Middle East and North Africa

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bibi review: Netanyahu memoir is hard-eyed – if not where Trump is concerned

      by

      Bibi review: Netanyahu memoir is hard-eyed – if not where Trump is concernedThe former Israeli PM is under a legal cloud but fighting for office again. His book is well-written and self-serving Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, in office three times over 15 years, as he reminds us in his memoir. These days, he leads the parliamentary opposition and is on trial for corruption and bribery. His countrymen return to the polls on 1 November, their fifth election since 2019.Netanyahu used golf metaphor to turn Trump against Palestinians, book saysRead moreIsrael’s politics are fractious and tribal. The far right grows as the left is decimated by the failed dream of the Oslo peace accords. Yet outside politics, things there are less fevered and acrid. Start-Up Nation has supplanted the kibbutz. Technology makes the desert bloom.In his memoir, Netanyahu doubles down on his embrace of the Covid vaccine and regrets easing up too early on pandemic closures, in hindsight a “cardinal mistake”. Here, the divide between Netanyahu and the other members of the populist right could not be starker. For him, modernity matters.Based on the latest polls, he has a serious shot at re-election but is not quite there. A win could mean immunity from prosecution. That decision will rest with his coalition partners – if he wins.Washington is watching, particularly if Jewish supremacists should enter the government. One seeks appointment as defense minister.“If we get a lot of mandates, we will have the legitimacy to demand significant portfolios such as the defense and the treasury,” Bezalel Smotrich, head of the far-right Religious Zionism party, declares.Bob Menendez is alarmed. He is a Democrat, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee and a major supporter of Israel. He led the fight against the Iran nuclear deal. As so often in US politics, the red-blue divide is on display and Israel is there in the middle.Netanyahu wrote his memoir longhand. It is not the standard campaign autobiography. It has heft, and not just because it runs to 650 pages. Primed for debate, he conveys his point of view with plenty of notes. He paints in primary colors, not pastels. The canvas is filled with adulation, anger, frustration and dish. Bibi is substantive and barbed. It is interesting. Netanyahu has scores to settle and punches to land. At times, he equates his fate with Israel’s.Netanyahu was born in Israel but attended high school in Philadelphia and graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Throughout his book, Netanyahu calls his dad, Benzion Netanyahu, “Father”. Netanyahu the elder taught at Cornell. His son respects the US but is not enamored by its culture.The civil rights movement did not leave a lasting impression. Facing electoral defeat in 2015, against the backdrop of the 50th anniversary of the Selma march, Netanyahu warned that Israel’s Arabs, who are citizens, were voting “in droves”. To many, including Barack Obama, that 11th-hour campaign siren was reminiscent of the wail of Jim Crow. In his book, Netanyahu tries to explain away the episode. He comes up woefully short.Netanyahu is a former Israeli commando but also an ambassador to the UN. He catalogs differences with Obama, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and, to a point, Donald Trump. James Baker, secretary of state to the first President Bush, barred Netanyahu from the state department. In 1996, Clinton reportedly exclaimed: “Who the fuck does he think he is? … Who’s the fucking superpower here?”Bibi recounts the episode but says his relationship with the Clintons was “civil”. He challenges Obama’s stances toward Iran and the Palestinians but stays mum about Trump aiming a tart “fuck him” his way, for congratulating President Biden.Netanyahu castigates Clinton and Obama for purported messianism and naivety but says nothing of his own bad calls. For instance, in September 2002, he testified before Congress in support of the Iraq war.“I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice, it’s the right choice,” he said, adding: “It’s not a question of whether Iraq’s regime should be taken out but when should it be taken out. It’s not a question of whether you’d like to see a regime change in Iran but how to achieve it.”The American war dead might disagree.Netanyahu laments that Obama vetoed his request that the US strike nuclear installations in Iran. He does not attempt to reconcile his demand for armed confrontation with hostility to “endless wars” on the Trumpist right.In a book published amid Russia’s war on Ukraine, Netanyahu repeatedly lauds Vladimir Putin for his intellect and toughness.“I took the measure of the man,” he claims. Once upon a time, George W Bush claimed to have looked into Putin’s soul. We know how that ended. In contrast, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden got the Russian leader right from the off.Netanyahu says he understands Putin’s resentments: “The opening up of Russia …revealed that Russia had fallen hopelessly behind the west.”In a recently released transcript of an off-the-record conversation between Obama and a group of reporters, the then president charged that like the world’s strongmen and their future White House fanboy, Netanyahu subscribed to “Putinism” himself.Trump a narcissist and a ‘dick’, ex-ambassador Sondland says in new bookRead more“What I worry about most is, there is a war right now of ideas, more than any hot war, and it is between Putinism – which, by the way, is subscribed to, at some level, by Erdogan or Netanyahu or Duterte and Trump – and a vision of a liberal market-based democracy.”Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has wholeheartedly embraced Putin. Reportedly, the Biden White House is “very disappointed”.Meanwhile, Trump lashes out at American Jews for not showing him the love evangelicals do: “US Jews need to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel – Before it is too late!”Don’t expect Netanyahu or Trump’s Jewish supporters to say much – if anything at all.
      Bibi: My Story is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
      TopicsBooksBenjamin NetanyahuIsraelMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsUS foreign policyDonald TrumpreviewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats suggest shifting weapons from Saudi Arabia to Ukraine

