SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bahrain
Jailed US-Kuwaiti Journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin Acquitted on All Charges
The head of the Committee to Protect Journalists has called Shihab-Eldin's arrest for social media posts about the Iran war part of a trend of “increasing restrictions on freedom of expression” in the Gulf states.
Apr 23, 2026
US-Kuwaiti journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin is expected to be released after more than seven weeks in jail following his acquittal by a Kuwaiti court on Thursday.
The 41-year-old Shihab-Eldin, an award-winning reporter and documentarian who has worked at HuffPost, The New York Times, and Al Jazeera English, was detained by Kuwaiti authorities on March 2, just days after the US and Israel launched the opening salvos of their aggressive war against Iran, which was met with retaliatory strikes against US military bases across the Persian Gulf, including in Kuwait.
Shihab-Eldin, a US and Kuwaiti citizen who was in Kuwait to visit family, frequently commented on his public Substack account about news related to the war. One of his recent posts included a geolocated video, which was already public, of an American F-15 Strike Eagle jet falling from the sky near a US air base.
CNN later confirmed the video's authenticity, while the US military confirmed it was one of three American planes downed that day in what was described as a "friendly fire incident."
But shortly after posting the video, Shihab-Eldin found himself detained by Kuwaiti authorities on charges of "spreading malicious information online" and "harming national security."
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called these "vague and overly broad accusations that are routinely used to silence independent journalists."
Legal counsel hired by Shihab-Eldin's sisters said on Thursday that he had been declared innocent of the charges by a Kuwaiti court and was expected to be released imminently, though some details were still being finalized.
“We are relieved that Ahmed Shihab-Eldin has been found innocent after 52 days in detention,” said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the CPJ. “Ahmed’s freedom and safety remain our topmost priority, and we will continue to closely monitor his case.”
Kuwait has come under heavy fire from Iran since the war began. In addition to attacks against American air bases, which have killed at least six US soldiers, Iran has targeted Kuwait's main airport and facilities at the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
Shihab-Eldin's arrest came as the Kuwaiti government began an aggressive clampdown on the sharing of video and other information related to Iranian attacks.
On May 2, Kuwait's Ministry of Information warned the public "not to photograph or publish any clips or information related to missiles or relevant locations."
Days later, the ministry announced that it was referring several "media law violators" for prosecution. It said, "Freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed within the framework of the law and is coupled with professional responsibility, accuracy, credibility, and obtaining information from official sources."
On March 15, Kuwait introduced a censorship law stating that companies and individuals were "obligated to preserve the supreme interests of the military authorities." It imposed prison sentences of up to 10 years for anyone who “disseminates news, publishes statements, or spreads false rumors related to military entities” with the intent to undermine confidence in them.
The verdict in Shihab-Eldin's case was just one of 137 handed down on Thursday by a new court meant to oversee crimes related to national security and terrorism. Those defendants have been accused of “inciting sectarian strife on social media platforms,” according to Drop Site News, which cited Jordan's Al-Rai newspaper.
Shihab-Eldin was just one of nine defendants to be acquitted, though in 109 of the cases, no criminal punishment was handed down. Seventeen defendants received three years in prison, while another 10 received one year.
Ginsberg said Kuwait's repressive clampdown is part of a trend of "increasing restrictions on freedom of expression” that has been observed across the wider Middle East, and particularly the autocratic Gulf states that host American military bases, since the war's outbreak.
The governments of Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates have each arrested hundreds of people for filming or sharing content relating to Iranian strikes or other information related to the war or protests against the government, according to a report by Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).
"This wave of repression reflects a deeper trend among Arab regimes: growing public frustration with US policy in the region and their governments' alignment with Washington," said Yara Bataineh, an editorial associate at DAWN's Democracy in Exile. "This crackdown did not begin with the war on Iran. Across several Arab states, authorities had already moved to suppress pro-Palestinian activism during Israel's genocide in Gaza—a pattern that has since intensified."
Israel's genocide in Gaza and expansionist military campaign into Lebanon have also proven historically deadly to journalists—including the Lebanese journalist Amal Khalid, who died under a pile of rubble on Wednesday from an attack by Israeli forces, who also attacked Red Cross workers attempting to rescue her. She is among hundreds of journalists and media workers who have been killed by Israeli attacks since 2023, according to the International Federation of Journalists.
“Almost inevitably, during a war, we see countries try to impose restrictions in the name of national security, and almost always that doesn’t just target genuine national security issues, but ends up covering a broad range of issues that are essential for us to understand what is happening,” Ginsberg told MS NOW. “That’s why we need journalists. We need journalists on the ground who can be our eyes and ears when we can’t get into these places and see for ourselves, so that we can understand what’s happening.”
She added, "It is an incredibly challenging time to be a journalist, and Ahmed’s case is emblematic of that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Jewel Thief' Bolsonaro Among 12 Indicted for Alleged Embezzlement in Brazil
The former right-wing president and others including his personal aide allegedly sold state property including jewelry and other gifts worth more than $1 million in the United States.
Jul 05, 2024
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's legal woes increased dramatically Thursday as he and 11 others were indicted for embezzlement and other crimes in connection with the alleged misappropriation of diamond jewelry and other state property received as gifts from the Saudi and Bahraini monarchies during the right-wing leader's presidential tenure.
Carta Capital reported that Brazil's Federal Police indicted Bolsonaro with embezzlement, money laundering, and criminal association. If convicted on all counts, he faces up to 25 years in prison. Bolsonaro maintains his innocence.
Eleven other people were also indicted in the case, including former Mines and Energy Minister Bento Albuquerque and former Bolsonaro personal aide Lt. Col. Mauro Cid. The office of Brazilian Attorney General Jorge Messias must now decide whether to proceed with a federal case against the indicted individuals.
According to authorities, Bolsonaro failed to properly register high-value gifts from the Saudi and Bahraini governments near the end of his presidential term. Those items were later sold in the United States by the president's associates.
While visiting Saudi Arabia in October 2019, the Saudi monarchy gifted Bolsonaro a white gold kit containing a diamond-encrusted Rolex watch. This and another luxury Swiss watch—a Patek Philippe—were later allegedly sold in a mall in Pennsylvania.
This diamond-encrusted Rolex watch (left) is part of the white gold kit (right) that was allegedly sold by Bolsonaro associates in the United States. (Photo: Brazilian Federal Police)
On an October 2021 trip to Saudi Arabia, Albuquerque received a gold rosé kit with a watch, cuff links, pen, ring, and an Islamic rosary made by Chopard and failed to properly report the gift upon returning to Brazil. Investigators say the kit was then taken aboard an official flight on which Bolsonaro was a passenger and subsequently sold at a New York auction.
Proceeds from the sale of the undeclared goods—which investigators say totaled more than $1 million—were pocketed by the indicted individuals.
Army Gen. Mauro Lourena Cid—the father of Lt. Col. Mauro Cid, Bolsonaro's personal aide—allegedly kept some jewelry and sculptures received by Bolsonaro at the end of the Arab-Brazilian Chamber of Commerce Business Seminar in Manama, Bahrain in November 2021.
This photo shows some of the diamond jewelry cited in the Brazilian Federal Police indictment of former President Jair Bolsonaro and 11 others.(Photo: Brazilian Federal Police)
Police recommended criminally charging the younger Cid, who signed a plea deal. Cid's lawyer claimed his client was following orders from Bolsonaro—an allegation the ex-president denies.
O Globo reported Bolsonaro allegedly stored 175 boxes containing numerous gifts at a property owned by former Formula One racer Nelson Piquet. While some of the gifts were determined to be the president's rightful property, other items given to Bolsonaro while he served in his official presidential capacity are legally owned by the state.
