Is Qatar losing patience with Hamas?

 Published in the Jerusalem Post, 30 April 2024

            On April 20 the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, welcomed the leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, to Istanbul for talks. Official statements announced that they met to discuss humanitarian assistance to Gaza and the sanctions that Turkey had recently announced against Israel, but the rumor mills were churning out a quite different story.

   Reports in the media suggested that this meeting in Ankara was the result of a breakdown in relations between Hamas and Qatar.  Hamas’s political hierarchy has been based in Qatar since 2012, where the Gulf kingdom has housed them in luxury hotels.  More recently, together with the US and Egypt, Qatar has taken on the role of mediator between Hamas and Israel.  On the day of the Erdogan-Haniyeh meeting the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing an Arab official, reported that Qatar believes its role as trusted mediator is being undermined by Hamas’s refusal to conclude a hostage-for-truce deal, and that it has threatened Hamas leaders with expulsion from Qatar if they do not.      

Other reports, noting that the truce talks have stalled and perhaps assuming that Hamas will remain intransigent, state that Hamas’s political chiefs are actively exploring moving their base of operations out of Qatar.  The WSJ says Hamas has recently contacted two regional countries about having its leaders live there.  One of them is Oman (which has denied the story).  The other, one media report suggests, could be Iran.  Or, it now appears, it might be Turkey.

If the Hamas leadership does leave Qatar, the long-standing Hamas-Qatari relationship could be severed, mediated negotiations would certainly be disrupted, and any slim chance of a deal to free dozens of the Israeli hostages held captive in Gaza would go on the back burner.  Israel’s options to rescue the hostages would be reduced to the long-anticipated Rafah operation and a military defeat of Hamas. 

            On April 17, Democratic US congressman Steny Hoyer accused Qatar of failing to exert sufficient pressure on the Palestinian group to accept a ceasefire proposal.  He went so far as to accuse Qatar of "siding with Hamas."  If they failed to persuade Hamas to accept a deal, he said that Washington would re-evaluate its ties with the Gulf country.

This prompted Qatar to release a statement, expressing surprise at Hoyer’s threat.

"We share his frustration that Hamas and Israel have not reached an agreement on the release of the remaining hostages,” the statement ran, “…but Qatar is only a mediator – we do not control Israel or Hamas."

Qatar, along with the US and Egypt, has been trying to mediate a deal from the start of the Gaza war.  Despite Hoyer's criticism, the Gulf kingdom has gained considerable praise for its efforts, particularly its success in brokering the temporary ceasefire which took effect from November 24 to 30, and included the release of 50 Israeli hostages held in Gaza and 150 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel.  On November 27, the Qatari foreign ministry announced that a two-day extension to the ceasefire had been agreed in which 20 Israelis and 60 Palestinians would be released. Close to the end of the first extension another one day extension to the truce was agreed by both sides, but it broke down on December 1, and shortly afterward hostilities were resumed.

Since then no amount of mediation has succeeded in gaining agreement on the terms of a further truce and hostage release.  The negotiations have stalled.  And Qatar is unhappy, not only at its failure to persuade Hamas into accepting any kind of deal, but also at the criticism it is facing in consequence.

On April 17 Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, announced that Qatar is re-evaluating its mediation role in ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas.

 “Qatar is proceeding with a complete re-evaluation of its role,” he said, complaining, without naming Steny Hoyer, about “the exploitation by some politicians who are trying to conduct their electoral campaigns by defaming the State of Qatar...There are limits to this role and limits to the ability to which we can contribute to these negotiations in a constructive way.”

The limits have, perhaps, been reached when all efforts to replicate the truce-for-hostage deal successfully concluded in November is blocked by Hamas intransigence.  So perhaps the media reports are accurate.  Perhaps Qatar has lost patience, and is showing Hamas the door.

Although Hamas has denied that it is seeking a new base, the Haniyeh-Erdogan meeting, followed as it was by a trip to Doha, Qatar’s capital, by Hakan Fidan, the Turkish foreign minister, may indicate something different.

As a side issue, some in the Israeli government go along with congressman Hoyer, and regard the Gulf Kingdom as too biased to be impartial.  Some would actually welcome Qatar abandoning its mediator role, in the  hope that if Qatar steps aside, Cairo will take over.

 “Egypt should have been the main mediator from the beginning,” a member of the hostage negotiation team in Israel told the UK Daily Telegraph.  “They don’t align with the Muslim Brotherhood mentality, and have no vested interests with Hamas like Qatar and Turkey do.”

The Israeli negotiator has a point.  Qatar and Erdogan’s Turkey have both supported Hamas for years, and they share the Sunni Islamist ideology it promulgates.  Egypt, on the other hand, has banned the Muslim Brotherhood and declared it a terrorist organization.