      by

      Democrats suggest shifting weapons from Saudi Arabia to UkraineDemocrats call for suspension of transfer of Patriot missiles in wake of ‘turning point’ in relationship with Saudis Democrats on Capitol Hill have suggested transferring US weapons systems in Saudi Arabia to Ukraine and suspending a planned transfer of Patriot missiles to Riyadh in the wake of what they call a “turning point” in Washington’s relationship with the kingdom.Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California who is a leading supporter of a weapons freeze, said he believed that “at the very least” Congress would move to halt the transfer of Patriot missiles to the kingdom, and probably pause other defense initiatives.US-Saudi rift grows over decision to cut oil productionRead moreKhanna is a longtime critic of Saudi Arabia and was one of the original sponsors of a 2019 measure that received bipartisan support and would have forced the US to end military involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. That resolution was vetoed by then-president Donald Trump.In an interview with the Guardian, Khanna said tensions had reached a boiling point that was comparable to US sentiment following the murder of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.The break in the relationship followed an announcement last week that Opec+, the oil cartel, had agreed to cut oil production by 2m barrels a day over the strong objections of, and lobbying by, the administration of Joe Biden. The move was seen as both a boost to Vladimir Putin and his war effort in Ukraine, and a stunning betrayal of Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the US, just weeks after the president had visited Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah.“I think President Biden is judicious and pragmatic by temperament but this was a real slap in his face,” Khanna said. While lawmakers like him have long advocated for a tougher response to Saudi on human rights grounds, Khanna said the Opec+ move had galvanized members across Congress.“This is a second moment like Khashoggi’s murder. I believe it is a total miscalculation by the Saudis,” he said, adding that there was still time for the kingdom to change course.Pressed on whether Democrats were likely to move beyond rhetoric, Khanna pointed to recent comments by his colleague Robert Menendez, a Democratic senator who as chairman of the foreign relations committee said he was prepared to halt Saudi weapons sales.“At the very least, the Patriot missiles will be suspended,” he said. “The fact that Menendez has spoken out means that at a minimum it is going to happen.”Meanwhile, Chris Murphy, an influential Democratic senator from Connecticut, said he believed the US ought to suspend the sale of advanced air-to-air missiles to Saudi Arabia and repurpose these missiles to Ukraine.“For several years, the US military had deployed Patriot missile defense batteries to Saudi Arabia to help defend oil infrastructure against missile and drone attacks. These advanced air and missile defense systems should be redeployed to bolster the defenses of eastern flank Nato allies like Poland and Romania – or transferred to our Ukrainian partners,” Murphy said in a statement.While physically transferring existing weapons systems in Saudi Arabia to Ukraine would not be particularly complicated logistically, experts said it could risk accusations that the Biden administration was escalating its support for Ukraine beyond levels that it considered appropriate, because the systems might require on-the-ground US personnel for support.William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute, said at a minimum, any such move to shift weapons would be met by serious debates within the White House and Congress. At the same time, he said, Russia’s continuing assault on Ukraine meant that “political considerations are shifting”.Changes to planned deliveries of Patriot missiles would probably cause “consternation” in Saudi Arabia, but changes to delivery of spare parts and maintenance could ground large parts of the Saudi air force, he said.Hartung said he believed the Saudis might be underestimating the impact of the sudden break in relations with Washington, given the relationship appeared to survive the Khashoggi murder. In that case, however, Trump was in the White House and steadfastly loyal to the Saudis. Hartung said he believed it was unlikely that Biden would veto a congressional resolution aimed at the kingdom, as Trump did in 2019.“It’s not a done deal, but the political tides are stronger against the Saudis than they have been – possibly ever,” he said.The Saudi foreign ministry this week rejected the criticism of its Opec+ decision and insisted the cartel had acted with unanimity and in its own economic interest. It also rejected any assumption that it could be forced into a policy U-turn.“The kingdom stresses that while it strives to preserve the strength of its relations with all friendly countries, it affirms its rejection of any dictates, actions, or efforts to distort its noble objectives to protect the global economy from oil market volatility,” it said.Khanna hit back at that claim.“The reality is that there is no economic case for what they are doing. This was punitive for Americans and it is aiding Putin,” he said.A spokesperson for the national security council said Opec’s decision last week to “align its energy policy with Russia’s war and against Americans” underscored Biden’s earlier call to set a “different sort of relationship” with Saudi Arabia.“We are reviewing where we are, we’ll be watching closely over the coming weeks and months, consulting with allies, with Congress – and decisions will be made in a deliberate way,” the spokesperson said.TopicsUS foreign policySaudi ArabiaUkraineDemocratsUS CongressUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