This is the second set of federal criminal charges for Bolsonaro, who in March was
federally charged with allegedly falsifying his Covid-19 vaccination data and criminal association in a case that could result in a prison sentence of 12-16-years if he is fully convicted.
Bolsonaro—who denies any wrongdoing—is also banned from seeking any political office for eight years due to his alleged abuse of power related to baseless claims of fraud in the 2022 presidential election.
A 2023 Brazilian congressional inquiry also found that Bolsonaro was the "intellectual and moral author of a coup movement" that culminated in the January 8, 2023 attacks on government buildings, and he and scores of his supporters should be criminally indicted for their "willful coup attempt."
Bolsonaro's autocratic actions have been compared to those of former U.S. President Donald Trump, long ago earning him the nickname "Trump of the Tropics." Bolsonaro sought refuge in the United States following the January 2023 attacks and the inauguration of leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who defeated him in the runoff round of the 2022 presidential election.
"Bolsonaro the Jewel Thief" trended on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, following Thursday's indictments.
"Today is a great day for people who believe in justice," said one Socialism and Liberty city councilwoman in Belo Horizonte.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury Over $500 Million US Export-Import Bank Loan to Bahrain 'Climate Bomb'
"This approval signals another setback for Biden's climate commitments, and cements the United States yet again as the worst of the laggard countries in violation of the promise to end international public finance for fossil fuels," one campaigner said.
Mar 15, 2024
Despite a Biden administration pledge to stop backing international fossil fuel projects by 2022, the U.S. Export-Import Bank announced Thursday that it would provide a $500 million loan for oil and gas expansion in Bahrain.
The funding marks the fifth time that EXIM has chosen to back a fossil fuel project abroad since President Joe Biden joined the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP) at the United Nations COP26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021.
"EXIM's decision to approve the Bahrain oil and gas project is another alarming step in the wrong direction for climate action, as the bank goes rogue and continues to defy President Biden's promises," Nina Pušic, an export finance climate strategist at Oil Change International, said in a statement, adding that the project was a "huge climate bomb paid for by the American taxpayer."
"This is the wrong decision. Our health, planet, and future are at stake—the U.S. must stop financing oil and gas expansion."
Signatories to CETP vowed to "end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022" and instead shift financing toward renewable energy projects. Yet an Oil Change analysis published in September found that countries including the U.S. continued to back fossil fuel projects after signing.
According to that analysis, the U.S. had approved the largest number of projects after the CETP's 2022 deadline to stop funding oil, gas, and coal. What's more, counting Thursday's $500 million, the EXIM has funded fossil fuel projects to the tune of $1.3 billion since the cut-off date.
"This approval signals another setback for Biden's climate commitments, and cements the United States yet again as the worst of the laggard countries in violation of the promise to end international public finance for fossil fuels," Pušic said.
In its announcement, EXIM said that the money, lent to Bahrain's semi-independent Bapco Energies, would support around 2,100 jobs in Texas and other U.S. states and "was not expected to result in a meaningful increase in oil and gas production." The bank pointed out that Bapco Energies had signed the COP28 Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, promising net-zero operations by 2050 and an end to flaring by 2030.
"This transaction will support thousands of U.S. jobs and play a crucial role in ensuring Bapco Energies is able to achieve its climate goals of enhanced grid interconnectivity, more efficiency, decarbonization, and investments in large-scale solar projects," EXIM President and Chair Reta Jo Lewis said in a statement.
However, EXIM told Congress when it first announced the potential funding that the project would create more than 400 new oil wells and 30 new gas wells, Reuters reported.
The announcement came two days after Democratic and Independent lawmakers led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) sent a letter to the bank urging it not to fund the project "because of its negative impacts on the climate."
In the letter, the legislators pointed to the International Energy Agency's assessment that any new oil, gas, and coal investment was incompatible with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C. Further, they noted that Congress had stipulated that EXIM should review the environmental and climate impact of projects when it reauthorized its charter in 2019.
"The world is in the midst of a climate crisis that is already having devastating impacts on millions of people across the globe," the letter concluded. "We cannot afford to have EXIM undermine domestic and international climate progress by financing projects that worsen this crisis. We urge you to take EXIM's mandate to consider the environmental impacts of projects seriously, and to start by disapproving new funding for oil and gas drilling in Bahrain."
"The United States has lost any credibility it had as a climate leader, and instead has proven to be led by forces like EXIM to prop up a dying industry while simultaneously killing its own people."
Instead of heeding the lawmakers' request, EXIM approved five times the amount of funds it had initially told Congress is was considering.
"We can't tackle climate chaos and lead the globe to a renewable energy economy if we keep greenlighting fossil energy of the past," Merkley said on social media in response to the news. "This is the wrong decision. Our health, planet, and future are at stake—the U.S. must stop financing oil and gas expansion."
The move comes as younger voters have warned Biden that he should double-down on climate friendly policies to encourage youth turnout in the 2024 presidential election. Writing in Common Dreams on Thursday, Noa Greene-Houvras, a 17-year-old climate activist with Fridays for Future NYC, encouraged the president to stand up to EXIM and back an OECD proposal to end the support of export credit agencies for oil and gas projects.
In a separate statement, Greene-Houvras said: "We are horrified at the decision to send $500 million to new oil projects in Bahrain. The United States has lost any credibility it had as a climate leader, and instead has proven to be led by forces like EXIM to prop up a dying industry while simultaneously killing its own people."
"As youth we are watching our future slip away, engulfed by fire and flood," Greene-Houvras continued, adding "We are both terrified and baffled at this decision making process, and we will not let this stand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the Abraham Accords Got Wrong
The Palestinian issue could not simply be wished away, and the signing of the pacts created a set of contradictions that fueled the tensions that erupted October 7.
Oct 22, 2023
It’s easy to forget now, but the shocking and horrific violence that set off the current hostilities in the Middle East, where Hamas militants slaughtered and kidnapped innocent Israeli civilians, was predicted. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Donald Trump warned in October 2020 that terrorist violence was set to be imminently inflamed.
Trump’s DHS didn’t claim it was because, in President Joe Biden words, of “sheer evil” from those who exist only “to kill Jews.” Rather, it pointed to the Abraham Accords: the U.S.-led effort to normalize relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors, which Trump claimed would shift the course of Middle Eastern history from “decades of division and conflict” and which the Biden administration claimed would make the region “safer and more prosperous.”
So how did we end up with the exact opposite?
Hamas’attack also can’t be understood without the bipartisan push for Israeli-Arab normalization at the Palestinians’ expense, and the outrage, anger, and despair it has inspired.
For decades, the peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, meaning the provision of an independent state for the Palestinian people and the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, was central to the task of engineering peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. This was a problem, since between successive Israeli governments steadily chipping away at the possibility of a two-state solution to the conflict and dwindling U.S. interest in pressuring the Israeli state to follow through on the commitment, that resolution started to look increasingly impossible.
But over time, the priorities of the Arab states shifted away from the Palestinians, too. Their largely authoritarian leadership became more preoccupied with matters like maintaining political control in the wake of the Arab Spring protests—for which support from an advanced military power like Israel might prove useful—and an increasingly assertive Iran, which then-newly appointed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman called a “much more urgent and more important” issue.
This shift dovetailed with the Trump administration’s ultra-Israel-friendly stance and its own goal of further isolating Iran in the region. The resulting Abraham Accords were, at least in the neoconservative world, considered a stroke of “genius.” Rather than finding a solution to the seemingly intractable question of Palestinian statehood, it simply sidelined it.
