Saudi’s King Salman in Turkey signals thaw in Ankara-Riyadh Tensions

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman is visiting Turkey today, after his trip to Egypt this past weekend (I wrote about that at The Nation).

There are things that have driven Saudi Arabia and Turkey apart, and things that have brought them together again. The tensions center on the Egyptian officer corp’s overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi in summer of 2013.

Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan is a big supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his pro-Muslim Justice and Development Party struggled against Turkey’s own nationalist officer corps, which had regularly made coups against democratically elected governments in the second half of the twentieth century. He has demanded that Morsi be released and that the death sentence hanging over his head be commuted.

In contrast, Saudi Arabia strongly supported the overthrow of Morsi, and likely encouraged the Egyptian officers to crush the Muslim Brotherhood, which Riyadh views as populist and dangerous to regional stability (even blaming al-Qaeda on the Brotherhood).

The animus against the Brotherhood, however, was mainly carried by the late King Abdullah. His successor in Riyadh, King Salman, is said to have moderated this Saudi anti-Brotherhood stance. Salman needs the (Sunni) Brotherhood in Yemen, for instance, against the Zaidi Shiite group, the Houthis, against whom the Saudis are fighting a brutal air war. Turkey has given verbal and perhaps some logistical support to the Saudi struggle in Yemen against the Houthis, and Erdogan has denounced Iranian support for the Houthis. (Typically outsiders over-estimate the significance of Iranian support for the Houthis, who are a local Yemen force and who probably have not in fact gotten that much aid from Iran). Iran has been upset by the charges, but has striven to maintain good trade and diplomatic relations with Turkey.

Moreover, many of the remnants of the Free Syrian Army fighting to overthrow Bashar al-Assad are actually Muslim Brotherhood, and are allied with the more hard line fundamentalist Salafi groups that Salman supports. That is, King Salman appears to be more afraid of Iran than he is of the populist movements that overthrew dictators in the region, whereas with his predecessor the emphases were reversed.

Syria is what Saudi Arabia and Turkey most have in common at the moment. Both want to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Erdogan had tried to cultivate good relations with Bashar and even used to vacation with him, but al-Assad’s massacre of small town and rural Sunni fundamentalists was unacceptable to Erdogan (they resemble his own constituency in Turkey).

But while Saudi Arabia under Salman views Iran as a full-blown enemy and stirrer of instability in the region, Turkey has correct relations with Iran, despite tensions over Syria and Yemen. Turkey does $10 bn a year in trade with Iran and is aiming for $30 bn. Turkey does about $9 bn. in trade with Saudi Arabia annually. So economically, the two countries are equally valuable to Turkey and Iran even has a slight edge.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have likely lost the Syrian Civil War, now that the Russian Federation has intervened. They will want, however, to get the best settlement possible. They want their clients, the fundamentalist militias fighting against the regime, to have a place at the peace negotiations and in the resulting government. They want al-Assad gone. And they want to reduce Iranian influence in Syria. These considerations account for warming ties between the two.

——

Related video added by Juan Cole:

Ruptly TV: “Turkey: Saudi King Salman welcomed by Erdogan ahead of Syria talks”

How Americans Hate: 8-fold increase in Islamophobic Crime since 2000

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1990, and since then the FBI has been issuing annual reports on crimes of bias or hate crimes.

I thought it might be useful to compare the year 2000, Bill Clinton’s last in office, with 2013 and with 2014, the last two for which statistics are available, to see how the nation has changed. Unsurprisingly, there has been an eight-fold increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes during these 14 years.

There are lots of caveats here. The FBI depends on local police departments to report hate crimes, who in turn depend on victims to report them in the bulk of cases. The whole country is not even covered.

Muslim-Americans are disproportionately first- and second-generation immigrants and while they are typically middle or upper middle class, they often came from countries where the police are not your friends, and they may be hesitant to report hate crimes against them.

Then, there aren’t that many hate crimes reported. In 2000 there were 9,924 victims and in 2014 that number had fallen to only 6,727 victims.

Also, hate crimes based on religion are a small proportion of the whole. In 2014 nearly half (47%) of hate crimes in the US were based on race, and African-Americans are the majority (62.7%) of the victims of those crimes. That is, 29% of all hate crimes are directed against African-Americans, who are 12% of the population nationally.

It would be interesting to know if any anti-Muslim hate crimes take the form primarily of racial hatred against Arabs, South Asians, African-American Muslims or white Muslims (viewed as quislings by racists?). But Arabs are not a category and I presume are being counted as white (22% of hate crimes are directed against this group), and South Asians in the US are counted as Asians (6.2% of hate crimes are directed at them and they are 5% of the population nationally).

a34d567e-641a-4f28-b390-436bf85c00de
h/t FBI

Only 18.6% of hate crimes in 2014 were based on religion. This proportion has been stable since 2000, when 18.6% of hate crimes were based on religion.

hate2000
(2000)

Slide1
Religious Hate Crimes by targeted community in 2014.

So here’s the thing. Both in 2000 and in 2014, the most frequent victims of religious hate crimes were Jews. In 2000 hatred for them accounted for 75% of incidents. In 2013, 60 percent of religious hate crimes were motivated by anti-Jewish bias. In 2014, they accounted for 56.8 percent of the victims of religious hate crimes.

What we can see is a welcome decline in the proportion of hate crimes directed against Jews, though of course it is way too high given that they are less than two percent of the American population.

In 2000, both anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant hate crimes ran at about 3.8 percent of religious crimes of bias, respectively.

But in 2000, anti-Muslim hate crimes came in at only 1.9% of this category.

In 2013, the percentage of hate crimes directed at Catholics was up to 6%, that is, they increased by about a third, and this was true in 2014, as well.

(It is possible that the anti-Catholic animus is a proxy for anti-Latino feeling. But it is worth mentioning that hate crimes against Latinos are put in the category of “ethnic” rather than “racial” hate crimes, and that the Latino share of victimization by such crimes fell from 61% to 47% between 2000 and 2014.)

The percentage accounted for by anti-Protestant feeling remained the same in 2013, at about 3.8 percent, but in 2014 it actually fell, to 2.5 percent.