    • 250 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Saudi Arabia has screwed over the US – and the world – yet again. Enough is enough | Mohamad Bazzi

      by

      Saudi Arabia has screwed over the US – and the world – yet again. Enough is enoughMohamad BazziBy gouging global oil prices, Saudi Arabia has humiliated Biden and boosted Putin. The US must end this unofficial alliance In July, Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia and shared a fist bump with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. As a presidential candidate, Biden had promised to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” for its human rights abuses and its seven-year war against Yemen. But a devastating global pandemic and Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine forced him to set these concerns aside in favor of realpolitik. Biden needed the Saudis to increase oil production in order to lower gasoline prices for American consumers, so he swallowed his pride and treated the crown prince as the world leader he aspires to be.Unfortunately for Biden, that cringe-inducing fist bump photo op has backfired in spectacular fashion.Earlier this month, the Saudi-led Opec+ energy cartel agreed to cut oil production by 2m barrels a day, which will mean higher fuel prices this fall and winter. In the days leading up to the vote, the Biden administration invested significant political capital in its efforts to dissuade Saudi Arabia and its allies from cutting production. In the end, Biden’s wooing of Prince Mohammed yielded nothing but a 2% reduction of the world’s oil supply.In fact, the prince has inflicted political damage on the Biden administration a month before the US midterm elections. After soaring to $5 a gallon in June, US gasoline prices fell for more than three months. Now they are rising once again, increasing by an average of 12 cents a gallon over the past week, to $3.92.Rising prices threaten the Democrats’ hopes of maintaining control over both houses of Congress after the November elections. The prince and his Gulf allies clearly preferred dealing with Donald Trump, whose freewheeling Republican administration gave Prince Mohammed a blank check in exchange for stable oil prices and multibillion-dollar arms sales.The Saudis also sided with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who needs higher oil prices to help fund his war against Ukraine. As part of their economic sanctions against Moscow, the US and EU are trying to impose a cap on the price paid to Russia for its oil exports. But that effort could now collapse as global oil prices rise and Europe heads into a winter season when heating costs are expected to soar thanks to the Ukraine war.While Prince Mohammed may believe he outmaneuvered Biden and demonstrated his influence over the global oil market, his power play has upset the foreign policy establishment in Washington. Even so-called foreign policy “realists”, who for years ignored progressive criticisms of the US-Saudi partnership, must confront an uncomfortable question: if Washington can’t count on a steady supply of oil, what does it get in return for its decades of unwavering support for the House of Saud?Technically, the US and Saudi Arabia are not allies – they’ve never signed a mutual defense agreement or a formal treaty. For decades, the US-Saudi relationship has been largely transactional: the kingdom used its leverage within Opec (and later the larger Opec+ cartel) to keep oil production and prices at levels that satisfy Washington. The US used to import significant amounts of oil from Saudi Arabia, but now that Washington is the world’s largest oil producer, it no longer relies as heavily on Saudi imports. In return for guaranteeing a steady global supply of oil, successive US administrations supported the House of Saud politically, sold it billions of dollars in advanced US weapons, and provided military assistance whenever aggressive neighbors threatened the kingdom.In 1990, after Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait, Washington sent half a million troops to Saudi Arabia, which feared it would be Hussein’s next target. The US still deploys hundreds of troops and advisers to train the Saudi military and help it operate American weapons, including advanced warplanes, helicopters, and Patriot antimissile systems, which the kingdom has used to intercept drone and missile attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels.This oil-for-security arrangement has lasted through Democratic and Republican administrations, including multiple crises like the Arab-led oil embargo and Opec price increases in the 1970s and the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, where 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals recruited by Al-Qaida.Yet Prince Mohammed has now upended the decades-old