Electronic Voting in Jordan?

     

     Electronic voting (e-voting) in parliament is a transparent voting mechanism that allows for accurate counts of votes and monitoring of deputies´ voting behaviour. However, not all parliaments have introduced such a modality in their voting sessions. Jordan is one of the countries that have considered this voting modality but has shied away from implementation. The question is why?

Background

E-voting was introduced in the Jordanian House of Representative (HoR) in 2006 with the support and funding of USAID. The system per se was installed in 2004, but was non-operational owing to the lack of reference in the HoR’s Internal By-law (No. 800 of the year 1996) to e-voting as a voting modality. The By-law was modified in 2006 under the tenancy of HoR Speaker Abdel Hadi Al Majli, whereby reference was made to using ‘modern technical means’ for voting, with the exception of voting on issues related to the Constitution, or granting confidence to ministries and ministers (Article 77 (a)(b))[1]. According to a news article published in Al Dustur[2], the modification of Article 77 to make reference to using technical means for voting was attributed to fears that USAID would withdraw its funding to the system unless a provision was introduced to allow for e-voting.

The use of e-voting was indeed demanded by MPs; prior to adopting the 2016 General Budget, 92 MPs circulated a memo that demanded that votes be cast through e-voting – a request that was rejected by the HoR’s Speaker, who attributed his decision to technical malfunctions[3]. According to a news article[4], Prime Minister Abdullah Al Nsur was seriously concerned about using e-voting, whereby the government contacted several MPs in order to withdraw their support to the aforementioned memo. Such resistance to e-voting - according to the same news article - was due to the fact that this modality allows for accurate counting of the votes in controversial bills, such as the Budget.  The adoption of the 2017 General Budget was also made voting through a show of hands, which led to a number of MPs criticising this modality instead of using e-voting. The incumbent Speaker of the HoR, Atef Al Tarawneh, snubbed the complaints and indicated that the voting modality rested upon the Speaker’s discretion[5]. The 2018 General Budget was also adopted by a show of hands, which was widely criticised by RASED[6], who indicated that this modality did not allow observers to accurately identify the MPs who voted for or against the two laws[7]. In spite of allowing the media and observers to attend the voting session, the quick and generally uncontested count of hands does not facilitate the identification of the voting behaviour of MPs on key issues. It must be noted that the most recent vote on the 2018 Budget was immensely controversial, considering that it introduced price hikes on various sectors. The quick deliberations and the choice of voting through a show of hands (that is subject to manipulation) might explain the choice of words of the Islamic Action Front, who described the process as being ‘theatrical’.

It is important to underline that the first bylaw was promulgated in 1952 (No.831, Official Gazette No. 1105) and not 1956 as the law firm indicated. The by-law stipulated in Article 47(a) that voting on bills related to the Constitution or granting confidence to ministers/ministries shall be by voice vote with name mentioning/calling. Article 47(b) indicated that other bills shall be voted on by show of hands or secret voting. The by-law was amended 1957, whereby Article 77 was modified to make reference to documenting decisions and deliberations.

No modification was introduced to the by-law since then, but a new By-law was issued in 1996 (No. 800) in which reference to secret voting was deleted, and parliamentarians’ vote was limited to voice votes (with mention of names) for issues related to the Constitution and granting confidence to ministers and ministries, and through the show of hands for other issues. The repetition of the vote upon the request of MPs was done through show hands, or rising votes, or voice votes with mentioning of names.

The 1996 By-law was amended in 2000 (No.21) whereby the modifications introduced were related to the bills that are sent back from the Senate. It was modified again in 2006 (No. 777) whereby Article 77(b) included the employment of technical means as another voting modality. Finally, a new By-law was issued in 2013 (No.801) and amended in 2014 (No.802), the latter having modified 23 articles/paragraphs in total, but none was related to voting issues.

The current By-law (No.801 of 2013 and its modification No. 802 of 2014) maintained technical means as a voting mechanism. Indeed, neither procedural nor administrative clarifications were added to the concept of ‘technical means’, whether in the 1996 version or the current version of the By-law. However, the other three voting modalities (voice voting, rising vote, or hand show) are neither clarified nor detailed in the By-law. Therefore, neither the mechanism of e-voting per se should be challenged, nor the issue of liability, based on extrapolation. Any vote however could be challenged by MPs according to Article 88 (c), irrespective of the modality.