The signers dropped this long-standing precondition as they re-established diplomatic relations and deepened security and economic cooperation with Israel, while Trump lavished them with rewards, like an arms deal for the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and U.S. recognition of the annexation of West Sahara for Morocco. It effectively supplanted the Saudi government’s Arab Peace Initiative, which since its 2002 introduction had been the foundation of the Arab world’s program for resolving the conflict, placing the Palestinians front and center.
The new normalization agreements’ foundational and cynical assumption was that the plight of the Palestinians could and would be safely ignored and forgotten about by both the region’s governments and the broader international community. Both the Trump administration and, reportedly, bin Salman, pressured Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to assent, while the states that signed continued paying lip service to the Palestinian cause, claiming this normalization push would halt Israel’s annexation plans for its illegal West Bank settlements.
In reality, the text of the agreements barely mentioned Palestinians, outside of a few vague assurances to keep working toward a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Morocco maintained a “coherent, constant, and unchanged position” on the matter. This was, to put it mildly, far short of what both Palestinians and their supporters in the U.S. Congress demanded.
As Arab states began gradually deepening ties with Israel, they increasingly backed away from their historic positions. Bin Salman declared (and subsequently walked back) that Israelis “have the right to have their own land,” effectively sanctioning the loss of what the Muslim world viewed as Palestinians’ historic land.
When violence broke out in April 2021 at the Al-Aqsa mosque, with Israeli forces raiding one of Islam’s holiest sites, the UAE response was notably muted. That the normalization process continued despite what would earlier have been viewed as an unacceptable provocation against both Palestinians and Islam itself was celebrated by the accords’ supporters, as proof that ongoing repression of Palestinians could indeed be safely ignored.
But the Palestinian issue could not simply be wished away, and the signing of the pacts created a set of contradictions that fueled the tensions that erupted October 7. The vast majority of the populations of Israel’s Arab neighbors opposed the accords, as did some leaders, like Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, who charged that the signers had “lost their moral compass,” and Jordan’s King Abdullah, who declared that “no architecture for regional security and development can stand over the burning ashes of this conflict.”
So did Palestinians themselves, across opinion surveys, with both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas calling it a “betrayal,” a “treacherous stab,” and “grave harm.” Hamas also called for “an integrated plan to bring down normalization.” Protests against the accords erupted in Morocco, one of the signers.
The signing of the accords was particularly fraught in Saudi Arabia. The country’s powerful clerics continued to oppose Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. But beyond that, the Saudi leadership’s internal legitimacy and its standing as the region’s leader of the Islamic continued to rest in part on its commitment to the Palestinians. Regional rival Iran quickly stepped in to fill this vacuum left by Saudi support for the deals, sharply criticizing the normalization effort as a “betrayal of Palestinian aspirations for freedom.”
Meanwhile, Israeli policy didn’t change as promised, and in fact, only hardened. Since 2020, when the accords were signed, illegal settlements have expanded and even ramped up alongside settler violence. The Netanyahu government has now advanced a record number of settler housing units, and transferred administration of the occupied territories from military to civilian hands, widely interpreted as signaling plans for annexation, even as figures like former Abbas adviser Ghaith al-Omari claimed the accords had “already delivered to the Palestinians” by stopping this policy.
This past September, the UAE’s ambassador to the United States admitted annexation hadn’t actually stopped.
The Biden administration could have reversed Trump’s efforts, and placed pressure on Israel to halt these plans, as well as end its settlement expansion while making good on its promises and obligations under the peace process. Instead, the president continued Trump’s normalization efforts while breaking from presidential precedent and not even attempting to advance the peace process, all while issuing little to no criticism of the Israeli government’s violations.
He has in fact escalated the issue, pushing for an Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement, with the only concession to Palestinians the mere preservation of the possibility of Israeli-Palestinian peace—an agreement that would also entail further nuclear proliferation in the region and giving Saudi Arabia security assurances. Even so, Biden’s secretary of state continues to claim that this could “be used to advance” such a peace.
So while Hamas had reportedly planned this operation for two years, and claimed it was motivated by years of violence at Al-Aqsa, its attack also can’t be understood without the bipartisan push for Israeli-Arab normalization at the Palestinians’ expense, and the outrage, anger, and despair it has inspired.
What is clear—from Hamas’s extraordinary violence, the wider regional war it threatens to spark, as well as the major pro-Palestinian protests across Arab countries in response to Israel’s bombing campaign—is that almost every assumption that undergirded the Abraham Accords was disastrously wrong, not least the idea that dismissing the Palestinians would make for a more peaceful Middle East.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Experts Say Abolishing Death Penalty 'Is the Only Viable Path'
"Despite more than 170 states having repealed the death penalty or adopted moratoriums, there was a reported 20% increase in the number of executions last year."
Oct 10, 2022
A pair of United Nations experts joined people across the globe on Monday in marking the 20th World Day Against the Death Penalty by calling for an end to capital punishment.
"A growing trend of imposing the death penalty on those exercising their right to peaceful political protest is deeply worrying."
"Abolition of the death penalty is the only viable path," asserted Alice Edwards, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and Morris Tidball-Binz, and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.
"The death row phenomenon has long been characterized as a form of inhuman treatment, as has the near total isolation of those convicted of capital crimes and often held in unlawful solitary confinement," said Edwards and Tidball-Binz in a joint statement.
The experts pointed out that "a number of states continue to impose the death penalty for nonviolent crimes such as blasphemy, adultery, and drug-related offenses, which fail the 'most serious crime' standard for the application of capital punishment under international law."
"A growing trend of imposing the death penalty on those exercising their right to peaceful political protest is deeply worrying," Edwards and Tidball-Binz noted. "Furthermore, increasingly methods of execution have been found to be incompatible with the obligations to refrain from torture and ill-treatment, for inflicting severe pain and suffering."
"Despite more than 170 states having repealed the death penalty or adopted moratoriums, there was a reported 20% increase in the number of executions last year," they continued. "States that retain the death penalty are urged to scrupulously apply exceptions for persons with intellectual disabilities, pregnant women, and children."
The pair also urged all countries to consider ratifying an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that focuses on the abolition of the death penalty.
In a joint statement Monday to "firmly reiterate their unequivocal opposition to the death penalty at all times, in all places, and in all circumstances," the European Union and the Council of Europe praised Kazakhstan for having ratified that ICCPR protocol.
"We also commend Papua New Guinea, Central African Republic, and Equatorial Guinea for having abolished the death penalty this year," the organizations said. They also called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to embrace Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The statement continued:
The E.U. and the Council of Europe strongly condemn the death sentences recently issued in the occupied Ukrainian city of Donetsk. We stress that these sentences were incompatible with both European human rights law and international law, including the Geneva Conventions and welcome with relief the release of the sentenced individuals. Equally, we deplore the politically motivated amendment of the Criminal Code of Belarus--extending capital punishment to "attempted terrorist acts," with the eventual aim of targeting political dissents--and we urge the authorities to reverse this decision. We also call on Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that have recently increased the number of executions to join the worldwide trend and abandon the use of this inhuman punishment.
Citing a May report from Amnesty International, Al Jazeera on Monday showed in a series of infographics that as of the end of 2021, 108 nations had abolished capital punishment for all crimes, and eight had ended it for crimes not committed during times of war.
Another 28 countries still officially had the death penalty but had not executed anyone in the past decade while 55 nations retained the policy and continued to kill people.
Like the U.N. experts, Al Jazeera also highlighted the 20% jump in executions last year. Specifically, at least 579 people were killed by 18 countries that used four methods: beheading, hanging, lethal injection, and shooting.