So the other big change besides the 25% decline in Antisemitic incidents was a vast increase in the proportion of hate crimes that are directed at Muslims. In 2013, it was 13.7%. In 2014 it jumped again, to 16.1%. That is, the proportion of religious crimes of bias that are directed at Muslims has increased by a factor of 8 since 2000.

Note that according to most social science surveys, there are about half as many American Muslims as American Jews. Muslims constitute roughly 1% of the US population but about 3% of all hate crimes target them.

We can see in these statistics some of the reason for which the most pond-scum-ish of the GOP candidates are running on anti-Muslim hatred. Their polling is telling them about this big increase in Islamophobia that is visible in the hate crime statistics. And rather than running away from the sort of bigots who commit these hate crimes, they are eagerly courting their votes.

The fear that all right-thinking Americans now have is that the flame-throwing rhetoric of the GOP demagogues will put up the number of hate crimes nationally in 2016 and after, and that the proportion that target Muslims and Latinos will expand yet again. We should never forget that hate is not just an emotion displayed by an ugly set of the mouth at a rally; it turns into broken noses and broken ribs and burned-down buildings. Those are the genies the hate-mongerers are summoning for us.

Syria: Is al-Qaeda rising as ISIL is rolled Back? Is the US de facto Allied with it?

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

The cessation of hostilities in Syria never included Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) or al-Qaeda (the Nusra Front or Support Front), but it did include some of the de facto allies of al-Qaeda. The Syrian Arab Army and its Shiite militia allies, with Russian air support, have taken advantage of the relative quiet in much of the country to roll back Daesh from Palmyra and some other towns.

But even as Daesh has been set back, al-Qaeda has recovered some of the territory lost to the SAA earlier this year southwest of Aleppo.

Al-Qaeda is allied with the Freemen of Syria (Ahrar al-Sham) and the Jerusalem Army among other hard line Salafi Jihadis. These groups are in turn allied with remnants of the old Free Syrian Army (mostly Muslim Brotherhood) that are supported by the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. That is, the US-backed groups are battlefield allies of the allies of al-Qaeda. US and Gulf-supplied weaponry routinely makes its way to al-Qaeda.

As the Syrian Arab Army and its Iranian and Iraqi militia allies have been busy to the east at Palmyra, al-Qaeda has spearheaded the reconquest from the regime of al-Eis, al-Khalidiya, Birna and Zitan, small towns along the strategic M5 highway linking Aleppo to Idlib Province (a province dominated by al-Qaeda and its allies).

These advances are mainly al-Qaeda’s, or al-Qaeda’s in conjunction with allies. A Shiite site observed, “The attack on Zitan and Birneh is to be led exclusively by Jabhat al-Nusra fighters. Nevertheless, yesterday’s capture of al-Khalidyah was carried about by joint troops of Jund Al-Aqsa, Ahrar ash-Sham, Ajnad Al-Sham, Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army’s 13th division.”

The 13th Division of the FSA is a “vetted” group that receives CIA-supplied weaponry such as anti-tank t.o.W. munitions, which is to say that the United States is in bed with al-Qaeda in taking al-Khalidiya from the al-Assad regime.

Al-Qaeda also fired mortar shells at the Sheikh Maqsoud district of Aleppo, a Kurdish stronghold that the YPG militia could use to cut East Aleppo off from arms and ammunition from Turkey. The attack killed 18 and wounded more than 50.

In contrast, in the south of Damascus, in the Yarmouk Camp district, al-Qaeda and Daesh have been battling each other, and Daesh has taken some neighborhoods away from al-Qaeda.

—-
Related video:

al-Masdar: “Russian airstrike targets ammo depot for al-Nusra in South Aleppo”

If ISIL falls before November, how will it affect the US Election?

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump openly attributes his success at the polls to the terrorist attacks on Paris last fall, in which Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) was involved. Ever since Mosul fell to the organization (originally al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia) in June of 2014, it has provoked great concern in the American public, especially because of its beheadings, but also because a new “state” was alleged to have arisen in the heart of the Middle East, which is at war with the United States. (In fact, it is just a congeries of juvenile delinquents with Kalashnikovs, engaged in human and drug trafficking). In the presidential campaign, Daesh has loomed large. Ted Cruz appears to want to carpet bomb Mosul or use a nuclear bomb on it (‘let’s find out if the desert can glow in the dark’), while Trump has gone back and forth on whether to give Syria to Russia or to send 30,000 US troops in.

But what if Daesh falls this summer or autumn? It has already lost much of northern al-Raqqa province in Syria to the left-leaning, US-backed Kurds. Then the Syrian Arab Army took Palmyra back away from it and talks about going on to al-Raqqa city, the Daesh capital.

And even the Turkey-backed Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi militias of the Free Syrian Army have focused in on Daesh in Syria’s far north, perhaps in a quest to hold as much territory as possible before a permanent ceasefire sets in.

In Iraq, the Iraqi army has taken Ramadi back away from Daesh, and just this week with the help of US airstrikes marched into the center of the al-Anbar city of Hit, a former Daesh HQ and key entrepot in the Syria-Iraq supply line. Fallujah is under siege, and if it falls, daesh will have nothing significant in northern Iraq save Mosul itself, on which all forces will converge.

The rolling up of Daesh has created alliances and alliances-of-convenience among strange bedfellows. The US and Vladimir Putin’s Russia are now more or less allied, as Russia-supported Syrian troops close in on Daesh in al-Raqqa.

In Iraq, Iranian support for Baghdad has been central to the fight against Daesh, as has American support to Baghdad, making the US and Iran de facto battlefield allies.

Secretary of State John Kerry made a surprise stop in at Baghdad this week, having met with the Gulf oil states in Bahrain just before, in an effort to enlist the latter in the fight against Daesh in northern Iraq. He also seemed to propose that Iran become part of a new security architecture in the region if it would cease support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

This talk of a grand alliance may be a bit fantastical, but it nevertheless does seem possible that Russia and Iran and Hizbullah in Syria, and Iran and Baghdad in Iraq, will cooperate with the US and NATO in delivering the coup de grace to the phony caliphate of Daesh during the coming months.

It would be overly cynical to suggest that President Obama is angling for this outcome (he could not have expected the Russian intervention, e.g., so these changes in Syria are not his doing alone).