On April 22 the Huffington Post reported that, in rare extensive interviews last month, two prominent Hamas leaders separately spoke of flexibility on their political leadership’s location.  They spoke shortly after a Hamas delegation had returned from a lengthy visit to Iran. As a consequence some experts saw Tehran as a possible next base for the organization, a scenario that would leave the US with far less access to, or leverage over, Hamas.

Basem Naim, a member of Hamas’s politburo in Gaza, explained that if Qatar decided to withdraw its hospitality, the organization was quite prepared to move.

“Hamas leadership is used to [moving] from place to place,” he said.

But Hamas is increasingly concerned with projecting a confident image and challenging the idea it is becoming more isolated. So when the Huffington Post contacted Naim again on April 21, he had somewhat changed his tune.  He pointed to a statement he had recently issued rejecting the WSJ article as “complicit with the Israeli misleading propaganda.”

Claims that Hamas “is considering leaving Qatar for another country,” he said “… have no basis.”

Time will tell.

Published in the Jerusalem Post, and the Jerusalem Post online as: "Is Qatar's relationship with Hamas on the rocks?", 30 April, 2024:
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/is-qatars-relationship-with-hamas-on-the-rocks-analysis-799105

Iran changes its route, not its destination

 Published in the Jerusalem Post, 24 April 2024 as "The same destination"

The massive armada of 350 drones, ballistic and cruise missiles, launched by Iran toward Israel in the early hours of April 14, marked a sea-change in the anti-Israel approach the Iranian regime has pursued since its foundation in 1979.  Its anti-Israel policy was embedded in the broad strategy known originally as the Shia Crescent, and later – when Sunni Hamas was embraced as an effective ally – as the Axis of Resistance, and now dubbed the Ring of Fire.  The objective has been to acquire as much power and influence as possible across the Middle East in pursuit of its aim to become dominant, both politically and spiritually, in the region. 

Its purpose is not to achieve power for power’s sake.  Its intention was expressed by the regime’s original Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. 

He affirmed repeatedly that the foundation stone of his philosophy, the very purpose of his revolution, was to destroy Western-style democracy and its way of life, and to impose Shia Islam on the whole world.  He identified the United States and Israel as his prime targets, but included what was then the USSR.

“We wish to cause the corrupt roots of Zionism, Capitalism and Communism to wither throughout the world,” said Khomeini.  “We wish, as does God almighty, to destroy the systems which are based on these three foundations, and to promote the Islamic order of the Prophet.”  By this he meant his strict Shia interpretation of Islam, for elsewhere he had declared that the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, situated in the heart of Sunni Saudi Arabia, were in the hands of “a band of heretics”.

Over the past 45 years the regime has gone about its mission by funding, arming and supporting organizations, groups and militias prepared to take military action against Iran’s primary enemy, Israel.  On April 14 Iran’s Supreme Leader decided that the moment had arrived to change tack.  Intense analysis and calculation must have gone into the determination to break the principle that has guided Iran’s foreign policy strategy for 45 years and, for the very first time, to launch a direct attack on Israel.

“Israel has never been weaker,” the figuring must have gone. “It is mired in its war in Gaza. It hasn’t succeeded in eliminating Hamas or recovering its remaining hostages.  It’s being condemned on all sides for vast numbers of civilian deaths.  It is the subject of an investigation by the International Court of Justice on a charge of plausible genocide.  Imagine the effect on the Arab world, and indeed on the West, of Israel succumbing to a direct Iranian attack.  Think of bombs falling on Israeli cities.  Think of Israelis slaughtered and injured.  Israel will be humbled, the Abraham Accords will disintegrate, and any hope of their extension will be snuffed out.”  The thinking must have been something along those lines.

As for the appropriate strategy to launch his historic change of direction, the assumption must have been that an unprecedently massive fleet of kamikaze UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) would overwhelm Israel’s defenses, and at least some 50% of the missiles would get through.  Of course they didn't, and Iran’s military strategists could surely never have foreseen the total and humiliating failure of the enterprise.  What they perhaps did not reckon on was Iran's own unpopularity in the Arab world, nor the united support of Israel’s allies.  They surely did not count on Jordan and Saudi Arabia helping to block Iran's UAVs from reaching Israel, nor that the UK and France would join the US in backing Israel's Iron Dome in shooting down the Iranian missiles. 

          In the event only 1% reached Israel.  So, far from the triumph that the ayatollahs anticipated, they have ended up with egg on their faces.  Perhaps direct armed attack on targets 2000 kilometers (1250 miles) away is not such a good idea.