understanding. Worse, he’s timed that decision so as to maximize Biden’s humiliation: a month before pivotal congressional elections, and as Washington and its allies are trying to maintain a united front against Russian aggression.If Biden doesn’t respond forcefully, he may embolden the crown prince to take more risks. So far, Biden has promised unspecified “consequences” in response to the Saudi maneuvering. But a growing number of Democrats in Congress, including centrists who hesitated to abandon the partnership despite the kingdom’s atrocious human rights record, are now demanding action.On 10 October, Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who chairs the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, called for an immediate freeze on “all aspects of our cooperation with Saudi Arabia”, and promised to block future US weapons sales. Senator Dick Durbin, another centrist and the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, was even harsher, writing on Twitter that the House of Saud “has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation. It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without their alliance”.Even before the ill-fated fist bump, Biden signaled to Prince Mohammed that he would carry out a business-as-usual relationship with the kingdom. In February 2021, weeks after taking office, Biden did follow through on a campaign promise to release a summary report of the US intelligence community’s findings on the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The report concluded that Prince Mohammed had approved the assassination at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. But Biden, worried about harming the US-Saudi partnership, decided not to impose sanctions on the crown prince.By abandoning his promise to hold Khashoggi’s killers accountable, Biden convinced Prince Mohammed that he was too powerful to punish. At the time, Biden aides argued that banning the prince from visiting the US or targeting his personal wealth would accomplish little. But the lack of even symbolic US sanctions or response likely emboldened the prince to overturn the basic premise of the US-Saudi relationship.Since Prince Mohammed rose to power with his father’s ascension to the Saudi throne in 2015, he has presided over a series of destructive policies, including the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen and the kingdom’s campaign to blockade its smaller neighbor, Qatar. But the crown prince keeps failing upward, consolidating more control over Saudi Arabia. And he continues to be wooed by foreign leaders and business titans, thanks to the world’s sustained dependence on oil and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.Prince Mohammed had clearly concluded that he can get away with keeping oil prices high and undermining the US and EU campaign to isolate Russia – and still secure US protection and military assistance because Biden can’t get past the decades-old policy of American support for the House of Saud.This is no longer a case of Biden choosing realpolitik over the stated, but rarely enforced, US ideals of supporting human rights and democracy over autocracy. It’s time for Biden to acknowledge that his supposed realist approach toward Saudi Arabia has failed – and tear up the oil-for-security deal.
      Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies and a journalism professor at New York University. He is also a non-resident fellow at Democracy for the Arab World Now
      TopicsForeign policyOpinionSaudi ArabiaMohammed bin SalmanMiddle East and north AfricaJoe BidenBiden administrationUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrat senators call for a freeze on arms sales to Saudi Arabia amid oil production cuts – video

      by

      Two Democrat senators have called for a freeze on arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless it reverses a Riyadh-led Opec+ decision to cut oil production. They said the decision to reduce production would help Russia’s war in Ukraine. 
      ‘The only apparent purpose of this cut in oil supplies is to help the Russians and harm Americans. It was unprovoked and unforced, as an error,’ the Connecticut senator, Richard Blumenthal, said. His statement was echoed by his Democrat colleague from California, Ro Khanna, who said: ‘When Americans are facing a crisis because of Putin, when we’re paying more at the pump, our ally, someone who we have helped for decades, should be trying to help the American people.’
      The Biden administration said it was reviewing its ties with the Gulf kingdom. 
      Speaking to CNN, however, a Saudi minister, Adel al-Jubeir, said: ‘Saudi Arabia does not politicise oil. We don’t see oil as a weapon. We see oil as our commodity. Our objective is to bring stability to the oil market.’ Riyadh is not partnering with Russia, he added

