Category: Breaking News

  • France Pushes the EU on the Muslim Brotherhood — and Reopens the IRGC Question

    France Pushes the EU on the Muslim Brotherhood — and Reopens the IRGC Question

    Muslim Brotherhood: France’s Right Pushes the EU Toward Terrorist Designation — and the Same Question Now Looms Over Iran’s Revolutionary Guards

    Paris / Strasbourg —

    On January 22, 2026, France’s National Assembly adopted a European resolution calling for the Muslim Brotherhood movement to be added to the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations. The initiative, driven by France’s right-wing parties and supported by several parliamentary groups, is intended to exert political pressure on EU institutions, even though the legal authority to designate terrorist organizations rests exclusively at the European level.

    At the same time, tensions have risen in the European Parliament, where several Members have publicly challenged the European Commission and the EU’s High Representative, Kaja Kallas, during the plenary session in Strasbourg. Among them, French MEP Matthieu Valet accused the EU of complacency toward political Islam and denounced what he described as a failure to confront Islamist networks and their sponsors.

    What the French Resolution Does — and Does Not — Do

    Contrary to claims circulating on social media, the French Parliament has not legally designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization at the EU level.

    Instead, it adopted a non-binding political resolution urging the European Union to take action.

    The legal framework governing such listings is the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001, which regulates the inclusion of individuals and entities on the EU terrorist list. Under this mechanism, only the Council of the European Union, representing the Member States, can decide on a designation, and only on the basis of prior decisions taken by a “competent authority” — such as judicial proceedings, investigations, or convictions — at national or third-country level.

    As a result, national parliaments no longer hold direct competence in this area. Their role is political rather than legal: to shape debate, build momentum, and influence decision-making within the Council.

    A Highly Charged Political Moment in Europe

    Matthieu Valet’s intervention targeting Kaja Kallas fits squarely within this strategy. In a brief but widely circulated speech, the MEP accused the EU of avoiding a clear stance on Turkey and cited figures of approximately €10 billion in EU funding allocated over the 2021–2027 period, which he argued were incompatible with a firm stance against Islamist movements.

    Beyond the rhetoric, the episode illustrates a broader political tactic: turning a national debate into a European confrontation, placing the Commission and the European External Action Service under public and parliamentary pressure.

    Gideon Sa’ar’s Diplomatic Campaign on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards

    Alongside these parliamentary initiatives in Europe, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has been conducting a sustained diplomatic campaign aimed at securing the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization by a growing number of countries.

    This strategy follows a clear legal logic: multiplying national designations in order to establish precedents that could later be invoked at the European level. In this context, Israel has intensified bilateral outreach to partners in Latin America and Central America, notably Argentina and Honduras, both of which have taken steps that several European states have so far hesitated to pursue.

    Sa’ar has also directly engaged with European counterparts, including France’s foreign minister, arguing that the legal criteria set out in the 2001/931/CFSP framework could be met through converging national decisions. In parallel, he has sent a clear political message to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, urging the EU executive to end its inaction toward a military organization accused of systematic internal repression, indirect terrorist operations, and regional destabilization.

    From Jerusalem’s perspective, the objective is explicit: to break the political deadlock within the Council of the European Union and pave the way for the IRGC’s formal inclusion on the EU terrorist list.

    The Question Now Asked Openly in Brussels

    The French debate on the Muslim Brotherhood and the parallel diplomatic battle over Iran’s Revolutionary Guards converge on a question that is now being asked increasingly bluntly in Brussels:

    When will Iran’s Revolutionary Guards — accused of violently repressing their own population and fueling armed networks across the region — be designated as a terrorist organization by national parliaments, and ultimately by the Council of the European Union itself?

    As long as this decision remains blocked at Council level, national resolutions will continue to play an important political role — without producing direct legal consequences. It is precisely this institutional bottleneck that several governments and political actors are now seeking to overcome.

    References

    • French National Assembly — Adopted Text TA No. 215 (22 January 2026), European resolution on the Muslim Brotherhood
      https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/textes/l17t0215_texte-adopte-seance
    • French National Assembly — Official record of the plenary sitting of 22 January 2026
      https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/comptes-rendus/seance/session-ordinaire-de-2025-2026/deuxieme-seance-du-jeudi-22-janvier-2026
    • Le Monde — Report on the adoption of the resolution targeting the Muslim Brotherhood
      https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2026/01/22/une-resolution-contre-les-freres-musulmans-adoptee-a-l-assemblee
    • Council of the European Union (Consilium) — EU counter-terrorism sanctions framework
      https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-terrorism/
    • European Parliament — Resolutions calling for the designation of the IRGC
      https://www.europarl.europa.eu
    • Slice42.com https://slice42.com/pourquoi-largentine-a-ose-ce-que-leurope-hesite-encore-a-faire-face-au-terrorisme-iranien/
  • What Davos and the “Board of Peace” Mean for Israel’s Diplomatic Position

    What Davos and the “Board of Peace” Mean for Israel’s Diplomatic Position

    What Davos and the “Board of Peace” Mean for Israel’s Diplomatic Position

    Luis Tavora is EL-YA News correspondent covering diplomacy and international forums.