It must be clarified that only 3 By-laws were issued since 1952 (1952, 1996, and 2013 which were modified 4 times in 1957, 2000, 2006, and 2014) -  a figure that is modest in comparison to other laws and by-laws. It could be assumed that MPs are content with the current version, or that any attempts to modify the by-law were thwarted (Article 179 of the By-law stipulates that the by-law’s articles could be modified based on a proposal made by 10 MPs at least, which should be shared with the Parliament. Upon the latter’s approval, the proposal is sent to the Legal Committee, which must study the proposal and subsequently submit its recommendations to the Parliament). If there are forces from within the Parliament/external influential forces that oppose the By-law’s modification, including regarding e-voting, the amendment of the By-law would likely not take place.

Controversy of e-voting

Based on extra-official conversations, e-voting is resisted owing to the following factors:

·         Voting by show of hands (or other traditional means, such as by rising vote) would allow for manipulation of the vote when controversial bills are the subject of the vote. Meanwhile, e-voting is accurate and does not allow for miscounts. It has been indicated that it has become common practice to count the votes, announce the results, and immediately adjourn the session to avoid challenges to the vote or discussions.

·         E-voting would imply that the names of the MPs who voted for or against certain controversial bills would be displayed on screens - which would allow observers and the media to share this information and relay it to the public as official and accurate data. Meanwhile, the current practice of hand show leaves room for speculation and denial regarding the voting behavior of certain MPs.

·         It must be underlined that according to sources, MPs are subject to pressure from a number of institutions, including the Intelligence Agency, whereby they are directed to give either a positive or negative vote, irrespective of their actual positons and beliefs. Therefore, a show of hands will protect MPs from reprisal from constituents, while abiding by the instructions received from intelligence.

How can e-voting be introduced?

Efforts have been made by national forces and international actors to introduce e-voting and change the bylaw to render e-voting as the standard voting mechanism. However, and owing to the considerations mentioned above, other solutions can be explored.

Instead of requesting the modification of the By-law to render e-voting as the standard voting modality, the HoR could be asked to commit to using the e-voting system an x number of times. This could guarantee that more bills are voted on through the electronic system, thus enhancing transparency, and the HoR would be able to pass certain bills through traditional means when deemed necessary. The employment of e-voting would be hailed by observers, the media, and influential NGOs, which would consequently likely lead to demands (from observers/media/the public/and even MPs) that more bills be adopted through e-voting. The number of bills passed in that modality might increase with time, without having pressured the HoR to use e-voting solely, or having imposed restrictions to its practice. Furthermore, there would be no need for lengthy legislative procedures related to the modification of the By-law, thus ensuring swift implementation.

Another proposal is to modify Article 88(b) to read: ‘Expect for the two cases provided for in paragraph (a) of this article, a vote be taken by show of hands, by rising vote, or by use of technical means as decided by the Speaker, with preference being given to technical means.

In this scenario, the HoR would not be obliged to use e-voting as the default voting mechanism, but it would acknowledge the preference to such a modality. However, the proposed modification would not guarantee the employment of e-voting, or legally oblige the HoR’s Speaker to use the system.

One other option is to explore technical solutions that would allow for revealing results on the display screens instead of the names of MPs. Advantages of this proposal are:

·        The accuracy of the vote would be ensured.

·        The use of the system might not be resisted, considering that MPs would not have their names revealed on screens, although the names would be recorded digitally for archiving and revision by the HoR/government.

However, observers will not be able to monitor and report on MPs’ voting behaviour.

In conclusion, and based on the observations and comments made by different actors, it is unlikely that the HoR would agree to modifying the By-law in order to render e-voting as the sole voting mechanism. Instead, it would be advised to consider options that would render e-voting as the preferred voting modality, albeit not the only voting modality. In short, it would be important to reach a compromise that would encourage and commit the HoR to use e-voting as much as possible, whilst also ensuring that the HoR has room to employ the traditional voting means when necessary. Whether this solution requires legislative revision or not would depend on the solution that is accepted by all parties concerned.

