Unsettled

It could take many more years for the situation to settle in the Middle East.

Last week, a shooting war raged between Hamas militants in the Gaza and Israeli defense forces. Hamas let loose a barrage of improvised missiles at Israeli settlements after a drone attack killed one of the movement’s leaders. Israel retaliated with heavy bombardment of Hamas positions within Gaza.

Were it not for the deft mediation of Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi, Israel might have mounted a devastating ground offensive similar to their invasion several years back. Morsi was able to negotiate a ceasefire just as Israeli forces were massing on Gaza’s embattled border. The role the Egyptian leader played won the world’s admiration.

Just as the situation in Gaza was defused, however, Morsi managed to provoke a dangerous crisis at home. Over the weekend, thousands of liberal activists re-occupied Tahrir Square. A million-man march was called for today. All the country’s judges are on strike.

The provocation for the protests was an edict issued by Morsi declaring his actions to be beyond judicial review pending the crafting of a new constitution. That edict reopened the chasm between Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and the pro-democracy forces that led in ousting Hosni Mubarak from power, clearing the way for the first free elections.

Activists occupying Tahrir Square will not leave and Egyptian judges are not about to return to work until the controversial edict is withdrawn. It is now Morsi’s decision to arrest the drift towards another round of tumult or simply withdraw. That is the most suspenseful political question for this week.

Meanwhile, the civil war in Syria grinds on with daily casualty reports running at over a hundred. About 30,000 Syrians have been killed since the confrontation began last year.

Over the weekend, rebels attempting to oust the Assad regime reported significant gains. Yet another military base was overrun. Raids are escalating. A consolidated national council involving all the various rebel factions was formed two weeks ago, brokered by Qatar and supported by the Arab League.

Pro-Assad forces, however, continue their brutal bombings of rebel-held cities. No side has a clear advantage. There seems to be building international consensus that the protracted carnage can only be brought to its inevitable end if the rebels are supplied with better weaponry, including sophisticated portable missiles capable of stopping Assad’s air force.

Almost as prolonged as the confrontation in Syria is the struggle to oust the tyrannical regime in Yemen. In this impoverished country, however, radical groups linked to Al Qaeda lead the opposition. The neighboring Arab countries as well as the western powers are therefore cautious in endorsing what otherwise is a popular resistance.

There is apprehension the civil war in Syria could spill over to Lebanon, reigniting the civil war that once tore this country apart not too long ago. In the prevailing volatility, Kurdish nationalism could be reinvigorated, presenting new problems for both Turkey and Iraq. As the situation remains unsettled, Iran could be encouraged to apply its weight and explore possibilities for projecting its power.

We saw in last September’s attack on the US consulate in Bengahzi the situation in Libya is far from settled as well. Heavily armed radical militias continue to explore ways to override the process and shape the country’s future according to their fundamentalist vision.

For as long as the situation in this vital region remains unsettled, oil prices could remain volatile. When tensions are high, the smallest events such as that stupid film that provoked riots a few months ago could ignite a major conflagration.

An unsettled Middle East adds to the anxieties taxing the recovery of the global economy. The dynamics however are too complex to allow for a quick solution. With Europe and North America overwhelmed by financial issues, the importance of the Arab League becomes magnified. The League must now play a role vastly more decisive than the impotent one it is accustomed to.

Doubt

How entangled must a judge be with one of the parties to a case before she decides to inhibit and allow a more credible juror to hear a case?

Unfortunately, it is for the judge alone to decide to inhibit. The party aggrieved by the perception of partiality appears to have no recourse except to hope against the odds.

The partiality of the judge is a matter of serious concern in the marital dispute between Ambassador Francisco Ortigas and Susana Madrigal Bayot-Ortigas. Lawyers for Francisco asked Judge Liza Marie Picardal-Tecson to inhibit from hearing the legal separation case filed by Susana.

The basis for asking the judge to inhibit is the suspiciously close relationship between the judge and her husband on one hand and Susana’s lawyer, Atty. Thea Daep. The judge’s husband and Daep were once colleagues in a prominent law firm. On top of that, SEC documents show they are partners in several companies. On the principle of conjugal ownership, the judge is therefore unavoidably entangled with the lawyer of one of the parties in the case she is hearing.

Judge Tecson, however, thinks there is not enough ground to impugn her independence. She denied the motion of Francisco Ortigas seeking her inhibition from the case.

Lawyers for Francisco feel their side will not get fair treatment unless Judge Tecson inhibits. The suit filed by Susana asks she be named administrator of conjugal properties while the case is being heard. Granting this will have tremendous repercussions on the many businesses the squabbling couple owns.

It will serve everybody well if there is no cloud of doubt at all over the court’s fairness.