      Democrats issue fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia over oil production More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats issue fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia over oil production

      by

      Democrats issue fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia over oil productionMembers of Congress raise prospect of one-year sales ban unless kingdom reverses Opec+ decision to cut output Democrats in the US Congress have issued a fresh ultimatum to Saudi Arabia, giving the kingdom weeks to reverse an Opec+ decision to roll back oil production or face a potential one-year freeze on all arms sales.The threat came as Joe Biden reiterated his pledge to take action over Riyadh’s decision last week to cut oil output by 2m barrels a day, which Democrats have said would help “fuel Vladimir Putin’s war machine” and hurt American consumers at the petrol pump.The White House national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told reporters the US president was also looking at a possible halt in arms sales as part of a broader re-evaluation of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia, but that no move was imminent.On Capitol Hill, anger with the Saudi move was far more palpable, as was the desire for swift and specific retribution for what has been seen as a stunning blunder by a key ally in the Middle East.The tensions with Washington and vow to “rebalance” relations between the two countries could have ripple effects far beyond petrol prices, from determining the future of an apparent emerging alliance between Russia and the Saudi heir, negotiations over Iran, and Moscow’s financial strength in its continuing assault on Ukraine.Some analysts have pointed out that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman might have been seeking to tip the scales of next month’s critical midterm elections in Republicans’ favour, but Democrats downplayed the allegation that Riyadh was seeking to interfere in the polls.Instead, Democratic lawmakers emphasised that Prince Mohammed’s move bolstered Russia and would ultimately harm all US consumers in what they said was a brash betrayal after decades of support from Washington.“We provide so much not just in weapons, but in defence, cooperation and joint defence initiatives to the Saudis. They get almost 73% of their arms from the United States,” said Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman from California and longtime critic of the kingdom.“If it weren’t for our technicians, their airplanes literally wouldn’t fly … we literally are responsible for their entire air force.“What galls so many of us in Congress in the ingratitude.”Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic senator from Connecticut who is working with Khanna on the proposed legislation to cut sales, also pointed to broader security concerns.“We are selling highly sensitive technology, advanced technology, to a country that has aligned itself with an adversary – Russia – that is committing terrorist war crimes in Ukraine,” he said. “So there’s a moral imperative, but also a national security imperative.”He pointed specifically to sales of Patriot and anti-missile systems, air-to-air missiles, advanced helicopters, jet fighters, radar and air defences.“These continued sales pose a national security threat, and I am hopeful that the president will act immediately … and exercise his power on those sales,” he said.Blumenthal also suggested his proposed legislation was serving as a stick to prod Riyadh into action.“We hope that this legislation will provide an impetus for the Saudis to reconsider this and reverse,” he said. “There’s still time. The oil supply cuts don’t take effect until November.”If the Saudis did not reverse course, Blumenthal suggested the impact of defence cuts on US jobs and companies would be negligible.Any decision would likely have a ripple effect among other allies, including the UK and France, who are significant defence suppliers to Saudi Arabia.“There are issues of interoperability, of different weapon systems,” Blumenthal said. A freeze in US sales “will have an effect that could be supplemented by decisions by other countries. Certainly. They’re impacted by the economic effects of … oil supply cuts. They will make their own decisions … our allies like the UK and France may wish to join.”There was little evidence that tensions with Washington were having an effect on Prince Mohammed. A Saudi decree on Wednesday appointed an official alleged to have been involved in the cover-up of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist who was murdered by Saudi agents, as the president of the country’s counter-terrorism court.Dawn, a human rights group founded by Khashoggi, said the kingdom had also appointed other detectives and prosecutors who are loyal to the crown prince to serve as judges in the court.The appointments followed the arrest and removal of at least nine prominent judges by the State Security Agency in April, the group said..It is not clear whether the Democrats would be able to garner enough Republican support to pass legislation once Congress is back in session next month, but Blumenthal said he had reached out to Republican colleagues who were “receptive” and “favourable in remarks that there need to be consequences” for Saudi actions.The comments underscore that, while the his administration will ultimately determine the US stance on Saudi Arabia, Biden is facing considerable pressure from allies in Congress to move beyond rhetoric and take a tougher stance against the kingdom.Robert Menendez, the Democratic chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, suggested in an interview on MSNBC on Wednesday that Saudi Arabia had little choice but to re-evaluate its Opec+ decision if it wanted to maintain its security against regional foes.“Who are they going to rely upon to have greater security from Iran, which is an existential threat, than the United States? Russia? Russia’s in bed with Iran,” he said.“The bottom line is, Russia is not the bulwark against Iran … they have to understand that their actions have consequences.”TopicsUS foreign policyUS CongressOpecSaudi ArabiaMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Iranian American held in Tehran for seven years granted temporary release

