The Libyan House of Representatives - which holds its sessions in the city of Benghazi (east of the country) - elected Representative Al-Salhin Abdul Nabi as its speaker for the new parliamentary session, thus turning the page on Counselor Aguila Saleh, who has been the Speaker of Parliament since 2014.
Abdullah Belhaq, spokesman for the council, said on Tuesday evening that Abdul Nabi was elected as Saleh’s successor, during a session held under the chairmanship of Saleh’s second deputy, Mesbah Douma. Abdul Nabi belongs to the Obaidat tribe, from which Saleh, who is 82 years old, descends.
The House of Representatives held its session, at its headquarters in Benghazi, headed by the Second Deputy; With the intention of electing the Presidency, in an atmosphere prior to the session that was marred by deep disagreements and division between Saleh loyalists, including his first deputy, Fawzi Al-Nuwairi, and others calling for a re-discussion of amending the internal regulations in order to elect a new president of the Council.
Abdul Nabi has represented the Tobruk sub-constituency in the House of Representatives since 2014, and his activities include membership in the Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Committee, and chairmanship of the Libyan-Turkish Parliamentary Friendship Committee, in addition to his participation in regional and international parliamentary meetings and conferences, and the activities of the Arab Parliamentary Union.
Following the election of Abdel Nabi, in the presence of 110 representatives, the Council proceeded on Tuesday evening to elect the First Vice President of the Council from among the candidates: Tariq Al-Ashtar, Al-Siddiq Hamouda, and Ezz Al-Din Qwairab. The Obaidat, one of the largest and most prominent Libyan tribes in the Jabal Akhdar region and Tobruk and their environs in eastern Libya.
The Libyan House of Representatives legally consists of 200 seats, of which only 188 seats were filled in the 2014 elections due to the inability to vote in some districts for security reasons, while the number of actually practicing members today is lower than that number as a result of incidents of death, resignation, and boycott.
Last week, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, Commander-in-Chief of the National Army, met with a number of parliamentarians against the backdrop of a crisis with its president, Saleh, and the meeting ended with Haftar confirming his support for “the efforts aimed at ending the state of division and unifying state institutions, appreciating the role of the House of Representatives in the political track and the outcomes of the (4+4) committee.”
Representative Issam Al-Jahani, who attended the meeting, said, “It was agreed to support what would unify Parliament for the sake of reforms, most notably amending the internal regulations and choosing a new presidency for the Council, in addition to moving forward by continuing to support the 4+4 agreement and the constitutional amendment.”
The exchange between extremist Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Egyptians topped the scene on social media, coinciding with Cairo’s celebrations of the 53rd anniversary of the victory of the October 1973 war against Israel, which took place on Tuesday.
This dispute affected Sinai, which was under Israeli occupation in 1967, and was liberated in the 1973 October War, and is currently living in close proximity to threats as it is adjacent to the Gaza Strip, which is witnessing Israeli aggression and escalating tensions with Egypt.
In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Dr. Ahmed Fouad Anwar, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs and an academic specializing in Israeli affairs, believes that the recent hostile statements issued by Smotrich regarding Sinai and the October War cannot be treated as an individual or passing comment, but rather express a position consistent with the directions of the occupation government and with a green light from its president, Benjamin Netanyahu.
He pointed out that these statements reflect a state of detachment from reality and an attempt to outplay ahead of the elections scheduled for this month in Israel at the expense of the region's security and stability.
Egyptian-Israeli clash
On the eve of Egypt’s celebration of the 53rd anniversary of the October victory, Smotrich said during an interview with the ultra-Orthodox website “Hashtiblach”: “What will make Egypt not attack us? If they attack us, there will be no Sinai, at least, but no, it will not happen again.”
This threat from Smotrich against Sinai sparked a wave of anger among Egyptians on social media platforms and media figures close to the Egyptian authorities.
In his evening program on “Sada El Balad” satellite channel (private) in Egypt, journalist Ahmed Moussa denounced Smotrich’s statements regarding Sinai, adding: “If Israel is reckless, there will be no Israeli entity. The matter is over. You are talking (talking) about Egypt and Sinai. You are talking about war.”
Moussa explained: “Our armed forces are ready to defend the homeland at all times and under any circumstances. If the Zionist entity is reckless, it will be its end. If you are reckless, there will be no Israel. You cannot approach an inch of Sinai, and what happened in 1967 will not be repeated again with Egypt.”
He stressed that Egypt “is an advocate of peace, but some extremists in Israel do not want peace,” considering that Smotrich’s talk about obtaining the Sinai represents “harassment” and a threat to Egypt.
For his part, Parliamentarian in the House of Representatives and media personality, Mustafa Bakri, said that the extremist Zionist Smotrich is threatening Egypt by taking control of Sinai... Poor this thug, he thinks that Egypt is a permissible arena... I hope you read how we crushed your army, you ignorant one. Those who did it once are capable of repeating it again.
Bakri added: “The Egyptian army is ready to confront and crush anyone who dares to harm national security... You will definitely be a prisoner and we will throw you in the insane hospital in Khanka... Don’t insult yourself again, you crazy person.”