For 45 years world leaders have been unable, or perhaps unwilling, to acknowledge the fundamental purposes that motivated the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution of 1979, or to appreciate that these same objectives have driven the regime ever since and continue to be its raison d’être.

 Ever since 1979 the world could have recognized, if it had had a mind to, that the Iranian regime was engaged in a focused pursuit of these objectives, quite impervious to any other considerations – and, indeed, that it is still doing so.  If post-revolution Iranian actions had been interpreted in the light of religious zeal on the one hand, and realpolitik on the other, the threat that Iran now poses to the Middle East could have been averted.  Instead wishful thinking has governed the approach of many of the world’s leaders to Iran, and continues to do so.

“We shall export our revolution to the whole world,” declared Khomeini. “Until the cry 'There is no god but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”

Iran’s leaders want to destroy the world as we know it.  They want to achieve political dominance in the Middle East, overthrow Western-style democracy of which America is the prime exponent, wipe out the state of Israel, and impose Shia Islam first on the Muslim world, and then on the world entire.

For some time the Sunni Arab world has recognized who its main enemy was.  The Abraham Accords are one outcome, perhaps to be expanded.  Some Western leaders still want to believe in an accommodation with the regime.  A clear-eyed look at the facts shows that this is simply not possible. This Iranian regime is not, and has no intention of ever becoming, one of the comity of civilized nations. That would be to negate the fundamental purposes underlying the revolution, purposes to which the ayatollahs and its IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) remain unshakably committed. 

As for their primary aim, the annihilation of Israel, the plan until April 14 had been to surround it with hostile entities and sponsor military skirmishes, but never to engage direct, thus triggering a direct armed response from Israel.  Not, at least, until Iran had acquired a nuclear arsenal.  They jumped the gun – and failed.  

 The perhaps unpalatable truth is that, short of the civilized world combining to constrain it, the Iranian regime is intent on pursuing what it conceives as its God-given mission, set out by Ayatollah Khomeini as the rationale for his Islamic revolution.  Is there sufficient will in the West to prevent the regime reaching its destination?

Published in the Jerusalem Post as "The same destination", and in the Jerusalem Post online titled: "Iraq's main goal: Destroy the world as we know it, impose Shia Islam globally", 24 April 2024:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-798405

Published in Eurasia Review, 4 May 2024:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/04052024-iran-changes-its-route-not-its-destination-oped/#:~:text=The%20massive%20armada%20of%20350,since%20its%20foundation%20in%201979.

Published in the MPC Journal, 6 May 2024:

https://mpc-journal.org/iran-changes-its-route-not-its-destination/

 .

Antisemitism in Britain: A voice for Israel

          Published in the Jerusalem Report, issue dated 29 April 2024

          Antisemitism in the UK has reached a level only surpassed in the 1930s, when Oswald Moseley and his blackshirt thugs, mimicking Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party, dominated Britain’s political scene. 

There is one major difference between then and now. Today the state of Israel exists.

Moseley, like Hitler, based his political philosophy on identifying the Jewish people as the source of all the world’s economic and social ills.  In a telegram to Hitler sent in May 1935 Moseley wrote ”The forces of Jewish corruption must be overcome in all great countries before the future of Europe can be made secure…” 

In the UK today racist sentiments are considered unacceptable, and openly expressed anti-Jewish remarks risk being condemned, so the state of Israel stands proxy for them.  Since it is universally accepted that any government is a legitimate target for adverse criticism, anything that is done, or not done, by Israel is used as the excuse for protests, demonstrations and antisemitic incidents. 

The Community Security Trust (CST), which monitors anti-Jewish abuse in the UK, recorded 4,103 antisemitic incidents in 2023 – the highest total ever. Two-thirds occurred after October 7 – 2,699, compared with 392 over the same period in 2022.  The involvement of Israel, even as victim, was enough to unleash an unprecedented flood of antisemitic bile.

Every Saturday since October 7 huge pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been organized in London and in other major cities across the UK, with protesters carrying banners and shouting slogans which morph into calls for the elimination of Israel. 

Whether well-meaning pro-Palestinian supporters realize it or not, the most popular slogan (“from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”) is a call for the state of Israel and its 7 million Jewish citizens to be removed, and its territory, which extends from the river Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, to be handed over to Palestinians – a demand from the realms of fantasy.

Anti-Israel demonstrations began not only in the UK, but worldwide,  immediately after the massacre of October 7, even before the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had taken any retaliatory action.  Since then the Hamas-provided narrative, statistics and data – believed to be carefully manipulated to achieve maximum propaganda effect – have been universally accepted as a true picture of events in the Gaza Strip.