    Luis Tavora,

    Dateline: Davos / Jerusalem —

    The World Economic Forum in Davos has long served as a platform for informal diplomacy alongside its economic agenda. This year, the introduction of the “Board of Peace” has drawn particular attention regarding its implications for Israel’s diplomatic strategy.

    According to multiple sources, Israel received a formal invitation from the United States to join the Board of Peace, a new initiative launched by President Donald Trump during the 56th annual WEF meeting. The board was presented as a framework to support conflict resolution efforts and post-war reconstruction processes, initially focused on the Gaza ceasefire context.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reported to have accepted the invitation to participate in the Board of Peace, although Israel did not send representatives to sign the founding charter at the Davos ceremony itself.

    Israeli officials have expressed nuanced positions: while diplomatic engagement opportunities in forums like Davos remain valuable, there is concern among some in Jerusalem about the political framing of the Board of Peace and its broader implications for established multilateral mechanisms such as the United Nations.

    Observers note that several countries have signed the charter under conditions that are not yet fully transparent, and the initiative’s exact operational mandate remains debated among international figures.

    For Israel, the decision to engage with or distance itself from such informal initiatives reflects a broader diplomatic balancing act between maintaining open channels of dialogue and protecting national strategic interests in global forums.

     

    WHO HAS SIGNED OR CONFIRMED PARTICIPATION

    According to reporting and diplomatic statements:

    Founding Members (signed at Davos)
    • United States — President Donald Trump signed the founding charter. 

    Countries Reportedly Confirmed as Members

    Early member states (reported via multiple sources) include:
    • Israel — confirmed participation after an invitation from the U.S.; Prime Minister Netanyahu approved joining. 
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Qatar
    • Egypt
    • United Arab Emirates
    • Turkey
    • Pakistan
    Other nations from Asia, Eastern Europe and South America have signaled acceptance of invitations. 

    Executive Appointees and Key Figures

    Trump has appointed key personnel within the Board structure:
    • Jared Kushner — senior adviser and peace plan coordinator 
    • Marco Rubio — U.S. Secretary of State and senior board figure 
    • Tony Blair — former U.K. Prime Minister, named to the executive board by the White House. 
    • Steve Witkoff — special envoy for peace missions 
    • Ajay Banga (World Bank President) and Marc Rowan (investment CEO) were also named as part of the founder group. 

    Wider List of Early Member States (Reported)

    Multiple sources have listed additional countries that have accepted invitations so far:
    • Morocco
    • Indonesia
    • Hungary
    • Kosovo
    • Uzbekistan
    • Kazakhstan
    • Paraguay
    • Vietnam
    …among others who reportedly agreed to join from the initial list of around 35 invitees. 

    WHO HAS DECLINED OR REMAINED AMBIGUOUS

    Declined or Withdrawn Invitations
    • Canada — invitation rescinded by Trump after public criticism. 
    • Belgium — declared it did not sign the charter and has reservations. 
    • France — declined participation and voiced concerns. 
    • Germany — negative response due to governance structure concerns. 
    • Norway, Sweden, Spain, Italy, UK — among Western nations that reportedly declined to participate or expressed significant reservations. 

    Uncertain or Noncommittal

    Major powers like China, Russia and India have been invited but have not publicly committed to signing or joining yet. 

    Category: AnalysisTags: Davos, Board of Peace, Israel, WEF, Diplomacy

  • Israel Pulls Out of Open Government Partnership After Politicization Row

    Israel Pulls Out of Open Government Partnership After Politicization Row

    Israel Withdraws from Open Government Partnership, Citing Politicization and Hostility

    Jerusalem




    UPDATE (Jerusalem — 14:20 UTC)

    The Open Government Partnership (OGP) acknowledged Israel’s decision to withdraw and confirmed that the move takes
    immediate effect under the organization’s rules. In a brief response, the OGP said it “regrets Israel’s departure”
    while reiterating its commitment to its principles and procedures. No timeline for further discussion or mediation
    was announced.

    Israeli officials said the decision is final and emphasized that Israel will not participate in any OGP forums,
    reviews, or conferences going forward. The Foreign Ministry reiterated that Israel remains committed to
    transparency and good governance, but will pursue those principles within frameworks it considers neutral and
    non-politicized.

    Israel announced on Wednesday that it is withdrawing with immediate effect from the Open Government Partnership
    (OGP), an international initiative originally created to promote government transparency, accountability, and civic
    participation.

    The decision was taken by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar following an internal review
    conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will be implemented in coordination with Economy Minister
    Nir Barkat, according to an official statement.

    Founded in 2011 at the initiative of former U.S. President Barack Obama, the Open Government
    Partnership was designed to encourage participating states to strengthen transparency, fight corruption, and expand
    access to government data. Israel joined the organization in 2012 as part of broader efforts to modernize public
    administration and engage in international cooperation.