As the outlet noted:
Three countries accounted for 80% of all known executions in 2021: Iran (at least 314), Egypt (at least 83), and Saudi Arabia (65).
The recorded global totals do not include the thousands of executions that Amnesty International believes were carried out in China, where data on the death penalty are classified as a state secret.
Amnesty on Monday chose to focus on Saudi Arabia, pointing out that at least three young men "are at imminent risk of execution after an appeal court confirmed their sentences between June and October," after an official claimed in February that the kingdom had halted executions of individuals for "crimes committed by minors" and commuted all relevant death sentences.
Diana Semaan, Amnesty's acting deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa, stressed that "sentencing people to death for crimes that occurred when they were under the age of 18 is a clear violation of international human rights law."
"The Saudi Arabian authorities have promised to end the use of the death penalty in such cases, yet the brutal reality is that these young men are facing an abbreviated existence," Semaan said. "The king should not ratify these death sentences and should immediately halt all imminent executions and order retrials that must be fully consistent with international fair trial standards, without recourse to the death penalty."
Meanwhile, the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy on Monday released a report revealing that "Bahraini courts have convicted and sentenced defendants to death following manifestly unfair trials, based solely or primarily on confessions allegedly coerced through torture and ill-treatment."
HRW deputy Middle East director Michael Page declared that "the many human rights violations that underlie these death sentences reflect not a justice system but a pattern of injustice."
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, an HRW consultant and primary author of the report, urged the country's king to "commute all death sentences immediately and the government should reinstate the de facto moratorium on executions."
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, advocacy director at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, called for action by the country's allies, saying that "in particular the U.S. and U.K. should take decisive steps to stand with these victims before it is too late."
U.S. President Joe Biden is also under pressure from rights groups and other death penalty opponents to make good on his campaign pledge to work on outlawing capital punishment across the United States. While his administration has instituted a moratorium on federal executions, they still occur at the state level; ending those killings would require action by Congress.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can Formula 1 Star Lewis Hamilton Send a Message to the Saudi Government?
His willingness to speak out comes at an opportune time, as 2021 is the first year that Formula 1 will go to Saudi Arabia.
Apr 22, 2021
For human rights advocates who also enjoy the sport of car racing, a great opportunity awaits us. Lewis Hamilton, the only Black driver in the history of Formula 1 racing, has been bravely and consistently supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. In the wake of the protests against the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, Hamilton started to call Formula 1 out for its lack of diversity, even saying he would trade his 7th world championship for more diversity in the sport. Accused of bringing politics into the sporting world, he refused to back down, saying that his support for Black Lives Matter was a matter of supporting basic human rights.
Hamilton describes his concern for human rights as being global, and has expressed concern about human rights violations taking place in countries that Formula 1 travels to. During the tail end of the 2020 season when an F1 race was scheduled to take place in Bahrain, Hamilton received a letter from the young son of a man facing the death penalty in Bahrain. Moved by the plea by 11-year-old Ahmed Ramadhan to "please save my father," Hamilton replied that he "definitely won't let it go unnoticed."
Perhaps the most decorated athlete in F1 history will wear a shirt telling the world that sure, here is a race, but just a few hundred miles south the Saudi government is systematically starving the people of Yemen.
Hamilton had plans to address the Bahraini Crown Prince about Ahmed Ramadhan's father, as well as Bahrain's use of torture, but unfortunatly he contracted COVID-19 and was unable to travel to and race in the country. Still, Hamilton promised, "When I get some time now, I will definitely try and speak to those [people] and see how I can positively impact that [race] weekend [in future]."
Clearly, Hamilton has a deep concern for human suffering and is willing to take action. His willingness to speak out comes at an opportune time, as 2021 is the first year that Formula 1 will go to Saudi Arabia.
The UN has called the Saudi-led war in Yemen the "world's worst humanitarian crisis." By blockading Yemen's main port of Hodeidah, Saudi Arabia is intentionally starving an entire population. The situation is so bad that a Yemeni child dies every 75 seconds. On top of this is an almost constant aerial bombardment. Yemen is attempting to address the COVID-19 pandemic without a functioning health care, proper sanitation, or other infrastructure.
According to four UN agencies, if Saudi Arabia does not cease its campaign, 400,000 children under the age of five could die of starvation this year.
It isn't just in Yemen that Saudi Arabia is causing harm. In fact, It's bold of the Saudi government to host a Grand Prix while it's only been three years since they first granted Saudi women the right to drive. That right came at a grave price for Saudi women. Shortly after Saudi Arabia allowed women to drive, they rounded up the very women who had campaigned for the change.
A fierce activist, Loujain Al-Hathloul was first arrested in 2014 for attempting to drive across the UAE border--where she was a licensed driver--into Saudi Arabia. The 73 days she spent in jail at that time did not deter her. In 2018, right after Saudi Arabia gave women the right to drive, they arrested Loujain again. She was held in excessive pretrial detention, tortured, threatened, and eventually sentenced to almost six years in prison by a terrorism court. On February 11, 2021, after 1000 days in prison and enormous international attention to her case, Loujain was released but she remainsunder a five year travel ban where she is barred from leaving Saudi Arabia.
In addition to Saudi restrictions on women's rights, in 2018, Saudi Crown Prince and de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, approved an operation to capture or kill journalist Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Saudi Arabia is also known for having one of the highest execution rates in the world where people's heads are chopped off in public for offenses ranging from atheism to homosexuality to sorcery. Long prison terms and physical punishment are used against everyone from bloggers to lawyers who dare question the regime's absolute power.
When advocates to end the war in Yemen and achieve human rights inside Saudi Arabia became aware of the upcoming Formula 1 race in Saudi Arabia and Lewis Hamilton's support for Black Lives Matter and other causes, they began calling on Hamilton to boycott the Saudi race or at least make a statement. Lifelong F1 fans and peace activists alike have signed the petition with over 5,000 signatures. "The top Formula 1 driver refusing to compete in Saudi Arabia or speaking out could go a long way toward convincing Saudi Arabia to finally adhere to human rights," the petition reads, "This would send the message that the world is not blind to MbS trying to 'sportswash' his war crimes and human rights violations."
In addition, to the petition, a letter was sent to Hamilton from 46 human rights groups. Lina al-Hathloul, the sister of Loujain al-Hathloul stated, "It is our sincere hope as a family that Mr. Hamilton considers the gravity of supporting a country like Saudi Arabia that imprisons and tortures its own citizens like my sister Loujain." Dr. Aisha Jumaan, the founder of Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation said "The U.N. reported that 2.3 million Yemeni children under five years of age are experiencing famine. This is due to the Saudi war and blockade on Yemen. I hope that you send their agonized parents a message of solidarity by boycotting the race."
Those calling on Hamilton to act imagine that if he doesn't boycott the race he might wear a t-shirt with Loujain's face on it or the hashtag #FreeHumanRightsDefenders which calls for the Saudi government to release the many journalists, dissidents, and women's right activists currently languishing in prison. Perhaps the most decorated athlete in F1 history will wear a shirt telling the world that sure, here is a race, but just a few hundred miles south the Saudi government is systematically starving the people of Yemen.