But if al-Raqqa and Mosul fall, it seems inevitable that this development would much help the Democrats, since it will be the achievement of a Democratic president and his slow, careful strategy. It would deprive the GOP standard bearer of a key foreign policy talking point.

—–

Related video:

Euronews: “Kerry salutes Iraq’s progress in retaking ground from ISIL”

Is Hillary Clinton responsible for rise of ISIL, as Bernie’s Campaign Manager Alleged?

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, alleged on Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s policies are responsible for the ‘rise and expansion of ISIS throughout the Middle East.’ His full statement on CNN:

“I think if you look at her record and campaign, her campaign is funded by millions and millions of dollars from Wall Street and other special interests. She’s made a deal with the devil, and we all know the devil wants his money in the end. So that’s the kind of campaign she’s running. She supported the terrible trade deals which have devastated American manufacturing in the country. She supported the war in Iraq. She continues to have a very, very hawkish foreign policy that has led to the rise and expansion of ISIS throughout the Middle East.”

Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) arose in Iraq as a reaction against the Bush occupation of that country and its punitive policies toward Sunni Arabs, as part of a Shiite-led “debaathification.” (The ruling party 1968-2003 had bee the Baath Party, which was secular, socialist and disproportionately dominated in the upper echelons by Sunni Arabs).

It spread to Syria as a result of that country’s 2011 revolution, which turned into a civil war when the Bashar al-Assad regime used military weaponry on civilian protesters.

It also spread to the Sinai Peninsula after General-President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and declared members of the movement terrorists.

Then it spread last year into Libya, where the government had collapsed (or rather, there were three).

So is Weaver correct?

Informed Comment says that he is mostly incorrect.

Although Clinton did vote to authorize the Iraq War, it wasn’t the war per se that created Daesh there but rather the US backing for Shiite policies of political reprisals against the Sunnis. Clinton did not have anything to do with policy-making in Iraq.

Clinton might have liked to intervene in Syria in 2011 by backing the Free Syrian Army with arms and money, but she was prevented from implementing such a policy by President Obama, who wanted the US to stay out of Syria. So you can’t blame her for Daesh coming to Syria and joining the civil war there.

Clinton was out of office during Sisi’s coup and crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and had nothing to do with it. That radical groups among the Sinai bedouin declared for Daesh (and then apparently dissociated themselves from it) has nothing to do with Sec. Clinton.

Clinton backed a no-fly zone in Libya and exulted when Muammar Gaddafi was ejected. Her main fault there, I would argue, however, was that she set in motion no international help to reestablish the Libyan military. As the militias declined to disarm or stand down, their internecine fighting threw the country into chaos. A small band of fundamentalists in the old Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte declared for Daesh, but they are a tiny exception. You could make a case that some Clinton policies as secretary of state did contribute to the spread of Daesh to Libya, but in my view that is a stretch. Libyan radical fundamentalists were well established in the country, and had supplied fighters against the US in Iraq in the thousands. Once revolution against the decrepit Gaddafi regime broke out in 2011, I fear the country was going to face chaos one way or another (if there hadn’t been a no-fly zone things could have been worse, on a Syria scale).

Maybe you could find a way to put a little blame on Clinton for Daesh in Libya, but that really is the only instance of it where she might be said to have such culpability. And in my view it is a stretch.

—–

Related video added by Juan Cole

Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Responds To Hillary Clinton ‘Unqualified’ Comments | MSNBC

Are Sanders’ Criticisms of Israeli Occupation Policies unprecedented in a Presidential Campaign?

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

Bernie Sanders is being attacked for comments on the Middle East in his interview with the editorial board of The New York Daily News, but all he did was restate current US government policy.

What is remarkable is that Sanders dared just, like, criticize Israeli policy toward the Palestinians as involving illegal squatter settlements and disproportionate use of force. Everyone knows these things, but I can’t recall another presidential candidate who said them outright during a campaign. This is because although they are a small minority, Jewish Americans form a swing vote in some key states like Florida, and they are unusually generous in donating to political campaigns. And politicians assume that Jewish Americans are looking for unvarnished praise of Israel. But while arch-conservative pro-Israel lobbies like AIPAC may never want to hear a discouraging word, Jewish Americans (most of them political liberals and leftists) are deeply divided on the far-right Likud government of PM Binyamin Netanyahu, and Sen. Sanders is well aware of this. Besides, his crowd-sourced funding model means he does not need the donations of billionaire American Likudniks.

You have to wonder whether Sanders is not making a historic breakthrough in American discourse on Israeli policy. It is just a few inches to the left, but it is unprecedented in a mainstream presidential campaign (and he still had to recite the mantra of Israel’s right to exist and point out that he has family there– as if those were relevant to the main issue of Occupation).

Here are the points he made:

1. ISIL must be defeated, and defeated primarily by Muslim powers in the region without involving the US in a land war. (This is more or less President Obama’s position, contrasting with the positions of Sec. Clinton, Sen. Cruz and of Trump on every other day).

2. Hamas is a terrorist organization that uses indiscriminate force in its rocket attacks on Israel.

3. Hizbullah in Lebanon is a terrorist organization. (That is the US State Department position).

4. Israeli settlements on the Palestinian West Bank are illegal (this is the Geneva Convention of 1949, which he rightly says is an international treaty)

5. Israel’s assaults on trapped little Gaza have involved unacceptably high civilian casualties.

He said he didn’t remember the number in the last attack on Gaza but thought it might be as high as 10,000. He is being attacked for this number, but he said specifically he didn’t remember the number, so obviously he meant to say the casualties were in the thousands. An editor looked it up on his smartphone and corrected it to 2,400. Sen. Sanders did not demur.

Israel’s Operation Protective Edge against Gaza probably killed 2,191 Palestinians, and the vast majority of them were civilians. Indeed, about 400 appear to have been children.

Israel’s 2008-9 Operation Cast Lead against Gaza killed around 1400, again mostly civilians.

But the Israeli peace organization B’Tselem estimates that from the year 2000 until just before the last Gaza assault, Israel had killed nearly 10,000 Palestinians [9,271], so that may be why that number stuck in Sen. Sanders mind. So the total since 2000 is over 11,000, though not all of those were non-combatants. A ‘Combatant’ is anyway hard to define in conditions of foreign military occupation — are 8 year olds throwing stones combatants? By the way, just in the years 2000-2008, the Palestinian Red Crescent counted 33,000 Palestinians wounded, so the issue of disproportionate force extends beyond just deaths.