Even so it is clear that the civilians of Gaza have been the main victims of Hamas’s 17-year-long regime, which diverted literally billions of dollars donated over the years for their welfare into constructing a sophisticated subterranean military system beneath the Gaza Strip. Israel’s battle to defeat its declared enemy is conducted by its forces against armed opponents who do not wear uniform, who merge into the civilian population and often cannot immediately be identified.  This must account for a fair percentage of the civilian casualties.

Now a large segment of public opinion, in Britain and the wider world, is demanding a ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza conflict on humanitarian grounds, while those in Israel and elsewhere who have in mind the welfare of the hostages still held by Hamas, are pressing for a negotiated deal involving a ceasefire and a hostage release.  In effect the demand to lay down arms is being made only of Israel, for public opinion can have no binding effect on Hamas, which has declared that it intends to repeat October 7 again and again.

It was against this background that on 14 March 2024 the BBC aired its iconic TV show Question Time for its domestic audience.  Question Time, regarded as the BBC’s flagship political program, has been a regular feature in its schedules for 45 years.  Moving round the UK week by week, politicians, media figures and celebrities face questions from an audience carefully selected to be politically balanced.  On the panel on 14 March was Melanie Phillips.

Melanie Phillips is among Britain’s leading political journalists and media commentators, notable for her trenchant opinions well to the right of what is now universally acknowledged as the political centre ground.  She writes weekly in The Times and also for the Jewish Chronicle and other journals, broadcasts regularly and speaks on public platforms throughout the English-speaking world.

Born in London to working class Anglo-Jewish parents, Phillips believes profoundly that, over half a century or more, the political left in both Britain and the US has been successfully hijacking the center ground of politics. What was once generally accepted as moderate political opinion is now vilified as “right-wing”, a term of abuse flung at anyone deviating from what is currently regarded as politically correct or woke.

Phillips has won a well-earned reputation as a stalwart opponent of the misrepresentations and downright lies about Israel that constantly fill the world’s media, and are peddled by people either opposed to the very existence of the state, or who use what they term anti-Zionism as a cover for genuine antisemitism.  Yet until the year 2000 she had never visited Israel or, indeed, felt the least desire to do so.

The events of 9/11 were a catalyst for her.  After 9/11 she foresaw a rampant Muslim extremism, now often termed Islamism, intent on conquering the Western democracies, and a debilitated, disillusioned West unwilling to defend itself and opting for appeasement.  In that battle she saw Israel as the front line defender of Western civilization, and was appalled time and again by the anti-Israel and antisemitic prejudice she found increasingly in Britain. 

She encountered the public’s irrational hatred of Israel personally in December 2001, and it occurred, coincidentally, during a recording of Question Time.  This was the period of the second intifada when Palestinian suicide bombings and attacks on civilian targets were being countered by Israel’s security forces.  To a question about Israel defending itself against terrorism, Phillips’s fellow panellists accused Israel of war crimes, while members of the audience asserted that Israel was the source of terror in the Middle East, and was responsible for ethnic cleansing.  Not a word was raised by the panel in Israel’s defense.  Phillips found herself the only voice condemning the murder of innocent civilians by Palestinian extremists.  As she tried to make the case, she was hissed by the audience. 

The broadcast on 14 March did not descend to that level.  Indeed Phillips was strongly supported on the panel by Housing Minister Lee Rowley, and also by several members of the audience which, nevertheless, was largely opposed to Phillips.  The major clash occurred between Phillips and fellow-panellist Stephen Flynn, the leader in Westminster of the 43 Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) members of Parliament.

A member of the audience asked: “With 12,300 children dead in Gaza, will the government or the opposition put any meaningful pressure on Israel to end the slaughter?”

Flynn began by condemning the massacre perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, but quickly moved on to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.  He condemned Israel for what he called the “collective punishment” of the civilian population, quoting the Hamas-provided and unverifiable figures of 30,000 dead which, in any case, make no distinction between civilians and Hamas fighters.  He called for Britain to use its influence in the UN Security Council to press for an immediate ceasefire, “no ifs, no buts” as he put it.  He maintained that there was no justification for bombing civilians in support of demanding the release of the hostages held by Hamas.

Phillips responded passionately.  Accusing Flynn of shedding “crocodile tears” over the October 7 massacre, she demanded how he could categorize Israel’s determination to destroy Hamas’s grip over Gaza as collective punishment of the Palestinian population.  “Hamas has turned Gazans not only into human shields,” she said, “but into cannon fodder.  Hamas shoot Gazans trying to escape to safe areas.

“Hamas are in tunnels for their own safety,” she continued.  “Not one shelter has been built by Hamas in all the time they have ruled Gaza.  The only reason Israel has had to bomb Gaza is because they cannot get at the infrastructure of mass terror.”