Hamilton, if he chooses to boycott or make a statement, would not be the first athlete or celebrity to call out a country for its human rights record. In 2017, Professional football player Michael Bennett, after finding out his scheduled trip to Israel was being organized by the Israeli government, backed out of the trip saying "One of my heroes has always been Muhammad Ali. I know that Ali always stood strongly with the Palestinian people." In 2019, Nicki Minaj cancelled her scheduled performance in Saudi Arabia citing women's rights and LGBTQ rights concerns. "After careful reflection I have decided to no longer move forward with my scheduled concert at Jeddah World Fest," Minaj said in a statement. "While I want nothing more than to bring my show to fans in Saudi Arabia, after better educating myself on the issues, I believe it is important for me to make clear my support for the rights of women, the LGBTQ community and freedom of expression."
A lot of people say that sports aren't a place for "politics." But what they usually mean is that they want to maintain their willful ignorance. Sports are a part of the larger world, not outside of it. Athletes aren't characters in a movie, they're real people that benefit from or are harmed by the systems that are in place. Human rights advocates and F1 fans are glad Lewis Hamilton is part of the Black Lives Matter Movement. They hope he decides to extend his activism to calling out Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses and brutal war in Yemen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing 'Moral and Public Health Imperative,' Progressive Lawmakers Press Biden on Sanctions Relief
The 27 Democrats called for "much-needed and overdue changes to the way we use sanctions as a foreign policy tool."
Feb 10, 2021
A group of 27 progressive U.S. lawmakers on Thursday sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to "consider the humanitarian impacts of sanctions," which they say have "catastrophic" consequences during the coronavirus pandemic.
"Far too often and for far too long, sanctions have been imposed as a knee-jerk reaction without a measured and considered assessment of their impacts."
--Lawmakers' letter
Citing Biden's announcement on his second day in office that his administration would review all existing U.S. sanctions and their impact on the pandemic, the lawmakers argued in the letter (pdf) that "it is both a moral and public health imperative that our efforts to combat Covid-19 are global in scope because the pandemic's economic consequences require international cooperation."
Critics have long denounced what they call the inconsistent and hypocritical application of sanctions by the U.S. government. In addition to punishing some of the world's most repressive regimes, including those in North Korea and Syria, successive American administrations have also subjected countries including Cuba and Venezuela to sanctions, while supporting nations such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, whose governments commit severe human rights violations.
In Iran, everyday people suffer tremendously due to economic sanctions based on false nuclear proliferation claims, while nearby Israel--the only Middle Eastern nation with nuclear weapons--receives billions of dollars in annual U.S. military aid.
The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the already devastating impact of sanctions on the people of targeted nations.
"The pandemic does not adhere to borders, nor does it account for complex geopolitical realities," the legislators wrote in the letter, adding that "until the virus is eradicated everywhere, it is not eradicated anywhere." They continued:
We are also hopeful that this review indicates a willingness on the part of your administration to consider the humanitarian impacts of sanctions more broadly. Far too often and for far too long, sanctions have been imposed as a knee-jerk reaction without a measured and considered assessment of their impacts. Sanctions are easy to put in place, but notoriously difficult to lift.
And while they have demonstrably harmed civilian populations, caused authoritarian governments to further constrict civil spaces and repress civil and political rights, squeezed the ability of humanitarian organizations to provide support during crises and disasters, made basic staples such as food, medicine, and gasoline prohibitively expensive, created and fueled black market economies, and driven our rivals deeper into dependency on one another, we have historically not conducted regular assessments to determine how sanctions connect to the policy outcomes they seek to achieve so that it's often difficult to demonstrably prove their net benefit to national interests and security.
"The Covid-19 pandemic, as an existential threat with no geographic or political limits, has laid bare the interconnectedness of people around the world," the lawmakers concluded. "We are profoundly grateful for the leadership you have demonstrated by ordering this comprehensive review of existing sanctions, eagerly await the results of the review, and stand ready to work with your administration to make much-needed and overdue changes to the way we use sanctions as a foreign policy tool."
The lawmakers' letter does not mention any countries by name. It comes a day after Biden ordered new sanctions against the military regime in Myanmar, which earlier this month seized power in a coup and declared martial law in the nation's largest cities.
"Broad-based sanctions are cruel forms of collective punishment at any time. During a pandemic, they should be unthinkable."
--Win Without War
The letter was led by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). It was also signed by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Democratic Reps. Karen Bass (Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Joaquin Castro (Texas), David Cicilline (R.I.), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Raul Grijalva (Az.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Mondaire Jones (N.Y.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Alan Lowenthal (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Gwen Moore (Wis.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Nydia Velazquez (N.Y.), and Peter Welch (Vt.).
The groups Alliance for Cuba Engagement and Respect, American Friends Service Committee, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Demand Progress, Just Foreign Policy, Mennonite Central Committee, National Iranian American Council, Peace Action, and Win Without War supported the letter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Aims Fresh US Aggression at Iran, How Many Surprises Can This October Hold?
This latest not-so-shocking surprise is actually incredibly dangerous and reckless for the future as well as incredibly cruel, heartless, indeed sadistic right now.
Oct 12, 2020
When Donald Trump announced his latest threats against Iran on Rush Limbaugh's show last week, it was unclear whether he or his steroids were talking. Even this president rarely uses language like, "If you f**k around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before" in announcing foreign policy.
The possibility of an October Surprise looms over every presidential election. This year, twenty-some days out from the election they're looking likely to lose, with more than 215,000 people across the United States dead from the pandemic, the White House transformed into the latest coronavirus hot spot, the economy still in free-fall, and the commander in chief loaded up on drugs, the Trump administration's latest--harsh new sanctions on Iran--don't look so surprising at all. The political use of the term October Surprise, after all, started with the Iran hostage crisis of 1980.
But this not-so-shocking surprise is actually incredibly dangerous and reckless for the future, and incredibly cruel, heartless, indeed sadistic right now. The new economic sanctions will shut down the last 18 Iranian banks still able to finance the import of desperately needed humanitarian goods, including medicine desperately needed during the Covid-19 crisis, and even basic foodstuffs. Earlier U.S. sanctions had already brought massive suffering to Iranians. At the beginning of April, as the pandemic was at its height, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) acknowledged that "U.S. sanctions are stopping medical equipment from being sent to Iran. As a result, innocent people are dying."
The U.S. claims this latest escalation of its "maximum economic pressure" sanctions campaign will force Iran to the negotiating table. But years of punishing the entire population of 80 million Iranians has shown this is almost certain to fail to achieve stated U.S. goals--and even if it succeeded, the human price paid in hunger, lack of medicine during a raging pandemic, the death of children and other vulnerable people, is simply far too high.
During an earlier U.S. sanctions campaign against Iran, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) blithely noted that "critics also argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that." Sherman, who is now running to chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had the audacity to compare Washington's brutal sanctions against Iran to the global movement against apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. In so doing Sherman deliberately ignored the critical distinction: the vast majority of South Africans supported anti-apartheid organizations that called on the world to impose sanctions, accepting the consequences and linking those external sanctions to their broader national strategy for liberation and freedom. In Iran, people and organizations fighting to broaden democratic rights in Iran are calling desperately for an end to sanctions--because the sanctions are killing them.
This newest punishment will only exacerbate the devastating impact of the broader sanctions regime the U.S. has imposed on Iran for years. While the State Department brags that it "continues to stand with the Iranian people" and that "exceptions for humanitarian exports to Iran ... remain in full force" the reality is that existing economic sanctions, despite those exceptions, have destroyed Iran's economy and the lives of most of the 80 million Iranians, especially the poorest and most vulnerable sectors among them.
The latest escalations in broad U.S. economic sanctions against Iran began with Trump's pullout from the 2015 the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. Despite virtually unanimous international and U.S. intelligence agreement that the JCPOA was working--Iran was not building nuclear weapons, UN inspectors remained on the ground, UN sanctions had been ended--Trump made clear that abandoning Obama's deal was top of his agenda. In May 2018 he pulled out of the deal and imposed a host of crippling new unilateral sanctions against Iran.
