu, gained the sympathy and support of the entire world after the bloody attack on Israel, which claimed the lives of about 1,200 people and was the spark that sparked the war on Gaza in response to what happened on the seventh of last October. She confirmed that the Israeli Prime Minister, despite widespread criticism of the way he managed the war on Gaza and the demonstrations that took place in Tel Aviv demanding his dismissal, received all forms of support even from his strongest rival for power, Benny Gantz, who joined the war government in response to Netanyahu’s call.
The newspaper said that opinion polls conducted recently indicated that there is “a great deal of despair about the way the war is being managed, in addition to the erosion of the popularity of the country’s prime minister,” who is responsible for managing the scene since the “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack.
She added that the war in Gaza left about “32,000 Palestinians dead and 74,000 others injured – a large number of them women and children – according to the Hamas Ministry of Health in Gaza. In addition, the war destabilized the region and the security of Israel and led to Israel suffering from isolation from society.” International”.
Despite the continuation of his war on Gaza, Netanyahu was unable to free the Israeli hostages, many of whom are still being held in Gaza and are at risk of being killed – whether as a result of the Israeli bombing of the Strip or at the hands of their captors, and a number of them were killed by gunfire from forces that were trying to free them. The war led by Netanyahu also caused the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians, hundreds of thousands of them suffered from famine, tens of thousands of children lost their parents, and most hospitals turned into rubble, according to The Independent.
The newspaper points out that all of this was in exchange for eliminating a very small number of Hamas leaders, in addition to creating a new generation of Palestinians “who have experienced the injustice in Gaza and are ready to continue the cycle of violence in the future.”
The Independent also believes that “it is time for the people of Israel to know that Netanyahu is bringing destruction to their country, and that there are a large number of leaders and leaders of Western countries who are speaking openly about discussing reducing their support for Israel.”
Has the world forgotten Sudan?
image source, EPA
The civil war in Sudan has displaced millions
We turn to Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, which published an article by Dr. Amr Hamzawy, professor of political science, in which he asked about the secret of the United States ignoring what is happening in Sudan and the suffering of its people from a civil war that led to the displacement of millions of them outside the country while those remaining in the country remained at risk of war. And infection with epidemics, and damage from environmental destruction, according to the writer.
While Hamzawi was trying to find answers to his questions throughout the article, he suggested that there were “fluctuations in American policy towards the Middle East over the past two decades and their repercussions on what the great powers care about and translate into policies and practices on the ground.”
The political science professor said, “The United States’ failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to American self-sufficiency in terms of energy resources, resulted in the crystallization of a consensus within the ruling elite in Washington, both its Democratic and Republican sides, towards gradually reducing the military presence and political investment in a constantly inflamed region.” .
He added that among the reasons for the decline of American interest in Sudan was what China accepted, motivated by its large and growing demand for energy imports, by developing close trade and economic relations and strategic partnerships with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa in a way that opened wide doors for regional influence to Beijing. These were also the factors of decline. The gradual American role, the power vacuums resulting from it, and the fracturing of national state institutions in Syria, Libya, and Sudan play a major role in the neglect of Sudanese affairs by Washington.
He also pointed out that Russia’s return to the region with a strong influence through intervention in Syria at the expense of the decline of the American role – after the Kuwait liberation war in 1999 and the attacks of September 11, 2001 – and the subsequent American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are the two wars that caused… Serious damage to the image of the United States before the Arab and Islamic world.
He pointed out that the United States has set strategic goals for its presence – in all its forms – in the region that are consistent with the direction determined by the compass of American interests and policies in the Middle East. These goals were summarized by Hamzawi, saying, “1) Protecting international shipping lines to ensure the necessary energy supplies for the global economy and trade. 2) Combating terrorism and preventing the return of ISIS gangs and their followers to the voids of state and coercive power present in Syria, Iraq and other locations, 3) Containing the growing regional influence of Iran and its proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and confronting the threats they pose to stability and security throughout the region, 4) Ensuring Israel’s security and normalization Relations between it and its neighbors in the Arab region.
The writer believes that the United States’ ignoring of the tragic situation in Sudan is coupled with the international community’s ignoring of this Arab country torn apart by civil war at the diplomatic and legal levels, stressing that there is an absence of pressure from the international community on the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces in order to end the conflict, in addition to the absence of reports that It documents the crimes and violations that Sudanese civilians face at the hands of the two warring factions.
ظهرت في الأصل على www.bbc.com