      by

      Iranian American held in Tehran for seven years granted temporary releaseSiamak Namazi, convicted along with father on espionage charges, freed from Evin prison on one-week renewable furlough An Iranian American businessman who has been imprisoned in Iran for nearly seven years has been released from Tehran’s Evin prison on a one-week, renewable furlough, the United Nations announced on Saturday.The release of detainee Siamak Namazi comes as his father, Baquer Namazi, is being allowed to leave Iran for medical treatment, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said in a statement. ‘Women are in charge. They are leading’: Iran protests continue despite crackdownsRead more“The [UN] secretary general is grateful that, following his appeals to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, our former colleague Baquer Namazi has been permitted to leave Iran for medical treatment abroad,” Dujarric said.Baquer Namazi is the ex-governor of Iran’s Khuzestan province and former representative of what was originally known as the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (Unicef).“The secretary general is also pleased to learn that Baquer Namazi’s son, Siamak Namazi, has been released from detention,” Dujarric continued. “We will continue to engage with the Iranian authorities on a range of important issues, including the regional situation, sustainable development and the promotion and protection of human rights.”Baquer Namazi was convicted in Iran of “collaboration with a hostile government” in 2016 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Iranian authorities released him on medical grounds in 2018 and closed his case in 2020, commuting his sentence to time served but effectively barring him from leaving the country.His son, Siamak, was convicted of the same charge and has been held in Evin prison since 2015. The US government has described the charges against both as baseless.It was unclear if Siamak’s furlough might be a step toward his full release. It was also not clear whether it signals the possible furlough or release of other US citizens detained in Iran.“I am thrilled for the Namazi family that for the first time in seven years Siamak Namazi is sleeping at home with his family,” the attorney who represents the Namazi family, Jared Genser, told Reuters.Genser added that Siamak Namazi was staying with his parents at their Tehran apartment.“This is a critical first step but of course we will not rest until the entire family is able to return to the United States and their long nightmare is finally over,” Genser also said.Their release coincides with the height of intense protests against the Iranian regime following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who was allegedly beaten by Iran’s morality police over headscarf laws.Iran’s semi-official news agency Nournews on Saturday reported that a regional country has helped Iran and the US mediate for the “simultaneous release of prisoners,” shortly after Tehran allowed Siamak Namazi out of prison on a one-week furlough.“In recent weeks, intensive talks, with the mediation of a regional country were held for the release of Iranian and American prisoners,” the news agency said, without disclosing which country was the mediator.The news agency also said that billions of dollars of Iranian assets frozen by US sanctions would “be released soon”.Iran said in August it was ready to swap prisoners with the United States after the American secretary of state, Antony Blinken, tweeted that “Siamak Namazi had now spent 2,500 days wrongfully detained” in Iran. According to Blinken, Washington was determined to secure the freedom of all Americans held by its Middle East adversary.Tehran has sought the release of a dozen Iranians held in the United States, including seven Iranian-American dual nationals, two Iranians with permanent US residency and four Iranian citizens with no legal status in the United States.Reuters contributed reportingTopicsIranUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricaUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on moving the British embassy to Jerusalem: don’t do it | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on moving the British embassy to Jerusalem: don’t do itEditorialLiz Truss has promised a review, but relocating it would be shameful and stupid. That might not put off the prime minister – but it should Donald Trump’s relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018 was incendiary. Widely criticised, including by the British government, it sparked protests and clashes in which Israeli security forces killed dozens of Palestinians. Though a superpower’s example offers cover to others, only four countries followed suit: Honduras, Guatemala, Kosovo – and Paraguay, which swiftly reversed course.Yet Liz Truss last week said that she was considering relocating the British embassy. The case against a move is logical, legal and practical as well as moral. East Jerusalem has been considered occupied territory under international law since the six-day war in 1967, and the future capital of a Palestinian state. Mr Trump’s proposals for an unworkable “peace plan” committed to Jerusalem as an “undivided” capital – Israel’s position. But British policy remains unchanged. Moving the embassy would tear up the commitment to any meaningful two-state solution. It would tacitly condone the march of illegal settlements. Palestinian doors would slam in the faces of diplomats, the British Council and others: longstanding suspicion of the UK has accelerated in recent years. Relations with other Middle East nations would suffer. All this for minimal, if any, benefit.The prime minister’s remarks came on the sidelines of the UN general assembly meeting where Yair Lapid voiced support for a two-state solution – the first Israeli prime minister to do so since 2017. This is a return to the rhetorical status quo ante, without either intention or ability to act upon his words, while the reality on the ground makes a peace deal ever more distant. There is no prospect of serious talks with Palestinians and minimal external pressure. While it may have been intended to sweeten his message on Iran, most have seen it in the context of November’s general election – Israel’s fifth in less than four years, and once again shaping up as a contest for and against former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (currently favoured by polls). The thinking is that Mr Lapid hopes to encourage voters on the left to turn out or, more likely, switch to him, keeping him at the head of the anti-Bibi bloc.It may also smooth relations with Joe Biden, who hailed his remarks, but has shown little real interest in the future of Palestinians. His administration vowed to reopen the consulate in Jerusalem, which served Palestinians, and the PLO mission in Washington; neither has happened. The president’s cursory trip to East Jerusalem and Bethlehem this summer looked like cover for his meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman.Badly failed by their own leadership too, Palestinians feel not only frustrated and angry, but betrayed. Ms Truss’s review is further confirmation that they are right. Her brief tenure has already demonstrated that a policy’s badness, stupidity and unpopularity are not obstacles to embracing it: the opportunity to “challenge conformity” – ignoring officials’ warnings – may even be a spur. This is still more likely when Palestinians, rather than her own electorate, will pay. But Britain’s historical responsibilities, as well as international law, demand that it does better. It should keep the embassy in Tel Aviv, and not add to the damage already done.TopicsIsraelOpinionMiddle East and north AfricaBenjamin NetanyahuYair LapidLiz TrussUS politicsJoe BideneditorialsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US senators refuse to let killing of Shireen Abu Akleh drop with Israel