And, of the over 11,000 Palestinians killed, about 2,000 were children.

In the same period, B’Tselem says that 1217 Israelis were killed by Palestinians (one would have to add a few dozen more, all soldiers save for 6, during the invasion of Gaza).

Thus, since 2000 Israelis have typically killed about 10 Palestinians for every Israeli killed if we accept the B’Tselem count, which may undercount Palestinian deaths according to the Palestinian Red Crescent.

So Sen. Sanders’ point is correct about disproportionate force. He he himself was not giving an exact casualty count.

Nothing he said was actually controversial or departed in any way from the current positions of the US government.

—–

Related video:

Sanders Outlines Middle East Policy

Syria: Al-Assad Family’s Massive Stolen Wealth in Panama Papers helps explain Revolution

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

The revelation in the leaked Panama Papers that Mossack Fonseca and Swiss bank HSBC serviced the companies of corrupt Syrian billionaire Rami Makhlouf (first cousin of dictator Bashar al-Assad) long after the US imposed sanctions on him is a reminder of why Syrians revolted against the regime in 2011 in the first place. Makhlouf was said to be worth $5 billion (likely more than Donald Trump) before the revolution, and to have dominated 60% of Syria’s economy. Below is something I wrote about the political economy of Syria’s revolution, which I never published– but it makes even more sense, I think, in view of the Panama Papers.

rmy1 Rami Makhlouf & Bashar al-Assad

P.S. The original cover image for this posting ws of Ribal al-Assad, a dissident member of the clan who has spoken out forcefully against corruption; it was extracted by a plug-in from the video interview cited below.

In 1963 the secular, Arab nationalist and socialist Baath Party came to power in Syria. Conflicts within the ranks of the party, which had military and civilian wings, kept the country unstable until 1970. In that year, an Air Force general, Hafez al-Assad made a coup. A member of the Alawite, Shiite minority that comprises about ten to fourteen percent of the population, al-Assad turned the Baath Party into a mechanism for dealing with Syria’s transformation from a largely rural, peasant society to a majority urban one. He reversed earlier Baath hostility to the agricultural business classes, allowing a vigorous private sector in the countryside. The public sector under his version of the Baath Part concentrated on organizing small-holding peasants and extending irrigation in the Ghab and the Euphrates Basin. The Baath building of dams and waterworks endeared it to small-holding rural Sunni Arabs, and over time incomes rose and cities expanded modestly. The regime was not universally popular, and in the small cities at the center of the country a powerful Muslim Brotherhood opposition flourished, with a class basis in businessmen, shopkeepers and artisans hostile to secular Baath socialism. In 1982, al-Assad brutally crushed a Brotherhood uprising in Hama, killing thousands.[i]

By the 1980s the gains from the Baath Party’s agricultural policies had reached a plateau. Economic and other discontents burgeoned. Syria’s government embarked late in that decade on a privatization program, and during the 1990s the percentage of the non-oil industrial economy in private hands nearly doubled from 45 to 82 percent. Syria entered the new millennium no longer a socialist economy. The al-Assad clan benefited from the turn to a new entrepreneurial spirit. The president’s brother Jamil, for instance, went into the import-export business and came to dominate the Mediterranean port of Latakia. He developed a relationship with semi-criminal elements among the dock workers and underground of the city, and deployed them in a protection racket in the port. Also drawn from his Alawite ethnic group, they were known as the “specters” (shabiha), and went on to engage in smuggling (especially tobacco) and occasionally to challenge the police.[ii]

Hafez al-Assad had designated his son Basil, head of presidential security, to be his successor, the first of the republican princes to prepare to come to power. Basil’s death in an automobile collision in 1994 caused Hafez al-Assad to designate his second son, Bashar, as the next president for life instead. Bashar was then studying ophthalmology in Britain (he only lived there 18 months), and his soft-spoken, timid manner did not suggest he would be a decisive leader. He admitted he was a fan of Phil Collins’s music, and had enjoyed making home videos as he came of age in Damascus. He succeeded to power in 2000, in part because influential Baath generals and politicians preferred another al-Assad to seeing one of their rivals become president.[iii]

Bashar al-Assad was unable effectively to address the economic problems of the country. Some of his difficulties were geopolitical. After a brief honeymoon with the United States from 2000 through 2002 (which included post-September 11 help in detaining, interrogating, and torturing al-Qaeda suspects), relations increasingly soured after Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Al-Assad’s Syria attracted the ire of Western hawks and the Neoconservatives. He was allied with Iran, with which Washington had increasingly bad relations after 2003. He proved unable or unwilling to police his long border with American-dominated Iraq (through which Sunni Arab, anti-American guerrilla groups infiltrated that country). He paid lip service, at least, to supporting the Rejectionist forces in the Israeli-Arab conflict, i.e. Lebanon’s Hizbullah and the more militant Palestinians. In December, 2003, Congress passed and Bush signed the Syria Accountability Act. Likewise, France joined the US on the UN Security Council in objecting to the continued Syrian occupation of and meddling in Lebanon. Al-Assad’s Syria found itself blocked from favorable trading terms in Europe and the United States. The full impact of such sanctions can be seen if we compare Syria after 2002 to Turkey, a NATO member, where the Islamically-tinged government of the Justice and Development Party vastly expanded trade and industry from 2002 because of its special tariff treatment by the US and the EU.