---

[1] Article published in Al Dustur on 22 November 2006

^[2] Article published in Al Dustur on 28 March 2006

[3] Article published in Al Ghad on 15 January 2016

[4] Article published in Al Alam Al Yawm on 13 January 2016

^[5] Article published in JordanZad on 19 January 2017

[6] RASED is an NGO that monitors elections and parliamentary performance.

[7] Article published in Al Ghad on 5 January 2018

Au Revoir Charlevoix

    The Charlevoix G7 Summit (June 8–9, 2018) Communique started off with a poetic confirmation to the ‘shared values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and commitment to promote a rules-based international order’. The Communique laid out a number of commitments, grouped under common headings of investing in growth, preparing for jobs of the future, advancing gender equality, building a more peaceful and secure world, and working together on climate change. Point 13 of the aforementioned document indicates that the G7 elite club is committed to ‘responding to foreign actors who seek to undermine our democratic societies and institutions, our electoral processes, our sovereignty and our security as outlined in the Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats’.

What is the Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats? Well, it is yet another commitment of the Leaders of the G7 to respond to foreign threats in all possible means. These benevolent leaders also commit to ‘ensure a high level of transparency around sources of funding for political parties and all types of political advertising, especially during election campaigns’.

Interesting.

Did Trump forget to throw a tantrum over this? Were the Communique’s darters unaware of the USA´s membership in the G7 club? Do politicians think we are stupid?

Essentially, the G7 group is indirectly criticising illegal funding of parties and meddling in elections. Now this is a direct faux pas as far as Washington´s foreign policy is concerned. The USA has intervened in multiple election campaigns for decades, and has directly toppled regimes – or aided in doing so.

In an article Published 18 February 2018 in telesurtv, a former Central Bureau of Investigation, CIA, operative reportedly indicated that the USA has been meddling in the elections and internal political affairs of other countries since 1947, and that the CIA intends to keep doing so. Allegedly, the USA has used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners, King George’s cavalry, and planted false information in foreign newspapers. Indeed, the US has long illegitimately intervened in numerous foreign elections, trying to tilt outcomes in favour of candidates Washington preferred during the Cold War. This practice lived on, albeit with an enhanced undercover, Cold War or not. An article published in the Guardian on 5 January 2017, indicates that the US is a world leader in the field of intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. According to research by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University, there were more than 80 instances between 1946 and 2000 of intervention in elections, two thirds of which are covert.

Washington always has a valid argument at hand to be used when intervening in free elections: No, Hamas are terrorists, they must not rule, for they will destabilise the region; no, we do not want an Iranian ally as prime minister in Iraq, for this will destabilise the region; no, the Muslim Brotherhood Organisation is a terrorist grouping of fundamentalists who must not rule Egypt, for they will destabilise the region; and no, Hezbollah should not gain further powers in Lebanon, for they are Satan´s ally, and they will destabilise the region.

It appears that drafting communiques and communication pieces has ceased to be a practice of translating beliefs into commitments. It has become ´the art of wording ideals and utopian notions using political, empty lexicology’. Whether the G6 cannot control the actions of the odd member out in this regard is not the issue at hand – what is arguable is pressing on with a communique that includes blatant lies. If readers are to be treated with a shred of respect, perhaps the wording of the Charlevoix Commitment should be ‘we will try ensure a high level of transparency around sources of funding for political parties and all types of political advertising, especially during election campaigns, and appoint a watchdog on US electoral meddling as we are on it’.

Trump already stormed out of the meeting…if this will be the trend, then perhaps a pinch of sincerity won’t kill anyone.

Why Paraguay

The Arab League has just cut of ties with Guatemala over the latter’s decision to hand over the strings to Washington and play good by moving its embassy to Jerusalem. 

To add insult to injury, the move was made amid protests in the occupied Palestinian territories in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Nakba, and the subsequent shooting and killing of dozens of Palestinian protesting in the Gaza Strip. 

To add further insult, Paraguay followed suit.

The decision to enrage the international community at large and risk severing ties with Arab and Muslim nations is likely attributed to the art of cajolement. Praise Washington and Tel Aviv for their efforts to establish peace and justice, and support such rhetoric with tactless actions. In short, to stay in America’s good books, kiss up to Israel on diplomatic and economic levels.  