Turning again to Flynn’s earlier remarks, Phillips poured scorn on his accusation that Israel was perpetrating “collective punishment” on the Gazans.  “Collective punishment?” she said.  “This is how he describes the defense against genocide, the desperate attempt by Israel to prevent another genocide and a second Holocaust from happening.”

As some of  the audience began objecting, she rounded on them. 

“What do you think Hamas mean when they say they want to kill every Jew?” she demanded.  “Why do you sneer at this?  A second Holocaust is what is threatened.  Israel is trying to prevent it.  That is not an exaggeration.”

It is doubtful whether Phillips succeeded in shifting the opinion of any in that audience who supported a ceasefire.  But they, and the million or so viewers of Question Time, at least got to hear a passionately expressed pro-Israel point of view rarely available from the BBC or indeed from most of the rest of Britain’s media. 

Melanie Phillips has chosen to travel a lonely road.  Whether or not people always agree with what she says, a great many admire her doughty spirit and her determination to stand up for what she believes, regardless of what others think.  She is a valued voice in support of Israel’s determination to defeat its mortal enemy.

Published in the Eurasia Review, 10 May 2024:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/10052024-antisemitism-in-britain-oped/#:~:text=The%20Community%20Security%20Trust%20(CST,the%20same%20period%20in%202022.

Unrest in Jordan

 Published in the Jerusalem Post, 15 April 2024:

Like his fellow national leaders, King Abdullah of Jordan is well aware of the danger that Iran – a non-Arab entity – poses to his nation and the Arab world generally.  Its aim to dominate the region, both politically and religiously, and its actions in support of these objectives, unites much of the Arab world, and gives it common cause with Israel.

 Ever since Hamas’s murderous assault into Israel on October 7, Jordan has been attempting to manage and curb widespread opposition to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.  Perhaps that is not surprising given that around 60% of Jordan’s population, including the popular Queen Rania, is of Palestinian origin.  As in most other Arab countries, pro-Palestinian support has gone further.  A recent University of Jordan poll found that 66% of Jordanians actually defend the slaughter and hostage-taking perpetrated by Hamas. 

Simmering unrest at popular level makes the Jordanian authorities uneasy, while the popularity of Hamas – a proxy of the Iranian regime – is perceived as a threat to the stability of the kingdom.  About a thousand people were arrested in Amman during pro-Palestinian demonstrations in October and November 2023, nominally for criminal behavior.  Activists claimed the arrests were an attempt to stifle popular demands for the state to adopt an unequivocal anti-Israel position on the Gaza conflict.

King Abdullah has defied the more extreme popular demands, ignoring calls for Jordan to cut all ties with Israel and cancel the 1994 peace treaty.  On the contrary, on the night of April 13-14 he acted decisively in the common interests of Jordan and Israel.  The administration had earlier closed its airspace as a precaution against an Iranian strike across its border.  That is exactly what happened when the massive Iranian drone and missile attack attempted to reach Israel by flying over Jordan.. 

Abdullah proved as good as his word.  Authoritative sources confirm that Jordan's air force intercepted and shot down dozens of Iranian drones that violated its airspace.  In neighborhoods south of the capital Amman, some 60 km (37 miles) from Jerusalem, several downed drones have been seen.

Jordan has been struggling for six months to restrain protests in support of Hamas.  One massive pro-Hamas demonstration was sparked at the end of March.

On Sunday morning, March 24, the principal news presenter on Qatari-owned al-Jazeera, Elsy Abi Assi, interviewed on live TV a Gazan woman named Jamila Al-Hessi.

She said she had been trapped in Shifa hospital for six days as the IDF carried out an intensive search of the building and its occupants.  Al-Hissi claimed that when inside the hospital Israeli soldiers had “raped women, kidnapped women, executed women, and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them.”

“Is there anything worse than this?” said al-Hissi. “Is there anything more horrifying than hearing women call for help, and when we try to reach them to provide assistance, they shoot at us?”

Her allegations spread like wildfire on social media.

The IDF’s Arabic spokesperson, Lt. Col. Avichai Adraee, immediately took to social media to deny al-Hissi’s story.  In a video posted on X, formerly Twitter, he said that there was “no evidence for these allegations.”  An unknown woman had called in with a series of claims. “No one knows who she is,” said Adraee. “She just claimed and claimed and lied.”

His denial was ignored and, said Aaron Magid, a journalist specializing in Jordanian affairs, “thousands of Jordanians hit the streets to protest.”

A few hours later Yasser Abuhilalah, a former director-general of al-Jazeerah, posted on X a full disclaimer. A Hamas investigation into these allegations, he announced, had concluded that they were not true, al-Hissi had retracted her story, and he apologized for promulgating the false report.  He dissociated al-Jazeera from al-Hissi and the unsustainable motives she had given for making her false claims. 