Al-Assad was initially young and inexperienced, and faced an entrenched Baathist bureaucracy suspicious of his experiences in Britain (though these were quite limited). He announced on coming to power that he would allow private banks to operate in Syria. He may have been influenced by his British-born wife, Asma al-Assad, who had worked as a broker at J.P. Morgan on Wall Street before she married. It took years for this decree to be implemented. Political scientist David Lesch interviewed her about the long delay in moving to private banking: “We have not had private banks in Syria for 50 years. Our public banks are not functioning…. We have staff who do not speak English, who do not have computers. So we are on a very, very basic level. …We had no idea how to do this. We don’t have the experience.”[iv] Over time, private banks began operating, though the six public banks continued to be dominant, and Western sanctions hurt some of those.[v] From 2005, al-Assad implemented his New Social Market, which added on a private sector to previous socialist institutions and allowed a new class of boisterous entrepreneurs to transform downtown Damascus.[vi] In 2009 a stock market was opened. The new private sector was not enough, however, to create even a fraction of the new jobs demanded by Syria’s Millennials, or to jumpstart the economy, and cronyism ensured that it functioned mainly to make wealth “trickle up” to the small elite. From 2005, the regime increasingly reduced subsidies, which hit the poor and working classes hard. On top of all that, the zeroes witnessed the beginnings of a severe drought in Syria, which deeply harmed farmers and the small towns that served as their initial distributors. If the Baath Party had been relatively good at water management and incorporated the rural Sunnis in the 1970s, it increasingly failed on both of those scores under Bashar. Either the challenge was too great, or the high Baath officials by then had other priorities (especially making billions through corrupt deals in the growing urban sector).[vii]

By 2004, Syria’s per capita gross domestic product was, in nominal terms, only $1,190 a year—half that of neighboring Jordan, a fourth that of Turkey, and a fifth that of Lebanon. Six years later, in 2010– on the eve of the outbreak of massive protests, the per capita GDP was still less than $3000 a year (124th out of 183 countries ranked), whereas neighboring Turkey’s was nearly $11,000 (61st), according to the International Monetary Fund. That is, in 2010 Syria was similar in this regard to Honduras and the Congo, whereas Turkey was more in the neighborhood of emergent economies such as Malaysia and Brazil. By the outbreak of protests in 2011, the poverty rate in Syria had climbed to something between 11 and 30 percent, depending on how it was measured.[viii]

Syria, like many other Arab countries, has difficulty growing its economy faster than its population. Its population growth rate remains relatively high, at 2.4 percent per annum, which will lead, if it remains unchanged, to a doubling of the national population in roughly 30 years, from 22 million to 42 million. That is, it will go from being about as big as today’s Florida to being more populous than today’s California (or in European terms, from being somewhat larger than the Netherlands to nearly as populous as Spain). Because the population growth rate was even higher in previous decades, Syria’s labor force grows 4.5 percent a year, adding nearly 300,000 would-be workers. In the youngest cohort, from 15 to 24, unemployment ran as high as 70 percent before the revolution broke out. Because poverty has increasingly caused teenagers and even children to drop out of school to work, illiteracy has actually been rising in the past two decades.[ix]

Governance in Syria under the Baath Party resembled the rings of an onion. The outer ring was the party, which incorporated Sunni businessmen and farmers, Christians, Druze (an esoteric Shiite sect), and the Alawites (another esoteric Shiite sect). The upper echelons of the party and the officer corps were disproportionately dominated by members of the minority Alawite sect. (The Alawite form of Shi’ite Islam has more folk elements and is less bookish, clerical and formal than the Twelver Shiite branch that dominates Iraq and Iran). The very inner circle was the al-Assad extended family or jama`at al-Assad. The al-Assad clan had opportunities to benefit from insider trading practices, given that they controlled government economic policy, and to receive business licenses and contracts. Already in the time of Hafez al-Assad, his propensity for promoting his friends and relatives inspired other members of his junta to do likewise. His longtime foreign minister and then vice president, `Abd al-Halim Khaddam, the informal viceroy of Lebanon, developed front companies in that country. He became a fixture in Beirut night clubs. He developed a close relationship to Lebanese-Saudi billionaire Rafiq al-Hariri, who made a gift to him of one of Aristotle Onassis’s former apartments in Paris and set him up in the telecommunications business. Hariri also brought Khaddam’s two sons into business ventures in Saudi Arabia, where he had made his money.[x] Hafez al-Assad’s Sunni minister of defense, Mustafa Talas (usually spelled Tlass in the Western press), had one son who became a big businessman, Firas. Firas had extensive holdings in real estate, food distribution, and banking, and was said to among the richest men in the country. The other, Manaf, became a general in the army (he defected to the opposition in July, 2012).[xi]

The rising business class in the Syria of the zeroes was hardly, however, confident or loyal to the regime that fostered it. The secretive and conspiratorial mindset of the Baath Party ensured that those who became wealthy were often under suspicion of corruption, that is, of stealing from the regime. In 2009, a Syrian newspaper published a list of Syria’s one hundred wealthiest businessmen, conveniently omitting some prominent relatives of the president, and even the names of the owners of the newspaper itself. The edition was said by the US chargé in Damascus to have sent chills up and down the spines of the families profiled, who were sure that the Syrian tax authorities would use it as an excuse to look into them. Most were probably nouveaux riches, with the old Baathist monied families excused from the ignominy of being discussed in public. The year before, a high security aide to the president had been killed in the port of Tartous by sniper fire while the president was out of country, and, when searched, the basement of one of his residences yielded $60 million. Periodic anti-corruption drives caught even those related to the president. A distant cousin of the president was arrested in 2009 for possibly abusing his position in the customs administration. The same year, a prominent Sunni client of the regime given the bid on key internet services was arrested after he made little progress in providing them, after pocketing the government’s payment.[xii]

If the sons of courtiers could do well, denizens of the presidential palace were even more favored. The brother of the president, Gen. Maher al-Assad, commander of the Republican Guards and of the Fourth Armored Division, was accused by dissidents of laundering money through agents in Lebanon for Iraqi Baathists. The “Youth of Rage” charged him in spring of 2011 with using businessman and media mogul Mohammad Hamsho as a corrupt silent partner (some alleged that Maher had a popular private television station closed so that Hamsho could open his own and garner the advertising revenue instead). They also accused him of hiding his ill-gotten gains in Swiss bank accounts.[xiii] Foremost among the new generation of Syrian crony capitalists is Rami Makhlouf, first cousin of Bashar on his mother’s side. The Makhloufs are an Alawite family that initially served the al-Assads in the security forces. Then in the 1990s, the patriarch of that branch of the family, Muhammad Makhlouf, had had to be brought in as a silent partner in the private Real Estate Bank (REB), which by the late zeroes was said to earn over $110 million a year – “largely from its monopoly on processing credit card and ATM transactions.” [xiv] At the height of his prominence, Muhammad’s son Rami Makhlouf’s holdings included monopoly corporations or semi-monopolies in construction, oil, airlines and airport concessions, real estate, telecoms and import-export. He was known to use his connections to the regime to close down others’ lucrative projects, using thugs, and then buy them for a song. [xv] He and his clan were alleged to be worth $5 billion in a country where the annual gross domestic product in nominal terms in 2011 was $59 billion. One dissident member of the al-Assad family, Ribal, characterized him as owning three-fourths of Syria.[xvi] Makhlouf is famed for sharp business practices that depended on his access to power. For instance, he went into the wireless telephone business with Orascom, an Egyptian concern, and when he decided to take over Orascom’s shares, he allegedly had the company chased out of the country.[xvii] The “Youth of Rage” charged that the resulting company, called “Syriatel,” proved a bonanza that was shared with Gen. Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.