    Israeli officials now say that the organization’s original mission has been progressively undermined. According to
    the Foreign Ministry, the OGP has in recent months evolved into a political platform used to advance initiatives
    described as explicitly hostile to Israel, in contradiction with the principles of neutrality and good governance
    that initially justified Israel’s participation.

    Several developments were cited in support of the decision. In September 2025, Israel was
    prevented from participating in an official OGP conference held in Spain after Spanish authorities announced they
    would not allow any Israeli presence. Israeli officials described the exclusion as unprecedented and noted that
    the OGP leadership did not issue any protest or response despite what Jerusalem characterized as a discriminatory
    measure.

    Another key factor was the decision by the OGP steering committee to initiate a review procedure targeting Israel
    following a complaint submitted by a South African non-governmental organization. According to the Israeli
    government, the complaint was based on allegations considered unfounded, excessive, and politically motivated,
    illustrating what it views as the instrumentalization of the organization’s internal mechanisms for activist
    purposes.

    In a statement, Foreign Minister Sa’ar said the OGP had become “a fertile ground for anti-Israeli activism,” adding
    that this situation “contradicts the principles of the Partnership and the very reasons that led Israel to join
    it.” He concluded that Israel’s withdrawal puts an end to what he described as “a theater of the absurd.”

    The withdrawal takes effect immediately and does not require a complex international procedure. Israel will cease
    all participation in OGP forums, conferences, and review mechanisms. Israeli authorities emphasized, however, that
    the country remains committed to the principles of transparency, the rule of law, and good governance, while
    rejecting the use of those values as political tools against a member state.

    The move comes amid broader Israeli criticism of what it describes as the increasing politicization of certain
    multilateral organizations. Israeli officials argue that technical or normative forums are increasingly being used
    to conduct campaigns of political delegitimization under institutional frameworks.

    For Israel, the decision to leave the Open Government Partnership is intended as a clear diplomatic signal.
    Officials said international cooperation can only function on the basis of fairness, neutrality, and mutual respect,
    adding that Israel will continue to promote transparent governance within frameworks it considers legitimate and
    non-instrumentalized.

    Israel Pulls Out of Open Government Partnership After Politicization Row

    Jerusalem


    Israel announced on Wednesday that it is withdrawing with immediate effect from the Open Government Partnership
    (OGP), an international initiative originally created to promote government transparency, accountability, and civic
    participation.

    The decision was taken by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar following an internal review
    conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and will be implemented in coordination with Economy Minister
    Nir Barkat, according to an official statement.

    Founded in 2011 at the initiative of former U.S. President Barack Obama, the Open Government
    Partnership was designed to encourage participating states to strengthen transparency, fight corruption, and expand
    access to government data. Israel joined the organization in 2012 as part of broader efforts to modernize public
    administration and engage in international cooperation.

    Israeli officials now say that the organization’s original mission has been progressively undermined. According to
    the Foreign Ministry, the OGP has in recent months evolved into a political platform used to advance initiatives
    described as explicitly hostile to Israel, in contradiction with the principles of neutrality and good governance
    that initially justified Israel’s participation.

    Several developments were cited in support of the decision. In September 2025, Israel was
    prevented from participating in an official OGP conference held in Spain after Spanish authorities announced they
    would not allow any Israeli presence. Israeli officials described the exclusion as unprecedented and noted that
    the OGP leadership did not issue any protest or response despite what Jerusalem characterized as a discriminatory
    measure.

    Another key factor was the decision by the OGP steering committee to initiate a review procedure targeting Israel
    following a complaint submitted by a South African non-governmental organization. According to the Israeli
    government, the complaint was based on allegations considered unfounded, excessive, and politically motivated,
    illustrating what it views as the instrumentalization of the organization’s internal mechanisms for activist
    purposes.

    In a statement, Foreign Minister Sa’ar said the OGP had become “a fertile ground for anti-Israeli activism,” adding
    that this situation “contradicts the principles of the Partnership and the very reasons that led Israel to join
    it.” He concluded that Israel’s withdrawal puts an end to what he described as “a theater of the absurd.”

    The withdrawal takes effect immediately and does not require a complex international procedure. Israel will cease
    all participation in OGP forums, conferences, and review mechanisms. Israeli authorities emphasized, however, that
    the country remains committed to the principles of transparency, the rule of law, and good governance, while
    rejecting the use of those values as political tools against a member state.

    The move comes amid broader Israeli criticism of what it describes as the increasing politicization of certain
    multilateral organizations. Israeli officials argue that technical or normative forums are increasingly being used
    to conduct campaigns of political delegitimization under institutional frameworks.

    For Israel, the decision to leave the Open Government Partnership is intended as a clear diplomatic signal.
    Officials said international cooperation can only function on the basis of fairness, neutrality, and mutual respect,
    adding that Israel will continue to promote transparent governance within frameworks it considers legitimate and
    non-instrumentalized.

    Category: Breaking News

    Tags: Israel, Open Government Partnership, Gideon Sa’ar, Israeli Foreign Ministry, Diplomacy

    Category: Breaking News

    Tags: Israel, Open Government Partnership, Gideon Sa’ar, Israeli Foreign Ministry, Diplomacy