According to some analysts, Hamas issued a rare public denial of these claims because their dissemination in northern Gaza was having the opposite effect than intended.  Instead of stoking enmity against Israel, they had caused Palestinians to flee the area in fear for their safety.  Hamas wants as many civilians exposed to possible IDF action as possible.

The next day al-Jazeera pulled all references to al-Hessi’s claims from its online platforms, but the damage had been done. The false report had been viewed over 2 million times within the first 24 hours.

The slogan “All of Jordan is Hamas” has been a popular chant at the protests.  In official circles it is regarded as both untrue and destabilizing.  The ruling establishment is perfectly well aware that since the early days of the war Hamas leaders have sought to stir up tensions in Jordan.  In a speech in November, Hamas military spokesman Abu Obeida called on Jordanians to escalate all forms of protest.

 “You, our people in Jordan,” he declared controversially, “are the nightmare of the occupation (ie Israel).   It fears your mobilization, and strives tirelessly to neutralize and isolate you from your cause.”

Placards with Abu Obeida’s picture have been a common sight at the latest protests.

All the same, in an attempt to placate popular anti-Israel opinion, he and Queen Rania have stepped up their anti-Israel rhetoric.  Rania has been constantly urging Western leaders to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, and must be delighted that finally she appears to have turned opinion in her direction.   Abdullah took the lead in opposing those Western nations who decided to suspend funding UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency), when it was discovered that a number of its officials had actually participated in Hamas’s bloodthirsty attack on Israel on October 7. 

         In short, the current situation in Jordan could be described as the royal family and the administration struggling to keep the lid on a bubbling cauldron of anti-government sentiment that is fanatically determined to identify with Hamas and to sever all formal ties with Israel.  At the same time Abdullah, well aware that popular opinion and the nation’s self-interest rarely coincide, pragmatically refuses to allow Iran free passage over his airspace in order to attack Israel.  The Israel-Jordan peace treaty, often subject to pressure, stress and difficulty, stands firm.

Published in the Jerusalem Post on 15 April 2024, and the Jerusalem Post online titled "Does the Israel-Jordan peace treaty stand firm amid the tensions with Iran?"
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-797050

Published in Eurasia Review, 27 April 2024:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/27042024-unrest-in-jordan-oped/#google_vignette

Published in the MPC Journal, 29 April 2024:

https://mpc-journal.org/unrest-in-jordan/

Iran targets the UK

 Published in the Jerusalem Post, 8 April 2024

   On the afternoon of Friday, 29 March, Pouria Zeraati was attacked by two men outside his home in south London.  Slashed again and again with a knife, he suffered multiple stab wounds and was rushed to hospital.  Fortunately he survived, and has since been discharged.

            Zeraati is a journalist working for Iran International, a dissident TV news website broadcasting from London.  Established in 2017 it has, according to independent surveys, become the most widely watched news channel in Iran, attracting twice as many viewers as BBC Persian.  It is, of course, banned by the regime, and its audience has to access it via VPN, the virtual private network system familiar to many viewers in Israel. 

            The programs and interviews transmitted by Iran International are frank, and outspokenly opposed to the Islamist regime and its excesses. Which is why Iran’s IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) has declared the station, along with BBC Persian, a “terrorist channel”. 

It was on March 8, 2023, that Zaraati scored a media coup by persuading Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to be interviewed on air.  Faced with the opportunity of addressing the Iranian public directly, Netanyahu pulled no punches in his condemnation of the Iranian regime, its leaders and its policies.

   As he spoke Iran was in the throes of nationwide political turmoil following the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini the previous September.  Amini had been arrested by the so-called morality police.  Her crime was allegedly violating Iran's mandatory Islamic dress code through inappropriate use of her hijab, or head covering.

News of her death circulated rapidly on social media, and protests erupted at her funeral and then spread across the country.  The government’s attempts to quell them had little effect.  Many young women began appearing in public without head coverings, and demonstrators, often led by women and young people, targeted symbols of the Islamic Republic, burned pictures of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and chanted "Death to the Dictator".

During his TV interview Netanyahu commended the stand taken by the women of Iran, asserting that by claiming their right to freedom they were speaking for women the world over.  The Iranian regime, he said, was the enemy of freedom, while the brutal treatment of the women protesting for their freedom had unmasked Iran’s leaders as the radical Islamist thugs they were. 

He extended his condemnation specifically to the IRGC who, he said, were actively engaged in exporting terror across the world, and were even then heavily involved in plots to assassinate elected officials, journalists, and any public figure openly critical of the Iranian regime.