The pinnacle of power and wealth was Bashar and his immediate circle. The style of life of the palace was so opulent and cocooned that during the worst fighting of 2011 and 2012, first lady Asma al-Assad was obsessed with ordering gilt furniture, chandeliers and jewelry over the internet.[xviii] Her buyer confirmed in July of 2011 that she had acquired: “-1 Turquoise with yellow gold diamonds and small pave on side: – 1 Cornaline with yellow gold diamonds and small pave on side; – 1 Full Black Onyx with yellow gold diamonds and small pave on side; – 1 Amethyst with white gold diamonds and small pave on side.”[xix]


[i] Raymond Hinnebusch, Syria: Revolution From Above (London: Routledge, 2001); Patrick Seale, Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East (Berkely: University of California Press, 1990).

[ii] Bashir Zayn al-Abidin, “Al-Hukuma al-suriyya wa ‘muharabat al-fasad,” al-Bayan, April 4, 2011 at http://albayan.co.uk/article.aspx?id=822

[iii] Joshua Stracher, “Reinterpreting Authoritarian Power: Syria’s Hereditary Succession,” The Middle East Journal 65. 2 (Spring 2011): 197-212.

[iv] David W. Lesch, “The Evolution of Bashar al-Asad,” Middle East Policy 17. 2 (Summer 2010): 70-81.

[v] “Part 1: Syria’s Changing Financial Landscape,” Chargé d’Affaires Maura Connelly, Damascus, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, May 11, 2009, Wikileaks, at http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09DAMASCUS327.html

[vi] Bassam Haddad, Business Networks in Syria: The Political Economy of Authoritarian Resilience (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2012).

[vii] Bassam Haddad, “Syria’s Stalemate: The Limits of Regime Resilience,” Middle East Policy

Volume 19, Issue 1 (Spring 2012): 85–95.

[viii] Fayez Sara, “Poverty in Syria: Towards a Serious Policy Shift in Combating Poverty,” (London: Strategic Research and Communications Center, 2011) at https://www.cimicweb.org/cmo/ComplexCoverage/Documents/Syria/Poverty_in_Syria.pdf

[ix] Alistair Lyon, “Syria grapples with surging population,” Reuters, June 3, 2010 at http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/03/us-syria-population-idUSTRE6522FS20100603; SØren Schmidt, “The Missed Opportunity for Economic Reform in Syria,” Mediterranean Politics, 11:1 (2003), 91-97

[x] Gary C. Gambill, “Dossier: Former Syrian VP Abdul Halim Khaddam,” June 2, 2006, Global Politician, at http://www.globalpolitician.com/21829-syria

[xi]For an overview of high Syrian officials of the past decade see “A Lion’s Den: A Guide to Assad’s Regime,” al-Arabiya, January 2013 at http://english.alarabiya.net/lionsden/

[xii] “Corruption investigation rattles business community,” Chargé d’Affaires Maura Connelly, Damascus, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, April 9, 2009, Wikileaks, http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09DAMASCUS274.html

[xiii] Shabab al-Ghadab (Syria), “Qissat fasad al-shaqiqatayn Bashshar wa Mahir al-Asad wa ibn khalihima Rami Makhluf,” al-Tahaluf al-Watani al-`Iraqi , April 22, 2011 at http://www.iraqipa.net/04-2011/21-30/a9_22apr2011.htm

[xiv] “Part 1: Syria’s Changing Financial Landscape,” Chargé d’Affaires Maura Connelly, Damascus, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, May 11, 2009, Wikileaks, at http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09DAMASCUS327.html

[xv] “Maximizing the impact of Rami’s Designation,” Economic Counselor Todd Holmstrom, Damascus, to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, January 31, 2008, Wikileaks, http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/01/08DAMASCUS70.html; Khaled Yacoub Oweis, “Syria’s Makhlouf owes fortune and infamy to Assad,” Reuters, June 16, 2011.

[xvi] “Muqabalat Ribal al-Asad,” France24 Arabic, May 6, 2011 at youtube

[xvii] Schmidt, “Missed Opportunity,” p. 95.

[xviii] Robert Booth and Luke Harding, “Gilded lifestyle continued for Assad coterie as conflict raged in Syria,” The Guardian, March 14, 2012 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/gilded-lifestyle-assad-coterie-conflict

[xix] “Alia Kayali” [a.k.a. Asma al-Assad]/ Amal al-Akhras, 19 July 2011, hacked email published in The Guardian, March 14, 2012 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/bashar-al-assad-syria3

—–

Related video:

Euronews: Panama Papers show how Syria and North Korea ‘evaded sanctions’


One Reason the GOP Bigwigs hate Trump: He told the truth about Bush WMD Lies

By Brian Glyn Williams | (Informed Comment) | – –

Recently Donald Trump broke with Republican convention and roiled the party base by boldly stating “You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They [the Bush administration] lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]; there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”[1] He also stated “We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.”

rumwmd

This typically brash Trump statement went against an unwritten rule in the Republican establishment which states that it is taboo to bring up the subject of the WMDs that were not found after the invasion and occupation of secular-Baathist Iraq (all of the strands of intelligence, from Iraqi killer drones to mobile weapons labs to nuclear centrifuges fell apart after the occupation of the country and “exploitation” of its bases and facilities). If you go to Google “images” and try finding online pictures of U.S. reconnaissance and exploitation troops uncovering the much-hyped Iraqi WMDs–like killer drones that were said to be able to strike American mainland or mobile weapons labs–there are none available. All that was found by the U.S. Army Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Group teams were some old, corroded, un-useable, “demilitarized” artillery shells rotting in the desert from the 1980s, a far cry from the active, threatening chemical, biological and even nuclear(!) WMD program we were repeatedly told by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld that Iraq possessed.