Jimmy Morales, Guatemala’s President, said his country was sending a message of "love, peace and fraternity" to Israel on the occasion of recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Paraguayan President Horacio Cartes praised his country´s decision at the inauguration ceremony as "A historic day that strengthens ties between Paraguay and Israel".

Since everyone is being poetic about it, so can we.

Little Morales and Cartes said one day

Let´s go out together my friend and play

However they were scared of the bully at bay

Who has never had a sensible thing to say

Plus there is his little brother Shabtai

Who is always part of every fray

So they thought of a plan to sway

And make them both happy in May

They moved their toys across the hay

And built play castles from drenched clay

We did it! echoed their shameless bray

And a star to our heads the bullies will inlay

When those Arabs come our way

We can change our minds, if they have more to pay

Patriotic Fallacies and Slitting Wrists

An article published in Medium on 14 May entitled '6 Things not to say to Circassians on  21 May' provokes a comeback answer to each of the 6 taboos. The author might as well have invited readers to dissect and critique each nationalism-drenched word included in the 6 bullet points. On the occasion of commemorating the Circassian genocide and exodus  - Circassian Day of Mourning  - on 21 May, a polite yet naïve request came in by a Circassian-history-revival activist in the form of do nots.  The author argued that the following statements not only infuriate fellow Circassians, but are also void of precision, morality, and empathy.

I beg to differ.

First, the 6 commandment-nots…the 6 not-to-say-phrases.   

1. I think it’s time to get over it.
2. 1763–1864? Isn’t that ages ago?
3. There are other issues in the world.
4. You should just be proud of your current citizenship/country of residence.
5. Isn’t this too much nationalism?
6.  How is what you are doing going to make any difference?

According to the writer, it would be a mistake to forget the genocide, whereby the perils of such an act are equated with the consequences of forgetting the Palestinian Nakba. The deportation is not that far past in history, and no, nationalism is not being accentuated by the continuous glorification of heritage.

It is hard for any observer to sympathise with the romantically-saturated rhetoric that serves little purpose, especially amidst current events in the very region where most Circassians live. To equate the injustice, infliction of suffering, and substantial ordeal of Palestinians with that of present Circassian diaspora is simply insulting. Circassian communities are well respected and integrated in each hosting nation – nations that must have become the homes of the Caucasian immigrants by now.  Not letting go of the past is exactly what has caused such injustice in Palestine, where the atrocities borne by Jews on the hands of European regimes in the 20th century continues to justify barbarities in the 21st.  Insisting on belonging to a genetic family tree instead of integrating into a community forest will not right the wrongs and will not change history. Rights will not be restored by a continuous reminder of a tragedy that must be forgotten in order to move on.

Yes, it is time to get over it. Yes, it is past history and no sentimental value could be rationally attached to a non-existing cause. And yes, there are more important issues in the world, notably one in the immediate vicinity. Belonging and allegiance to fellow citizens indeed carries more value than centuries-old ancestral ties, and yes too much nationalism is dangerous and has proven to be so. And no added-value is attached to lamenting the past and passing on memories, instead of purpose.

Keeping tradition alive is commendable and contributes to cultural richness. However, when historic preservation carries subtle racist tendencies that aim at guaranteeing membership to a club privée of the ousted and wronged, self-inflicted alienation is almost ensured.  Loving one´s nation – may it be confined to national boundaries or extended to a common past – should not be unconditional. When loving thy people comes at a high cost of prioritising race over humanity, romance over reason, tradition over virtue, and pride over empathy, it stops being love, and turns into obsession.

Too much love can kill you indeed. In fact, and in an analogy that was used perfectly by one of the most fatally attractive minds, love can become an obsession that slits wrists.

With Arms Wide Open

 

  The final results of Iraqi parliamentary elections are expected today. Again, the timing is perfect for reaching a consensual arrangement between political leaders over the governance of sectarian-torn Iraq. The current Prime Minister Haidar Al Abadi has received a substantial setback with his bloc´s trailing in third place after Muqtada Al Sader´s Saeroun list and Hadi Al Amiri´s Fatah list. Now, Iraq might see the formation of a government that is led by a Shiite force linked with an anti-US AND anti-Iran controversial figure. Al Sader might be positioned to rule from the back scenes and bring peace to a country that has been ruined by invented religious and ethnic divisions.