The other signatories--Germany, France, Britain, China, Russia, and the European Union--all opposed the U.S. pull-out, as did the UN Security Council which had endorsed the deal and established a monitoring agency to guarantee its implementation. The biggest U.S. demand the Council had accepted what became known as "snap-back," by which any signatory could report an Iranian violation of its nuclear obligations, and if the UN monitors confirmed the claim, the UN sanctions that had been lifted would automatically "snap-back" into place. With the U.S. having abandoned the deal, and U.S. sanctions rapidly escalating, European countries made some efforts to protect Iran from the impact of those new sanctions. But they largely failed, and eventually Iran took some calibrated steps in nuclear power enrichment beyond what was permitted in the JCPOA.
In early August, Washington tried to convince the Security Council to extend some conventional arms restrictions on Iran that were set to expire. They had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and the rest of the Council (with the exception of U.S.-dependent Dominican Republic) unanimously refused. A week later, in an effort to escalate "maximum pressure" on Iran even further, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced he was invoking the "snap-back" procedure and demanded the restoration of UN sanctions against Iran. The rest of the Security Council (again without the Dominican Republic) made clear that since the U.S. had renounced the agreement, it no longer had standing to make such a demand.
Pompeo's response was that since the U.S. had originally signed the treaty, Washington still had all the rights of signatories--despite having officially withdrawn, ending all its obligations. He then simply announced that UN sanctions were now back in force, though no other country agreed.
And then came the latest U.S. sanctions. Along with new suffering for the Iranian people, the danger could quickly escalate if, for example, the U.S. decided to forcibly board and "inspect" a ship it might claim was carrying goods to or from Iran. If Iran resisted, a serious military conflict could erupt. It is this threat of a deliberate U.S. provocation, aimed at pushing Iran to respond militarily thus giving Iran hawks in Washington an excuse to react with greater military force just in time for pre-election strutting and boasting by the commander in chief, that could shape an incredibly dire and dangerous October surprise.
So far, Iran has not taken Washington's bait. It has reacted to U.S. provocations--including the assassination of powerful Iranian political and military leader General Qasem Soleimani in January of this year--with significant caution. But Iran has its own elections scheduled in June, and there is growing pressure on the leadership for more decisive action.
Iran may also be holding back in anticipation of a change in the White House. Biden has not called for ending sanctions in Iran, but he has made clear that he would "offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy," return to the JCPOA, end the Muslim ban, and work to end the Yemen war. While Biden's position is not nearly as strong as it needs to be to end the assault on ordinary Iranians' lives, there is no question it challenges some of the worst aspects of existing policy. This shouldn't be surprising - the JCPOA represented the high point of Obama's foreign policy achievements, and since Biden's credibility is fundamentally bound up with Obama's legacy, he needs to maintain the commitment to the JCPOA and the diplomacy-over-war framework that enabled it. It is public knowledge that pressure on Trump to impose new and ever-more-damaging sanctions on Iran come from Israel and the far-right Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. Just a couple of weeks before the newest sanctions were announced, the head of the FDD wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for a "12th-round economic knockout" in the form of a Trump move to "blacklist the entire Iranian financial industry."
So, beyond the expectation of a last-minute electoral bump (not at all a sure thing, given significant public opposition to wars in the Middle East) what is the U.S. goal in provoking a military clash with Iran that could quickly escalate out of control?
In the Trump era, clear strategy is generally outside the realm of possibility. But immediate goals can sometimes be discerned. From the beginning, the Trump administration--mainly in the person of son-in-law Jared Kushner--has focused on building up a U.S.-backed regional anti-Iran alliance of Israel with key Arab allies, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others. Much of that is well underway, bolstered most recently by the U.S.-orchestrated agreements between Israel and both the UAE and Bahrain, with the blessing of Saudi Arabia. It should be noted that those agreements, while leaving out any reference to ending Israel's oppression of Palestinians, are primarily aimed at increasing U.S. arms deals with its Arab allies, and going public with the longstanding but formerly more or less hidden trade, commercial and security ties between Israel and the Gulf Arab monarchies.
Certainly preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remains a longstanding U.S. goal. Part of that is rooted in the U.S. determination to prevent any further nuclear weapons proliferation beyond what exists now. Much of it is also based on a commitment to Israel to maintain Tel Aviv's nuclear weapons monopoly in the region; it is Israel's Dimona nuclear plant in the Negev that holds the Middle East's only nuclear weapons arsenal. But U.S. intelligence agencies have for years agreed that Iran did not have a nuclear bomb, was not building a nuclear bomb, had not decided it even wanted to build a nuclear bomb. Under the JCPOA, Iran's nuclear capacity and its ability to obtain nuclear components anywhere else were extremely limited, and UN nuclear inspectors were on the ground. That remains the case, but could change if U.S. "maximum pressure" continues to prevent Iran's access to international trade, purchases of food and medicine, etc.
Maintaining Iran's role as enemy du jour makes it easier for the U.S. to justify ever-more-massive arms sales to repressive authoritarian kingdoms as well as the ten-year $38 billion gift of U.S. tax dollars directly to the Israeli military. And for the preposterously wealthy but strategically dependent Gulf states, the real fears of Iranian influence (on Shi'a populations in their countries, competition for oil fields and pipeline routes, etc.) are matched or even outstripped by the value of Iran-as-boogeyman to ensure continuing U.S. strategic support and protection.
Reports have been floating that Washington may close the giant U.S. embassy in Baghdad, pulling out the diplomatic and other non-military personnel. That may be in anticipation of a future Iranian response to continuing U.S. escalation--perhaps something like a U.S. military attack on the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, a large and influential Iranian-backed militia, that could lead to Iranian retaliation against U.S. military forces in Iraq. With Israeli backing, a strike against Iranian interests by some combination of the UAE, Bahrain and/or Saudi Arabia, even without direct U.S. participation could not be completely ruled out. Under such circumstances it is not impossible that public pressure could lead the Iranian regime to make different and much more dangerous choices.
U.S. escalations may not be over yet. There are several more weeks of October for new surprises.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel, the UAE, & Bahrain Didn't Sign Peace Deals, They're Military Alliances to Counter Iran
Trump’s effort to buy peace with arms sales and a military alliance in a region already devastated by war and on the edge of much more is a losing proposition for everyone concerned.
Sep 16, 2020
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in Washington on Tuesday. Brokered by the Trump administration, these deals represent two of the most broadly popular developments for both Trump and Netanyahu in many years.
These agreements are called "peace deals," although Israel has never been at war with either the UAE or Bahrain. They are also hailed as opening "cooperation" between Israel and the two Gulf states, although they've been cooperating for many years, albeit clandestinely.
Saeb Erekat, the secretary-general of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said, "The Bahraini, Israeli, American agreement to normalize relations is now part of a bigger package in the region. It is not about peace, it is not about relations between countries. It is a military alliance being created in the region led by Israel." I don't always agree with Erekat, but in this case, his analysis is on the mark.
The military alliance Erekat refers to is primarily about confronting Iran, which remains at the top of Trump's failing foreign policy agenda. For both Israel and the Gulf monarchies, the concerns are broader, though Iran is the biggest single motivating factor for these newly open alliances.