Trump was of course absolutely correct in his bold, in your face statement. But try telling that to the average Republican voter, the majority of whom (63 percent according to a Dartmouth College poll) believe that WMDs were found in Iraq.[2] It seems the Republican base has a hard time accepting the fact that their president led them into a disastrous war that took the lives of almost 4,500 brave American men and women who thought they were defending their country from WMDs (i.e. fifty percent more than were killed by Al Qaeda on 9/11) and cost three trillion dollars and spawned ISIS (where there had previously been a secular Baathist government with no WMDs) based on cooked up intel.

But the very leaders who sold them the goods on Iraq’s non-existent weapons program have (with the exception of Cheney) come out and acknowledged that there were no WMDs. Bush, like Powell before him, ultimately acknowledged that the search for WMDs had ended in failure as reported in his own memoir Decision Points. Bush wrote, “No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”[3] When discussing the lack of WMDs, Bush would later state, “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”[4] In an interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Bush would once again confirm the lack of WMDs in Iraq:

Raddatz: Just let me go back because you brought this up. You said Saddam Hussein posed a threat in the post-9/11 world. They didn’t find weapons of mass destruction.

Bush: That’s true. Everybody thought they had them. [5]

On yet another occasion, Bush said “Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.”[6]

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who made numerous declarations on the existence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, also acknowledged making at least one “misstatement” about WMDs.[7] He then stated, “It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.”[8] When asked by the BBC about the lack of WMDs in Iraq, Rumsfeld would later say, “Why the intelligence proved wrong, I’m not in a position to say.”[9] In his memoir, Known and Unknown, Rumsfeld specifically mentioned the lack of WMD stockpiles in Iraq and said “Saddam Hussein didn’t have ready stockpiles of WMD our intelligence community believed we would uncover. The shift in emphasis suggested that Iraq’s intentions and capability for building WMD had somehow not been threatening. Many Americans and others around the world accordingly came to believe the war was unnecessary.”[10]

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice similarly acknowledged, “What we have is evidence that there are differences between what we knew going in and what we found on the ground.”[11] Secretary of State Colin Powell would also state, “Of course I regret that a lot of it [the evidence] turned out be wrong.”[12]

To compound matters, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) created by President Bush to scour post-invasion Iraq and find hidden WMDs ultimately reported the following definitive findings to the U.S. government once their search was complete:

“Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.”

“In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.”

“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”[13]

What does all of this mean for the majority of Republicans who still cling to the stated rationale/pretext for invading and dismantling Baathist-Socialist Iraq? It would seem to indicate that they have been grasping onto straws and they should, like the Democrats who previously acknowledged that President Bill Clinton lied to them about the Lewinsky affair, acknowledge the truth, just as the very leaders who deceived them in the first place have belatedly done.

Professor Brian Glyn Williams worked for the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center in Afghanistan and is author of The Last Warlord. The Life and Legend of Dostum, the Afghan Warrior who Led U.S. Special Forces to Topple the Taliban Regime.

NOTES.


[1] “Yes Trump Said Bush Lied.” FactCheck.Org. March 17, 2016.

[2] “Yes, Iraq Definitely Had WMD, Vast Majority of Polled Republicans Insist,” Huffington Post, January 21, 2012.

[3] “George Bush Had a Sickening Feeling over the WMD Lack,” BBC, November 2, 2010.

[4] “Bush Admits Intelligence Was Wrong,” Guardian, December 14, 2005.

[5] “Bush ‘Not Insulted’ by Thrown Shoes,” ABC. December 14, 2008.

[6] “President Bush Holds a News Conference.” Washington Post. August 21, 2006.

[7] Ewan MacAskill, “Donald Rumsfeld Book Admits ‘Misstatements’ over WMD Sites.” Guardian, February 7, 2011.

[8] “The Intelligence Business,” New York Times, May 7, 2006.

[9] “Rumsfeld Questions Saddam–bin Laden Link,” BBC. October 5, 2004.

[10] Donald Rumsfeld. Known and Unknown. New York; Sentinel. 2011. Page 712.

[11] Adam Blenford, “Rice Admits Doubts on WMD,” Guardian, January 30, 2004.

[12] “Colin Powell Regrets UN Speech Justifying the War.” Raw Story. June 15, 20

[13] “Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program,” CIA. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html.

What’s at Stake for Israel in al-Sharif Killing: Japanese Officers were Executed for Killing POWs

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

The Israeli military and security forces have a problem. They are fairly obviously being ordered to commit summary executions of prisoners. The problem: This behavior is one of the more heinous of war crimes as defined in international law. At the very least it is a crime. Amnesty International began documenting the practice last fall, as Palestinian youth reacted to what they saw as the Israeli undermining of Sec. of State John Kerry’s peace talks by launching a series of violent attacks.

The issue was pitched powerfully last week when an Israeli soldier shot a wounded and immobilized Palestinian assailant at point-blank range in the head. The Palestinian, Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif, was suspected of having been involved in a knife attack on Israeli personnel at a checkpoint. Had the soldier killed al-Sharif in self-defense or while defending his colleague, the action would have been justified. But once al-Sharif had been wounded and immobilized and disarmed, shooting him in the head and killing him was simple murder. The soldier, whose identity is being shielded by Israeli authorities, maintains that he feared the Palestinian might have a bomb, but the victim had already been checked for munitions, and the video taken by another Palestinian of the event does not bear out this interpretation. An Israeli court has only charged the soldier, who appears to have harbored a profound hatred of Palestinians, with manslaughter.

And Israel itself has a problem: the vast majority of Israelis approved of the summary killing, with only 5% seeing it as murder and only 19% even disapproving.

If the al-Sharif killing were the only one, that would be different. As noted, human rights organizations are alleging a pattern here, which implies that Israeli officers are setting rules of engagement premised on the commission of war crimes.