The Egyptian influencer, Louay Al-Khatib, in a tweet on the “X” platform, accused Smotrich of being “an example of political madness” and “does not have political understanding.”
Egyptian influencer Mohamed Nour sent a sharp message, saying: “To the Minister of Finance of the Zionist entity, the murderer of children, the usurper of lands, and the war criminal: Egypt is too pure and sacred for its name to come out of your mouth. Sinai, as it is a treasure for us, will also be your grave if you try to approach it,” he added, adding: “Believe me: if you want in the next battle, it will be in the streets of Israel - and it will never be in Sinai.”
The option of peace and confrontation
Prior to the Israeli official’s statement, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi said, during a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, that “on this immortal day (October 6, 1973), the Egyptians wrote a bright page in the record of national glory, when the Egyptian will was absent to confirm to the whole world that Egypt is not giving up its land.” He stressed that “the Egyptian Armed Forces stand ready to defend Egypt, its capabilities, and its national security, at all times and under any circumstances.”
On March 26, 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty between the two countries in Washington, following the Camp David Accords between the two sides in 1978. Among its most prominent provisions were the cessation of the state of war, the normalization of relations, Israel’s complete withdrawal of its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula, and keeping the zone demilitarized.
Ahmed Fouad Anwar believes that Egypt’s renewal of its emphasis on peace as a strategic option, and readiness for any confrontation, is an awareness of the dimensions of these Israeli ambitions, and early preparation for all scenarios to protect its sovereignty, stressing that history has proven Egypt’s ability to deter any aggression even in the most difficult circumstances.
Anwar pointed out that Israeli attempts to evade the effects of these aggressive statements by the extremist minister or reduce their repercussions will not erase their seriousness. It reflects a deep and hidden tension in official relations currently, and it may extend after the next elections.
An escalating controversy in Egypt resulted in the arrest of 6 journalists affiliated with the “Mtsadeqsh” electronic platform, which the Egyptian authorities accuse of belonging to the banned “Muslim Brotherhood” group. This was followed by exchanges of statements between the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate and the Ministry of Interior regarding the nature of the progress of the investigations, with varying reactions regarding how all parties dealt with the case.
On September 28 and 29, security forces arrested six journalists from the “Don’t Believe” platform, which is concerned with verifying data and news sources. At that time, the platform said that the journalists “represent the entire editorial team in the newsroom.”
At the beginning of this month, the Interior Ministry accused these journalists of belonging to the Brotherhood group, which is classified as a “terrorist” group in Egypt, noting that “its investigations found that the platform is among the media committees affiliated with the terrorist Brotherhood group, and is run by a fugitive Brotherhood member abroad called Abdul Rahman Mansour, and is assisted inside the country by a number of Brotherhood members who prepare false and fabricated news.”
On Monday evening, the Egyptian Ministry of Interior responded to a statement issued by the Journalists Syndicate that spoke of journalists being subjected to “physical violations” during their period of detention. However, the Ministry of Interior denied the validity of “those allegations” and said that they were “unfounded and come within the framework of the attempt of those mentioned to evade the charges against them.”
The Journalists Syndicate Council decided on Monday to “submit a report to the Public Prosecutor regarding what was raised about the detainees being subjected to physical abuse during their period of detention, and being forced to make statements or recordings that were not true, while proving the invalidity of any confessions taken under duress,” according to the Syndicate’s statement.
The union formed a permanent committee headed by the captain to follow up on the case, demanding their release with the union’s guarantee, or any other guarantees that take into account the young age of some of them and their lack of experience, indicating that the committee “is in permanent session to follow up on the colleagues’ case.”
The union indicated in its statement that “journalists are not responsible for verifying the funding sources of the institution they work for, and that state authorities are responsible for that, as it is a matter that is impossible for ordinary people to know,” noting that “the arrested colleagues took legal measures to prove their work and legalize their status.”
The union’s position, which some considered “adopting the defendants’ defense narratives,” faced criticism from some journalists who called on it to “dialogue with the security authorities and respond to the accusations stated in the Ministry of Interior’s statement without entering into a dispute with state agencies,” while others denounced “placing the Ministry of Interior’s statement, the union’s position, and what pages affiliated with the Brotherhood organization publish in one trench,” calling on the ministry to “differentiate between defending the freedom of journalists and adopting the group’s positions.” Banned. This is in reference to the text of the Interior Ministry’s statement, which denied “entirely and in detail the authenticity of the repetitions referred to in the statement of the Journalists Syndicate and some pages affiliated with the terrorist Brotherhood on social networking sites.”
The Public Prosecution decided to complete investigations into the journalist registered with the Journalists Syndicate, while continuing his imprisonment, and charged him with “joining a terrorist group, committing crimes of financing a terrorist group, using a website to promote the ideas and beliefs of an extremist terrorist group and receiving and broadcasting its ideas, and broadcasting and publishing news with the aim of disturbing public peace and security,” according to what Journalists Syndicate Council member Mahmoud Kamel said on his Facebook page, Tuesday.