Netanyahu was almost certainly aware that, as he spoke, London’s Metropolitan Police (the Met) were engaged in countering threats to public security from Iranian agents operating in the UK.  This has since been confirmed in an official announcement made on March 30, 2024.   “Counter-Terrorism Policing,” it ran, “continues to deal with threats projected into the UK from Iran. Since 2022, a number of plots to either kidnap or even kill British or UK-based individuals perceived as enemies of the Iranian regime have been disrupted.”

One such occurred back in December 2023 when two Iranians, members of the IRGC, were found to be involved in a plot to assassinate two TV presenters from Iran International, and were sanctioned by both the British and US governments, acting together.  The journalists involved were not identified at the time on security grounds.

UK Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, said: “The Iranian regime and the criminal gangs who operate on its behalf pose an unacceptable threat to the UK’s security. Today’s package exposes the roles of the Iranian officials and gangs involved in activity aimed to undermine, silence and disrupt the democratic freedoms we value in the UK. The UK and US have sent a clear message – we will not tolerate this threat.”

Sanctions and warnings, however, did nothing to deflect Tehran from its terrorist intent. Its IRGC agents proceeded with its assassination attempt on Pouria Zeraati  regardless, and the next day a news website run by the IRGC said that Zeraati had incurred the state’s “wrath” for conducting an interview with Israel’s prime minister.  Under Zeraati’s questioning, Netanyahu’s outright condemnation of the IRGC as the world’s foremost fomenter of terrorism and tyranny could only have exacerbated the “wrath”.  Media reports suggest that the knife plot was a back-up scheme, after the initial idea of a car bomb outside the TV studio was foiled by the presence of heavy security.

This was not the end of the affair.  On March 30, Iranian journalist Sima Sabet revealed that she had been told by police to leave her home “until further notice”, because she was also an IRGC assassination target. Sabet hosted a talk show on Iran International, and previously worked for the BBC World Service. In a post on social media Sabet criticized the UK government for not standing up to terrorism perpetrated by the Iranian government.

“I must emphatically mention,” she wrote, “that the British Government has not taken sufficient, meaningful, decisive, and effective political action against the terrorism of the Iranian government.  As a journalist and a British citizen, I cannot hide my criticism and concern over this political and diplomatic negligence. Many of my journalist friends agree with this assessment.”

She went on: “London is our home. Britain must be a safe place for journalists across all media, and unsafe for extremists and terrorists receiving orders from Tehran. Our voice will not be silenced by threat and terrorism.  Journalism is not a crime; state terrorism is. Stop it.”

It is certainly true that the UK’s Home Office has been humming and hawing for more than a year over whether to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization – a BBC webpage, posted on January 3, 2023 and still live, asserts that “the UK is preparing to formally declare the Iran’s IRGC is a terrorist organization.“  Yet still no conclusion has been reached, despite intense lobbying by members of parliament supportive of the government.

Some commentators held that Britain’s Foreign Office believed that designating the IRGC would probably lead to the expulsion of the British ambassador and jeopardize Britain’s capacity to negotiate with Iran.  However the current sustained attacks on the world’s shipping by the Houthis, Iran’s agents, may have put a different complexion on the issue, while the blatant attempt to assassinate the journalist Zeraati on a London street could prove the clincher.  Time will tell.  

Published in the Jerusalem Post, and the Jerusalem Post online titled "Iran targets the UK, time to designate IRGC as terrorist organization?" 8 April 2024:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-795824 

Published in Eurasia Review, 19 April 2024:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/19042024-iran-targets-the-uk-oped/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCounter%2DTerrorism%20Policing%2C%E2%80%9D,Iranian%20regime%20have%20been%20disrupted.%E2%80%9D

Published in the MPC Journal, 23 April 2024:

https://mpc-journal.org/iran-targets-the-uk/

The Abraham Accords will probably survive

 Published in the Jerusalem Post, 1 April 2024

Six months into the Gaza war, and world opinion – widely in support of Israel’s initial onslaught on Hamas following the horrendous events of October 7 – has steadily hardened and turned.  Appeals for a pause in the fighting have grown ever more strident, culminating in the Resolution passed on March 25 by the UN Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire.  The Resolution, while also demanding the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages held by Hamas, did not link the ceasefire call to the hostage release.  In short, the UN is instructing Israel to stop fighting Hamas, giving it time to revive and regroup and leaving it free to continue bombarding Israel with rockets and drones.  Security Council members knew, of course, that demanding Hamas release all its hostages was simply virtue signalling, since it is quite unenforceable. Hamas is a terrorist organization, unbeholden to the UN or anyone else. 