After Japanese officers ordered the killing of 300 p.o.w.s on the Indonesian island of Ambon during World War II, they were put on trial in Australia and 4 were hanged and many others given prison sentences.

It is not necessary to argue that the Palestinian resistance fighters fighters who attacked Israeli security forces were technically prisoners of war (though international law has been leaning in the direction of seeing resisters to foreign military occupation in that light). They can just be detainees suspected of crimes. You still can’t just shoot them in the head once they are subdued.

It is worth noting that the incident occurred in Hebron, Palestine, not in Israel. Israelis had no business being in Hebron in the first place.


h/t Human Rights Watch

The way these Palestinian assailants do resemble prisoners of war is that they attacked soldiers. That is, the argument that it is all right to kill them because they had launched assaults does not hold water. The Japanese at Ambon killed those p.o.w.’s in revenge for the sinking of a Japanese ship by a Dutch mine, resulting in the deaths of all hands aboard. If international law requires that p.o.w.’s be treated humanely when by definition they had attacked the forces of another country, it is recognizing the illegitimacy of summary revenge, which is the activity in which the Israeli army is indulging.

Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallstrom was among the first to speak out against the systematic summary executions by Israeli forces, last January.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his typical propagandistic way greeted Walstrom’s complaint with feigned incredulity. He complained that Israeli troops were being condemned for defending themselves against knife-wielding attackers. But they weren’t. Self-defense is always permitted in the law, assuming proportionate force is deployed.

The police and soldiers were being criticized for declining to try take attackers into custody, routinely shooting them in the head instead. That is, disproportionate force is being applied. And in other instances the attacker was no longer an immediate threat but was killed anyway. Once an assailant has been disarmed and immobilized, he is not an assailant anymore, he is a prisoner. And you’re not allowed just casually to murder prisoners.

When Sen. Patrick Leahy took up Wallstrom’s complaint and announced that the US Congress will investigate this pattern of killings of p.o.w.s by Israeli forces, Netanyahu again blustered that Israel was being held to a standard that other forces in the Middle East are not.

It is certainly the case, as Amnesty International has argued, that Hamas summarily executes prisoners.

Sen. Leahy replied, however, that the United States government does not give those other forces (e.g. Hamas in Gaza) $3 billion a year in foreign and military aid. He might have added that the European Union does not consider Hamas to be an honorary member of the union or give it tariff breaks or facilitate science and technology transfers for it.

It is Israel that gets those billions (not to mention billions more in US tariff easements and tax-deductible donations) and which is treated as almost-a-member by the EU. The Israeli army is in fact treated very differently by the West than are most military forces in the Middle East, precisely because Israel is considered a member of the Western club. Remember all that talk about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East (actually that title belongs to Tunisia now) and a member of the ‘civilized world’? Well those titles aren’t bestowed on a country that routinely flouts the Geneva Conventions and the UN charter and the Statute of Rome, which are the framework of law accepted by civilized countries.

A letter by Leahy and other members of Congress to Sec. of State John Kerry, according to Ma’an News Agency, “It suggested the US State Department and Department of Defense may be in breach of the Leahy Law — a law named after the Vermont senator that prohibits the provision of military assistance to foreign military units that violate human rights with impunity.”

If the policy of summary executions of prisoners goes on, Israeli officials could be held accountable at some point, as Commander Kunito Hatakeyama was held accountable by being hung in the wake of the Ambon trial.

But the ugly results of the opinion polls of Israelis concerning this policy of systematic murder of detainees is already an indictment of sorts.

—–

Related video:

France 24: “Israel soldier trial: Soldier filmed shooting Palestinian appears in court”

The Panama Papers and Middle East Leaders’ Secret Bank Accounts

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

An anonymous source has handed over to a German newspaper massive amounts of data from the Panama-based, German-run law firm Mossack Fonseca. The firm specialized in providing clients with offshore accounts, which are typically used to avoid taxes or hide ill-gotten gains.

Given the enormous problem of corruption plaguing the Middle East, it will come as no surprise that the region features prominently in the new revelations. It remains to be seen whether they provoke unrest or are just quietly accepted as a fact of political life.

Initial reporting on the trove identified among the major political figures from the Middle East to possess such accounts were Alaa Mubarak (son of the deposed dictator), Ayad Allawi (former interim Iraqi prime minister under American occupation), Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif, and Saudi King Salman.

As I explained in my recent book,
The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation is Changing the Middle East

the alleged corruption of Alaa and Gamal Mubarak, sons of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, was a frequent complaint of bloggers and critics in Egypt in the years leading up to the 2011 revolution. In its aftermath, investigators complained that although they suspected the Mubaraks of having squirreled away billions in ill-gotten gains, they were unable to track most of it down. Now we know why.

The Mubarak sons have been acquitted of most charges filed against them after the revolution, but still face trials over their alleged insider trading regarding state banks.

Given the lack of distinction in Saudi Arabia between state wealth and the personal fortune of the absolute monarch, it is no surprise if King Salman has a lot of money in secret bank accounts. You wonder if the revelation will have any repercussions inside the kingdom (certainly it is unlikely to be openly reported).

Likewise, hundreds of Israeli firms and stockholders were linked to these secret accounts. Again, it is not illegal to have an offshore account if one pays taxes on the money, but it is at least suspicious and worth looking into. Among Israelis who showed up with such an account was Dov Weisglass, former advisor to prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert (the latter convicted of corruption). Of Weisglass I wrote in 2007,

“Of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, already growing last winter, Israeli adviser to the prime minister’s office Dov Weisglass joked, “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die.” Of course they will. Anything that makes the healthy thinner has the potential of killing the sick and the very young.”

Weisglass was involved in blockading Gaza, in which the Israeli military, in the creepiest way imaginable, actually figured how many calories Palestinians there would be allowed so as to keep them on the edge of starvation but not actually have them die.

It is incredible that Israeli officials are waging such a vicious campaign against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement aimed at punishing Israel for its flouting of international law in the Occupied Territories, when Israel practices a deadly form of BDS against the Palestinians.

That Weisglass, a central figure in the blockade of children (half of Gaza’s residents are children), lives it up with a secret offshore Carribean account is why it is necessary to believe in hell. It is not like there is justice up here.