Years of rebellion have led the young cleric to reach a stage of maturity and stability in his political and ideological discourses. Once a founder of a militia that fought off the US invasion, and a close ally to Tehran´s political elite, Al Sadr had metamorphosed into a nationalist leader who opted for joining hands with secular groups - including the Iraqi Communist party - in the elections. Snubbing Iran, the young political leader has taken a new route towards Iraqi nationalism. Whether this was a political stunt to prove to the Iraqi public that he carries no Shiite-exclusive agenda or a catch all electoral strategy it remains to be seen. However, both the US and Iran will now be forced to support their proxies through their art of clandestine intervention in order to ensure that whoever gets to lead Iraq must be an ally, not a foe. In other words, anyone is fine by both camps as look as he takes sides and sidelines nationalist interests for the benefit of Iranian and American patrons. After all, the US just pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran and will ensure that Iraq remains a battle ground in its war with Tehran. Iran´s leadership will not let the opportunity of using Iraq again in its confrontation with Washington; fangs and talons will emerge, and Iraq will curse the day it saw democracy.

A figure such Al Sader  - albeit all its controversy - might remind the Iraqis and the region at large that the years of using Arab nations as proxies for international confrontations is over. Prioritising the interests and concerns of citizens  - irrespective of their ethnicity or religious affiliation  - should be the guiding force behind forming a government in Baghdad. If Al Sader can bring peace to Iraq, then he should be received with Sader Rahib (arms wide open).   

Arab nationalism has died with the death of Saddam Hussein´s Baath (resurrection) party in Iraq; the revival of the resurrection party will require resuscitation efforts from the Iraqi people who must join breaths and hands to place their interests as a nation before any other consideration. Slogans of Arab unity and defence against external agendas might have been a rhetoric that was been murdered and buried deep...exhuming the remains of these calls does not seem such a bad idea at the moment. 

Stuck in the Middle With You*

A Saudi jpournalist published on his personal Twitter account last week an insanely provocative phrase that stated: 'If Israel attacked Iran and war erupted between the two countries, then I would support Israel mindfully and heart-fully, considering that our primary enemy is Iran and not Israel. Arabs of the north must know that'.

Three interesting words were employed by the Saudi journalist in his insightful tweet: mental, emotional, and primary. Let us start with mental and emotional capacities first before moving to the equally astute observation regarding the prioritisation of enemies.

Unlike social relations that are formed and broken upon the discretion and judgement of individuals who enjoy full liberty in managing their personal affairs, relations between nations are not. Whilst laws that regulate social relations could be manipulated to one´s own benefit based on his/her whims, laws that govern diplomatic relations are vigorously guarded to ensure the preservation of national interest. Such laws are not solely formulated in legislative forums, but have been preceded by natural laws that are have are innate in modern systems, may they be political or social.

The Saudi journalist suggested in his tweet that from a rational perspective (mindfully) and based on his sentiments (heart-fully), he would stand by Israel should a war break off between Tel Aviv (Jerusalem to the liking of the journalist) and Tehran. He justified his position on both reason and sentiment. It is the same rhetoric that has been employed across time and the perfect excuse to turn a blind eye towards the laws that govern our being, including those derived from morals, religion, history, and constitutions. In the eighteenth century Charles de Montesquieu beautifully portrayed human behaviour and how it should be reined:

Man, as a physical being, is like other bodies governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his own instituting. He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and subject, like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error: even his imperfect knowledge he loses; and as a sensible creature, he is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion. Such a being is liable every moment to forget himself; philosophy has provided against this by the laws of morality. Formed to live in society, he might forget his fellow-creatures; legislators have therefore by political and civil laws confined him to his duty (The Spirit of Laws).