For example, the increasingly close relationships between Turkey, Russia, and Iran are one consideration. In Libya, the terrain is complicated, with France, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, and Greece on various sides of clashing factions in a conflict that is increasingly becoming a proxy war between Turkey and Egypt. Other powers like Russia and Saudi Arabia play key roles in the background. The potential consequences of this web of conflict are all too visible in Syria and as the Libyan conflict has the potential to draw even more players in, a strong regional alliance of countries with shared interests like Israel and the Gulf monarchies becomes more tempting.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and their allies also remain concerned about the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood across the region. By formalizing deals with Israel, and thereby strengthening the strategic alliance with the United States, Saudi allies are able to form a stronger counter to the Brotherhood and more effectively pressure governments, like Qatar, which are more sympathetic to the Brotherhood. More aggressive methods like the Saudi blockade against Qatar have proven ineffective
Empty benefits
The motivations of the Gulf states are as clear as they are indifferent to the concerns of the Palestinians, with media outlets in the Arab world being muzzled against criticism of the deals. But there has been widespread support in Israel and from its backers. Indeed, Netanyahu has even won praise from many of his detractors. But what kind of future is Netanyahu bargaining for?
AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, tweeted, "It's #ANewEra for Israeli-Arab relations. The old, unproductive paradigm of boycotts & rejectionism is collapsing. We urge other Arab states and the Palestinians to follow the UAE and Bahrain's lead in #ANewEra of peace, progress and prosperity in the Middle East."
J Street was more qualified in its praise, welcoming the agreements, but cautioning that peace can only come through a comprehensive deal that brings "a two-state solution, an end to the occupation, and a halt to the ongoing process of creeping annexation that is designed to make genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace impossible."
Israel's other historical alliances in the region tell us much about the true value of the deals being struck this week in Washington, and it's far less than Netanyahu and Trump claim.
In the early days of the Jewish state, the United States and allies supported the so-called "Alliance of the Periphery," a tripartite alliance between the non-Arab powers in the Middle East: Israel, Turkey, and Iran. While Israel was able to maintain strong bonds for decades, the alliance was never as strong as some hoped. Both Iran and Turkey, to varying degrees, still had to consider their relations with the Arab world, and therefore wavered in their friendship with Israel.
The rise of the Islamic Republic in Iran and, later, the AKP of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey soured these relationships, albeit to different degrees. Turkey and Israel have a tense relationship but, unlike Iran, it is not one of outright hostility.
The Alliance of the Periphery was built largely on the pragmatism of the Cold War and international politics. In fact, it depended on states of tension, particularly with the Arab neighbors of all three countries. As such, the possibility of drastic political shifts that would sunder the alliances was always strong.
Ultimately, the agreements with Bahrain and the UAE are similar. Even without sharp changes in the Gulf monarchies like those that came about in Iran and Turkey, reviving the Iran nuclear deal and pursuing the diplomatic progress envisioned by the Obama administration when it struck that deal could dramatically alter the political calculus in both Gulf countries. Diplomatic progress with Iran would necessitate diminishing military tensions between the Persian Gulf neighbors. Increasing democracy to even a small degree in these countries would inevitably revive advocacy for the Palestinian cause.
Israel's peace with the Gulf states is, therefore, dependent on a high level of hostility with Iran. It also depends on the inability of some of the Gulf states, like Qatar and Oman, to moderate their fellow potentates' hostility to the Muslim Brotherhood and similar, populist, Islamist movements in the region. These seem like immutable conditions now, but such changes are the likely outcome of successfully pursuing a diplomatic, rather than a confrontational approach to these issues.
The other models--Jordan and Egypt--are equally dependent on a state of military tension. Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was born out of Anwar Sadat's desire to fully embrace the American side of the Cold War and the annual military aid that came with that embrace, in addition to retrieving the Sinai Peninsula, lost to Israel in 1967.
Jordan was similarly motivated toward its peace deal. While King Hussein was only too happy to quit representing the Palestinians diplomatically, he wanted to repair the relationship with the United States that had been so badly damaged by Jordan's sympathetic stance toward Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. He was also enticed by both U.S. aid and the prospect of a free trade zone involving Jordan, the Palestinians, Israel and the United States, a plan pushed heavily by Israeli leader Shimon Peres and U.S. President Bill Clinton at the time.
Trump's effort to buy peace with arms sales and a military alliance in a region already devastated by war and on the edge of much more is a losing proposition for everyone concerned. Forcing agreements on people who are demanding justice, as the U.S. has tried to do with Jordan and Egypt, cannot ever lead to a stable peace. Eventually, it will fail, just as it has in Iran and Turkey.
The people of Jordan and Egypt despise the peace deals with Israel. They are only possible because they are dictatorships. The same can be said about Bahrain and the UAE. Democracy in any of these countries will undo these agreements because they are overwhelmingly opposed by the people there. Agreements that need dictatorship and military tensions to survive are not agreements worth signing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Peace Plans That Have Nothing to Do With Peace
They have much more to do with U.S. arms and the threat of war with Iran.
Sep 16, 2020
On September 11, 2020, Bahrain announced that it had agreed to normalize relations with Israel, following a similar agreement by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Both agreements are being packaged and sold as historic peace plans.
They're Not Peace Plans
When President Carter brokered the peace plan between Israel and Egypt, that was a historic and significant achievement because every Arab-Israeli war up to that point was initially or primarily an Egyptian-Israeli war. For two countries to sign a peace plan, they have to have not already been in a state of peace. For two countries to sign a peace plan, they have to have been at war. But neither the UAE nor Bahrain have ever been at war with Israel. They have never been involved in a war with Israel. And, so, unlike Carter's achievement, Trump's achievement is not significant because it does not bring about a significant change in the Middle East. The relations that the agreements supposedly normalize have, covertly, been in the process of being normalized for a long time: a very long time.
"For two countries to sign a peace plan, they have to have been at war. But neither the UAE nor Bahrain have ever been at war with Israel."
Israel and the UAE have for a long time been engaged in commercial and security ties. In July, two Israeli defense companies signed agreements with an UAE tech firm that works in artificial intelligence. And, even before the new normalization of relations, senior Israeli officials had visited the UAE for a number of years. More importantly, according to Rashid Khalidi, professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, the UAE's air defense system and missile defense system are manufactured in Israel. They are made by Raytheon, which is an American company, though they are largely made in Israel. And the ties between Israel and the UAE are not new. Reporting by UPI in January of 2012 had already revealed that the UAE had "discreet ties with private security companies in Israel to protect its oil fields and borders." They report that ties between the UAE's Critical National Infrastructure Authority and several Israeli companies may go back to as early as 2007. Shockingly, and little discussed, clandestine ties go back even further than that. According to intelligence columnist for Haaretz, Yossi Melman, Israel and the UAE established intelligence community ties at least as early as the 1970s. And, he says, "Every head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency since then has had a relationship with his counterpart in the UAE."
The same is true of Bahrain: Israel and Bahrain began forging ties decades ago. Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, told me in a personal correspondence that there have been informal economic relations between Israel and Bahrain going back at least a couple of decades. Israel has reportedly sold spy software to Bahrain. According to reporting by the New York Times, Bahrain had already hosted an Israeli cabinet official as early as 1994. Three years ago, in 2017, Bahrain even sent a delegation to Israel. In the same year, at a security conference in Munich, Bahrain's foreign minister approached Israel's foreign minister to pass on a message from the king that he had already decided to "move towards normalization with Israel." Bahrain is ruled by a US backed dictator whose family has ruled the kingdom for over two hundred years. The U.S. fifth fleet is based in Bahrain, making Bahrain one of the most crucial allies in the web of US allies. The U.S. military actually controls about 20% of Bahrainian land.
Iran: They're More About War than Peace
The deals are less about peace between the Gulf States and Israel than they are about war between the Gulf States and Israel and Iran.