Arab street opinion and the self-interest of Arab sovereign states rarely coincide.  The Abraham Accords were initially sold to a skeptical Arab public on the grounds that they would give rich Arab countries unprecedented financial leverage on Israel, and would eventually improve conditions for the Palestinians.  Months into a conflict that has cost thousands of lives, polls of Arab opinion indicate overwhelming support for Hamas.  Regardless, Abraham Accord regimes, convinced that the benefits from the Accords override other considerations, are sidelining public opinion.

It was back in 2020-2021 that the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan signed the deals, collectively known as the Abraham Accords. Sudan is a special case. For nearly a year the country has been torn asunder by a ferocious civil war, and is suffering one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history.

Fighting between the army, headed by General Abdel Fattah al-Burham. and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagtalo, has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of people. Food is in short supply, and the threat of famine for much of the population looms.  The world has regarded the rapidly developing tragedy with indifference.

Addressing the UN Security Council on March 20,

Edem Wosornu, director of operations at the UN Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said: “By all measures – the sheer scale of humanitarian needs, the numbers of people displaced and facing hunger – Sudan is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent memory…Simply put,” she said, “we are failing the people of Sudan.”

According to the UN more than 18 million Sudanese are facing acute food insecurity – 10 million more than at this time last year – while 730,000 Sudanese children are believed to be suffering from severe malnutrition.  Eventually, no doubt, the conflict will end and Sudan will struggle back to a more normal existence.  Then will be the time for its government ­to consider where the country’s best interests lie, and whether to endorse its membership of the Accords or to reject it.

In the case of the UAE, according to a March 10 report in the New York Times (NYT), Emirati officials say they have no intention of cutting ties with Israel.  On the contrary, in a document addressed to the NYT, the Emirati government highlighted how its officials had used their relationship with Israel to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid for Gazans, as well as the medical treatment of injured Gazans taken to the Emirates.

“The UAE believes that diplomatic and political communications are important in difficult times such as those we are witnessing,” said the government.

In late February economy minister Nir Barkat became the first Israeli minister to visit the Emirates since October 7.  He attended the World Trade Organization’s ministerial conference in Abu Dhabi, and was seen shaking hands and chatting with Saudi Arabia’s commerce minister, Majid bin Abdullah Al-Qasabi.  In an interview, he said he was “very optimistic” after meeting with Emirati officials.

“There’s a bit of sensitivity while the war is still happening,” he said, but the two countries “have aligned interests, and the Abraham Accords are extremely strategic for all of us.”

An article by Middle East specialist Joshua Krasna, published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute, records the gesture pronouncement by the lower house of Bahrain’s Parliament on November 2 declaring; “the halting of economic ties with Israel and the return of ambassadors on both sides… in support of the Palestinian cause and the legitimate rights of the brotherly Palestinian people.” 

It was no more than a gesture because the Bahraini parliament has no locus at all in the state’s foreign policy.  Krasna maintains that the parliamentary initiative had no impact on formal diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain.

He is uncertain, though, about the scope and content of those relations post-war. The re-emergence of the Palestinian issue as central to the regional and international agenda, he believes, must have an impact – although as yet highly uncertain – on future economic and political relations.

As regards Morocco, the Qatar-based news medium, Al Jazeera, reports that despite rising public anger in the country over the Israel–Hamas conflict, the normalization deal between Morocco and Israel will likely hold.

Since early October, thousands of Moroccans have marched in the capital, Rabat, with Palestinian flags and slogans calling, among other things, for an end to Moroccan government normalization with Israel.  However high political considerations, spearheaded by the king himself, outweigh popular murmurings.  The juicy carrot offered to Morocco by the Trump administration as an inducement to sign up to the Accords was US recognition of the nation’s claim to the disputed territory of Western Sahara.  This prize Morocco acquired, and it represents a major boost in its long dispute with Algeria over claims to the territory.

Moreover, says Intissar Fakir, a senior analyst at the Middle East Institute, the military advantage Morocco has been able to acquire through deals with Israel, “is substantial… [it] would be difficult for Morocco to walk away from this partnership with Israel.”

In general, analysts assess that the effect of the Gaza conflict will be to slow, rather than halt, Israel’s continuing normalization with Abraham Accord states UAE, Bahrain and Morocco.

 Meanwhile Saudi Arabia, its relations with Israel still very warm, remains in the wings, perhaps awaiting the moment juste to sign up.

Published in the Jerusalem Post and the Jerusalem Post online, 1 April 2024:

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-794600

Published in Eurasia Review, 14 April 2024:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/14042024-the-abraham-accords-will-probably-survive-oped/#google_vignette

Published in the MPC Journal, 14 April 2024:

https://mpc-journal.org/the-abraham-accords-will-probably-survive/