      by

      US senators refuse to let killing of Shireen Abu Akleh drop with Israel The state department seems keen to avoid questions about the Palestinian American journalist’s shooting by an Israeli soldierIsrael has declared the case closed. The US state department has done its best to duck difficult questions. But leading members of the US Congress are refusing to drop demands for a proper accounting of the death of the Palestinian American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, four months ago.The longest-serving member of the US Senate, Patrick Leahy, recently upped the ante by warning that Israel’s failure to fully explain the Al-Jazeera reporter’s killing could jeopardize America’s huge military aid to the Jewish state under a law he sponsored 25 years ago cutting weapons supplies to countries that abuse human rights.Shireen Abu Akleh’s family submits complaint to ICCRead moreNearly half of the Democratic members of the Senate have signed a letter calling into question Israel’s claim that Abu Akleh was accidentally shot by a soldier. The letter suggests she may have been targeted because she was a journalist.The Biden administration is also facing a flurry of legislative amendments and letters from members of Congress demanding that the state department reveal what it knows about Abu Akleh’s death and that the FBI launch an independent investigation.Few think there is much prospect of the US actually cutting its $3.8bn a year in military aid to Israel in the near future, but it is politically significant that so many senior Democrats have signed on to publicly challenge Israel, which has frequently been able to count on solid bipartisan support in America.Although criticism has focused on Abu Akleh’s death, the demands for accountability come as Israeli killings of Palestinians have escalated while Jewish settlers in the West Bank appear to have been given free rein at times to attack Palestinians and take over their land.Dylan Williams, senior vice-president of policy and strategy at the Washington-based campaign group J Street, which describes itself as “pro-Israel and pro-peace”, said the demands for justice for Abu Akleh reflect broader concerns.“Members of Congress seem increasingly frustrated that these types of disturbing actions from Israeli forces continue to take place, without facing meaningful pushback or accountability from our government,” he said.“There’s growing momentum to make clear that Israel must be held to the same important standards as all close US allies, and that our steadfast support for Israel’s security does not and should not preclude our government from also standing up in defense of human rights and international law in the occupied Palestinian territory.”The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which funds political campaigns against politicians critical of Israel, has lobbied against a US investigation of Abu Akleh’s death.But Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Democracy for the Arab World Now – an advocacy group founded by the murdered Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi to pressure the US government to end support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East – said that changing American public sentiment about Israel and the Palestinians has made it easier for some politicians to speak out.“There is an increasing view among the American public that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, that Palestinians are unjustly victimised by Israel. This has given legislators more space, particularly secure legislators like Patrick Leahy, to say what they actually think,” she said.“In addition, they have more space on this particular case because Shireen Abu Akleh was a US citizen.”Israel initially claimed that Abu Akleh was shot by a Palestinian during a military raid on the occupied West Bank city of Jenin in May. Earlier this month, it finally admitted that it was “highly probable” that an Israel Defence Forces (IDF) soldier killed the journalist but claimed the shooting occurred during a gun battle with Palestinian fighters.That account was widely dismissed because investigations by human rights groups, the press and the United Nations showed that there was no fighting in Abu Akleh’s vicinity.Last week, Leahy told the Senate that the Biden administration had failed to act on calls from members of Congress for the FBI to investigate Abu Akleh’s death as is “customary and appropriate after a tragedy like this involving a prominent American killed overseas under questionable circumstances”.“Unfortunately, there has been no independent, credible investigation,” he said.Leahy challenged the value of Israel’s report on Abu Akleh’s death, noting there was “a history of investigations of shootings by IDF soldiers that rarely result in accountability”.The senator also questioned the state department’s role after the US security coordinator (USSC) in Jerusalem, Lt Gen Mark Schwartz, concluded that there was “no evidence to indicate [Abu Akleh’s] killing was intentional”.Leahy said: “The USSC, echoing the conclusion of the IDF, apparently did not interview any of the IDF soldiers or any other witnesses. To say that fatally shooting an unarmed person, and in this case one with ‘press’ written in bold letters on her clothing, was not intentional, without providing any evidence to support that conclusion, calls into question the state department’s commitment to an independent, credible investigation and to ‘follow the facts’.”Leahy has introduced an amendment, along with other senators, calling for the Biden administration to examine whether Israel has fallen afoul of the 1997 “Leahy Law” barring military assistance to countries whose armies abuse human rights.“Whether [Abu Akleh’s] killing was intentional, reckless or a tragic mistake, there must be accountability. And if it was intentional, and if no one is held accountable, then the Leahy Law must be applied,” Leahy said.Senator Chris Murphy, chair of the Senate foreign relations subcommittee responsible for the region, told MSNBC that he had not previously supported calls to set conditions for US military aid to Israel but that he was concerned about its conduct in the West Bank.“Some of [Israel’s] recent decisions are making conflict between Israel and the Palestinians more likely, not less likely,” he said. “I haven’t gotten there yet, arguing for conditions on that aid, but I think all of us are watching the behavior of the Israeli government very carefully.”Leahy is backed by other senators including Chris Van Hollen, who pushed an amendment passed by the Senate foreign relations committee earlier this month requiring the state department to hand over a full copy of the USSC’s controversial report on Akleh’s death after the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, failed to respond to an earlier request and a series of questions.“I will continue pressing for full accountability and transparency around the death of Shireen. Anything less is unacceptable,” Van Hollen told the committee.Van Hollen was also instrumental in a letter in June signed by nearly half of all Democratic members of the Senate demanding “an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation” into her killing. The letter said disturbing comments by an Israeli official suggested she might have been targeted because she was a journalist.“On the day Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed, an Israeli military spokesperson, Ran Kochav, stated that Ms Abu Akleh and her film crew ‘were armed with cameras, if you’ll permit me to say so’,” the letter said.“We know you agree that journalists must be able to perform their jobs without fear of attack.”TopicsPalestinian territoriesUS SenateIsraelMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsUS foreign policyUS CongressnewsReuse this content More