The impetuous passions of our fellow journalist have been heated up with regional events that include Iran´s dominance expansion with Hezbollah´s victory in Lebanese parliamentary elections, Shiite victory in Iraqi parliamentary elections, Iran´s clandestine nuclear programme that was unravelled recently by Israel, the Israeli attack on Iranian interests in Syria, and Europe´s hesitation to support the US´s withdrawal from the nuclear accords with Iran on 8 May.  To face the perils of Persian further empowerment, the journalist tossed religion, morals, and laws into the bin of ´you do not serve me at the moment´, and attempted to stir impulsive, manipulative, and self-serving emotions. Such emotions precisely contradict the journalist’s punchline in his intelligent tweet: our primary enemy is Iran, not Israel. If he is suggesting that Israel ranks second on the enemy list, why would he ´mindfully and heart-fully´ support his second enemy? Irrespective of the reader´s stance regarding the Iranian-Arab and Arab-Israeli drama, it makes little sense to support a historic enemy (to respect the journalist´s use of words and rhetoric albeit wrongfully). And why would such calculated support be ceded with both passion and reason? Importantly, how did he expect that ‘Arabs from the north´ would justify the support to Israel - the secondary threat - in a hypothetical war with Iran - the primary source of danger? In what way did he expect that reason and emotions guide the Arab nation in justifying take sides in a war between common 'enemies'? When will respect to laws be the sole guide to a nation´s affairs? Why did the journalist make no reference to the importance of respecting the cultural and historic sensitivities that have been entrenched in legislative systems of neighbouring nations, and opted for a narrow, self-serving view that he advised others to follow? Why is it that after three centuries one is still debating the dangers of emotionally-charged sentiments that come at the cost of established laws and regulations?

When emotions are high, people vent and spurt out irrational statements. When seasoned journalists take that route, politicians might likely follow suit…and no Montesquieuan remedy could help in that case. 

* To those who know what this song means to me, you are very very much missed.

    

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

On 12 May, American President Donald Trump will decide whether the United States will pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA): the international deal with Iran over its nuclear programme.

But the United States will leave. Just Called Pour an Obvious Adieu.

The timing of the awaited decision is no coincidence. First, it will come less than a week after the Lebanese elections would have been celebrated. As has been predicted, Iran´s proxy Shiite militia in Lebanon – dubbed Lebanese political organisation, won considerable votes at the May parliamentary elections. Indeed, Hezbollah political bloc’s gains came at the expense of the Saudi backed Future Movement, which lost one-third of its seats. Naturally there was finger pointing and conspiracy theories regarding schemes to eliminate the Future party from the political process. Most likely, Sunni forces in the region will take a free ride on the Shiite-danger-blame train.  

Second, the Israeli Knesset adopted a proposal on 1 May that authorises the premier and defence minister to declare war ‘under extreme circumstances’. Concomitantly, the Israeli Prime Minister showcased Iranian nuclear documents (obtained by Mossad operatives in Iran) regarding Tehran´s naughty nuclear programme prior to the JCPOA.

Third, Palestinians and other Arab and Muslim nations will commemorate al Nakba Day (remembrance of Palestinian diaspora following the establishment of the independent state of Israel on 14 May 1948) on 14 May. In some cases, the usual chaos, mayhem, and violence will likely take place in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, with the support and blessings of Israel´s historic enemies (Iran and its proxy organisations in the Middle East).

When, and not if, the US pulls out of the nuclear deal, it will have a series of supporting arguments. Iranian associates are gaining further ground in the troubled Middle East, most recently attested by the Lebanese parliamentary elections. Iran´s retaliation against Israel for the latter´s offence against Iranian troops and military presence in Syria will not go unnoticed – although un-analysed and un-justified with objective goggles. Self-defence will be expected from the Israeli Defence Forces, whose green light will be given with the ease of switching a light bulb at home (thanks to the newly adopted proposal granting the premier and his defence minister the right to respond instantaneously when Israel is under threat). Attacks against Israelis and death chants to Zionists on al Nakba Day will stir sympathetic emotions towards Tel Aviv and a blind eye towards its actions which will likely be directed against Iranian proxies.

Pulling out of the JCPOA will not only be the sensible decision in light  of the recently exposed documents regarding Tehran´s web of nuclear lies, but also when taking into account the related geopolitical developments that have rendered Iran the biggest threat to the world at large.

Washington´s unwise decision will reverberate in the region, and more bloodshed is expected. Like a broken record, the rhetoric has paved the way for further violence, and as promised, no one should be surprised.