In February of 2017, at a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump declared that his "administration is committed to working with Israel and our common allies in the region towards greater security and stability." Netanyahu then identified those common allies as "our newfound Arab partners."
"Netanyahu was very clear that the road to the new peace plans was not about peace. It was about war: war with Iran."
Three years earlier in a September 2014 speech at the UN, Netanyahu had been clearer about what was meant by "security and stability": "After decades of seeing Israel as their enemy, leading states in the Arab world increasingly recognize that together we and they face many of the same dangers: principally this means a nuclear-armed Iran." In November, 2017, Netanyahu claimed that "Iran is devouring one nation after the other...The good news is that the other guys are getting together with Israel as never before. It is something that I would have never expected in my lifetime." He then added that Israel is "'working very hard' to establish an effective alliance with 'the modern Sunni states' to condemn and counter Iranian aggression."
Netanyahu was very clear that the road to the new peace plans was not about peace. It was about war: war with Iran. It is not at all surprising, then, that Trump used the promise of F-35 fighter jets and other advanced U.S. weaponry to pressure the UAE and Bahrain into publicly recognizing Israel. The U.S. administration also reassured a nervous Israel that the jets sold to the UAE "would not erode Israel's edge as they would be used to defend against the common enemy of Iran." The New York Times put this reassurance into context: "Trump administration officials say the detente between the Emirates and Israel--and possibly future deals between Israel and other Arab nations--are also part of a wider effort to counter Iran. Administration officials have tried to placate Israeli concerns about an Arab nation getting the F-35 by emphasizing that the Emirates, like Israel, is an avowed enemy of Iran and that strengthening the Emirati military will help Israel's security."
The peace plans were not about peace between countries already at peace, they were about war with Iran, a country they were already essentially at war with. The peace plans contribute more to war than to peace.
Perhaps the most telling sign that the Israel/UAE agreement was always more about war with Iran than peace in the Middle East is that Brian Hook, the U.S. envoy for Iran, accompanied Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to his meetings with Israel and the UAE. Hook promised that the Trump administration would help the UAE to defend itself against Iran while protecting Israel's qualitative military edge. Speaking at the White House, Hook said that "Peace between the Arabs and the Israelis is Iran's worst nightmare... And what we see today is a new Middle East. The trend lines are very different today. And we see the future is very much in the Gulf and with Israel. In the past, it was with the Iranian regime."
Bahrain is a 70% Shiite population ruled by a repressive, torturous U.S. backed dictatorship. Bahrain's geography is symbolic: it is attached to Saudi Arabia by a causeway and separated from Iran by a gulf. Located between Saudi Arabia and Iran, on the Strait of Hormuz, Bahrain is seen by the U.S. as a crucially located check on Iranian influence and power. So, it is not surprising that the normalization of relations agreement has at least one eye on Iran.
In 2011, peaceful protests in Bahrain was brutally put down by Saudi Arabia. US weapons featured largely in that brutal suppression.
Last year, Bahrain made its relationships with Israel and Iran clear. As Israel bombed Bahrain's fellow Arab states in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon--states seen as allied with Iran--Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, Bahrain's foreign minister, sided with Israel over Iran: "Iran is the one who declared war on us, with its Revolutionary Guards, its Lebanese party, its popular mobilization in Iraq, its Houthi arm in Yemen and others...Those who beat them and destroy their equipment are not to blame. It's self-defense."
A Separate Peace: the Abandonment of the Palestinians
The UAE was aware of the need to package their normalization agreement with Israel as an advancement of, or at least consistent with, the Saudi Peace initiative that promises never to normalize relations with Israel until Israel has returned to the pre-1967 borders and granted a state to the Palestinians. The deal with Israel does not do that, but it was made to look like it does that for consumption by the outside world and, especially, by the Arab world and the UAE's own domestic population.
So, the UAE's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed packaged the plan and delivered it to his people and to the world as the attainment of the end of annexation of 30% of the West Bank.
But the agreement does not require Israel to "stop" annexation of the 30% of the West Bank promised to it in Trump's Middle East peace plan. The text of the agreement says "suspend," not stop. And "suspend," according to Jared Kushner, means that the annexation won't happen "for some time." But any amount of time is some time. Trump explained it as "right now it's off the table" and added that "I can't talk about some time into the future." American Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman was a lot clearer: "The word 'suspend' was chosen carefully by all the parties. 'Suspend,' by definition--look it up--means 'temporary halt.' It's off the table now, but it's not off the table permanently."
Trump never actually asked Netanyahu to stop the planned annexation. According to a senior Israeli political source, the Trump administration asked only "that we temporarily postpone declaring [sovereignty over parts of the West Bank] in order to achieve the beginning of this historic peace agreement with the Emirates."
"The Bahrainian agreement doesn't even pretend to keep one eye on Iran and one eye on the Palestinians. The agreement blatantly keeps both eyes on Iran and Bahrain's own interests."
The UAE/Israel agreement gave the Palestinians a suspended annexation that had already been suspended. Yisrael Katz, a member of Netanyahu's cabinet, confirmed on Israeli media on Sunday, August 16 "that the annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank was already suspended before the announcement of a deal to normalize relations with the United Arab Emirates (UAE)." He then explained that "presenting the agreement as related to [the annexation] is more suitable to all Arab countries".
The UAE agreement, for the first time, normalized relations with Israel while abandoning the promise to never to do so without addressing the Palestinian issue. But at least it was cognizant of the need to pretend.
The Bahrainian agreement doesn't even pretend to keep one eye on Iran and one eye on the Palestinians. The agreement blatantly keeps both eyes on Iran and Bahrain's own interests.
The text of the Joint Statement issued by Bahrain, Israel and the U.S. says only that Israel and Bahrain will "continue in their efforts in this regard to achieve a just, comprehensive, and enduring solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to enable the Palestinian people to realize their full potential." The only thing to continue, of course, is nothing.
Bahrain's Information Minister promised that "All historical precedents confirm that all the Kingdom's initiatives and decisions have always been in the interest of the Palestinian people and protecting them, and no one can outbid the Kingdom in this regard." But there is nothing in this agreement that addresses "the interest of the Palestinian people." There is only the betrayal of Bahrain's previous position that it would never establish diplomatic ties with Israel as long as Israel had not signed a peace deal with the Palestinians that included a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders. Bahrain defended its position by suggesting that the agreement sends a "positive and encouraging message to the people of Israel that a just and comprehensive peace with the Palestinians is the best path forward and truly serves their interests." But, in fact, it shows just the opposite: that Israel can negotiate a deal with the Gulf States that is in its interest without a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians.
Trump naively said that the "Palestinians [are] in a very good position, they're going to want to come in because all of their friends are in." The Palestinians, however, recalled their ambassador to Bahrain and called the deal "a "dangerous violation of the Arab Peace Initiative" and a "threat to Palestinian rights."
Last year, Bahrain's foreign minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa telegraphed his kingdom's abandonment of the Palestinians. No longer keeping one eye on Palestine and the other on Iran and its own interests, he explained that "We grew up talking about the Palestine-Israel dispute as the most important issue. But then at a later stage, we saw a bigger challenge. We saw a more toxic one, in fact the most toxic in our modern history, which came from the Islamic Republic, from Iran."
The two peace agreements between the Gulf States and Israel have nothing to do with peace. They are between nations that were already at peace and offer no peace to the Palestinians, while they proliferate U.S. arms in the region and have much more to do with the threat of war with Iran.
A version of this article initially appeared at Anti-War.com.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy