Connect with us

MIDDLE EAST

Is the FBI’s ‘Shireen’ investigation a message to Netanyahu?

Published

on

The FBI will investigate the murder of US citizen Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The investigation to which Israel reacted is discussed in terms of relations of the potential Israeli government led by Netanyahu with the Biden government.

The FBI will investigate the murder of US citizen Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The investigation to which Israel reacted is discussed in terms of relations of the potential Israeli government led by Netanyahu with the Biden government.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has started an investigation into the murder of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who is also an American citizen. The US Department of Justice has informed the Israeli Ministry of Justice about the FBI’s investigation into the death of Al Jazeera reporter Abu Akleh, who was killed on 11 May in the occupied West Bank. At the end of the process, it was stated that the United States could make a request for the investigation of Israeli soldiers that are involved in the incident.

The investigation decision came after more than 20 US senators signed a joint letter calling for an independent FBI investigation. “This is an overdue but necessary and important step in the pursuit of justice and accountability in the shooting death of American citizen and journalist Shireen Abu Akleh,” US Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said on Twitter, welcoming the decision. Republican Senator Ted Cruz, a prominent figure in the Israeli lobby, criticised the decision, saying that the Biden government is addressing Netanyahu and Israel: “Joe Biden and his government view Israel and his elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as political enemies and therefore respond to them the way they respond to all their political enemies: unleashing the FBI on them.”

Israel is reactive while Palestinian is content

The news of the investigation shocked Israel. “I made it clear to the United States that we will not cooperate with any external investigations and that we will not allow any interference in Israel’s internal affairs,” Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz said on his Twitter account, describing the decision to investigate as a “serious mistake”. Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid also said that they would not allow the FBI or any other foreign country organization to investigate Israeli soldiers, no matter how friendly, and added: “Our strong protest has been passed on to the Americans.”

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is satisfied with the decision: “This decision reflects the belief on the American side that, although it was overdue, there was no serious investigation by Israel, that Israel saw it as a formality and that it was using it as an attempt to cover up criminals and murderers.”

What happened?

Al Jazeera’s experienced field reporter, Abu Akleh, had been killed by fire opened by Israeli soldiers on 11 May while covering an attack by Israeli forces on a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Cenin. Ali es-Sumudi, the journalist who was with Abu Aqilah, was also injured in the back. The fact that Abu Akleh was shot dead by Israeli soldiers with real bullets, even though she was wearing a vest with “press” written on it while she was on her duty, caused reactions. Investigations and inquisitions made by several international institutions have concluded that Abu Aqile was targeted and killed by Israeli soldiers. The Israeli army, which has repeatedly denied responsibility for the incident and blamed the Palestinian armed groups, announced in its final report, issued on 5 September following international reactions, that “it is highly possible Abu Akleh was accidentally killed by the fire of the Israeli army”.

Far-right and democrats of Israel

It was noteworthy that after the elections in Israel, the former Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was given the task of forming a government, followed by this step from the United States. The possibility of giving important ministries to Itimar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, with whom Netanyahu is preparing to form a coalition, is making the Western “democracies” uneasy due to the strict and formalist anti-Arabism of these names. US President Joe Biden’s government is forcing Netanyahu not to appoint Smotrich as defence minister, Israeli media reported. In this context, the Israeli general opinion in the press regarding the FBI investigation is that the decision was made under pressure of the Democrats in Congress. On the other hand, it is remarked that it reveals the changes in the relations between the Democratic Party and Israel and that the relations between the two countries are at a turning point in their history.

How will it affect the investigation at the ICC?

Jerusalem Post’s intelligence, terrorism and legal analyst Yonah Jeremy Bob discussed the possible effects of FBI’s investigation on the “war crimes commited in Israel” investigation at the ICC in his analysis that is titled “Is the Ben-Gvir effect wounding Israel before he even takes office?”. Former ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced in March 2021 that Israeli authorities had launched an investigation into alleged war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. However, no concrete steps were taken in the investigation after Bensouda handed over his seat to Karim Khan in June 2021. In his analysis, Yonah Jeremy Bob pointed out that the discovery of Israeli local courts’ neglect of any war crimes allegations would strengthen the hand of the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor. Because, in accordance with the principle of “a person cannot be tried twice for a crime”, the ICC cannot file a lawsuit if the perpetrator of the crime is subject to the trial of the state in which he/she is a national. However, some gaps such as “ the collapsed judicial system” give the ICC jurisdiction.

At this point, Jeremy Bob says, “If even Israel’s most powerful ally, the US, is ready to launch its own investigation against Israelis, and if the Israeli Defence Forces’ investigation is declared inadequate, what could stop the ICC from concluding that the broader Israeli legal system is inadequate.”

‘Biden’s method of threatening’

Without any suspects and direct evidence, which Israel has already announced it will not share, the FBI’s investigation will be very limited. Bob doesn’t think Biden is planning to put bilateral relations in a major crisis by blaming a higher-level Israeli soldier. The only possibility that prompted Biden to take this step is the Itamar Ben-Gvir effect, according to Bob: “The US announcement of the FBI investigation came shortly after American authorities reportedly warned Netanyahu not to assign Ben-Gvir and Betzalel Smotrich to key security posts. There is no implicit threat: the Biden government has made it clear that they will not work with any of these men as Secretary of Defense or Minister of Public Security. (…) In addition, at least one wing of the Democrats (against Israel) is campaigning for an investigation, and the by-elections in the US are now over, meaning that a new fight with Israel will not cost the US a great deal in the elections. This could be a method for the Biden government to threaten Netanyahu about how bad he could get if he gave Ben-Gvir some real power. ”

‘Slap in the face of the Israeli government’

The issue was also addressed in the editorial of the Jerusalem Post. “It is hard to believe that the FBI will conclude anything other than the completed investigations,” the editorial said, pointing out that some of the results of Israeli investigations into the murder of Abu Aqile, including the US, have been shared with Washington. Israel, however, is a slap in the face of Jerusalem (referred to as West Jerusalem) as it moves to a new government led by Yair Lapid and Benjamin Netanyahu. ”

Although they understand the investigation into the death of a murdered American citizen, it seems to have upset and shocked the Jerusalem Post editors that the country in question is Israel: “Such investigations are not the norm when it comes to a close ally of the United States, such as Israel, who knows that Washington respects the supremacy of law and has an independent, reliable judiciary. Friends don’t treat friends that way, and we strongly invite our American allies to reconsider their decisions. ”

According to Israeli media, the United States told Netanyahu that it would not be able to establish relations with Smotrich or Ben-Gvir if they were appointed to the Defence and Homeland Security Ministries.

‘As if the occupation was an internal matter…’

Although the Israeli press is stunned and angry, there are those who do not agree with the United States. One of them is Israel’s oldest daily newspaper, Haaretz, which stands out with its leftist views. Haaretz criticizes the Israeli investigation into the murder and its consequences in his editorial titled “If the army investigates itself”. The Israeli Army’s internal investigation points out that it took Abu Akleh four months to accept the possibility that she was killed by a bullet from the Israeli soldier’s gun. In addition, the editorial cited that even this semi-joint acceptance comes after the results of an investigation conducted by a number of organisations, including the UN, points out that “if the investigation were conducted by an independent Israeli judiciary rather than by the Israeli Army, the results might be more acceptable”. In this context, it is pointed out that if the new Israeli government’s plan to control the judiciary is put into effect, Israel’s demands for “intervention” in its internal affairs will even be stronger.

According to the editorial, it is wrong to associate the FBI’s investigation decision with pressure that is put by Democrats demanding a firm stance against Israel: “Instead, Israel better start internalising that the world, including the United States, is beginning to look at what is happening in Israel more harshly. The possibility that the international community – as if the occupation of another country for more than 50 years were all about Israel’s own internal matter – will not interfere with ‘Israel’s internal affairs’ is losing its power. ”

MIDDLE EAST

U.S. relaxes sanctions on Syria, supports HTS leadership

Published

on

U.S. President Joe Biden and his administration, soon to be succeeded by Donald Trump, have decided to relax the stringent sanctions regime on Syria, which has been in place for years, in favor of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), following the ouster of Bashar al-Assad.

The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General Authorization No. 24, signifying a major shift in U.S. sanctions policy towards Syria.

This new authorization, valid until 7 July 2025, eases restrictions on specific transactions involving Syria. For instance, transactions with Syrian administrative institutions will be permitted starting 8 December 2024. Key provisions of the authorization include authorization for the sale, supply, storage, or donation of energy resources, such as oil, natural gas, and electricity, to or within Syria, and permission for processing non-commercial personal remittances to Syria, including through the Central Bank of Syria.

However, military and intelligence organizations remain excluded. Transactions involving the governments of Russia or Iran, as well as their goods or services, are still prohibited. Additionally, importing Syrian petroleum products into the United States remains banned, and new investments in Syria are restricted, with limited exceptions for employee salaries.

This new policy represents a considerable easing of sanctions, potentially allowing U.S. allies in the region to offer humanitarian assistance, engage in economic reconstruction, and increase interaction with Syria’s governing institutions.

Speaking to Reuters yesterday, Maher Khalil al-Hassan, HTS’s trade minister, stated that Syria has struggled to secure deals for importing fuel, wheat, and other essential commodities due to strict U.S. sanctions, despite interest from many countries, including Gulf Arab states. Al-Hassan mentioned that Syria’s new leadership has managed to amass enough wheat and fuel to last several months but warned of an impending “catastrophe” if sanctions are not suspended or lifted soon.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

Does India take advantage of current rising tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Published

on

At the height of the current tensions between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan, India condemned Pakistan’s airstrikes in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan with a delay of two weeks. India is the second country that has officially reacted to these attacks.

In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India supported the position of the Taliban and condemned the killing of civilians in Pakistan’s attacks. Delhi made no mention of Pakistan’s claim that it had struck four hideouts of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), a group that has become a security problem for the Pakistani military. Delhi ironically said that “Islamabad always blames its neighbors.”

Pakistan traditionally holds India and Afghanistan responsible for internal insurgencies and attacks by terrorist and separatist groups on its soil. Recently, Pakistani officials accused the Afghan Taliban of colluding with India to destabilize Pakistan.

Trust-building

India’s new stance can be described as a clever political game or even political opportunism. India, which has always considered the Taliban as Pakistan’s proxy force in the region and was one of the main supporters of the former Afghan government, now plans to use the tension between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan to get closer to the Taliban.

Over the past three years, New Delhi has tried to reduce its longstanding mistrust with the Taliban. Expelling the ambassador and diplomats of the previous government from Delhi, handing over the Afghan embassy and consulates in India to the Taliban, cutting ties with former allies such as the leaders of the resistance front, and stopping the issuance of visas to former officials have been part of this trust building and rapprochement.

Revival of lost influence

Afghanistan has always been important for Delhi due to its geographical proximity to Pakistan. Pakistan says that Delhi’s purpose in getting closer to Afghanistan was to destabilize the tense areas in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

India has traditionally supported Afghan governments against Pakistan. Due to the dispute with Pakistan over the “Durand Line”, Afghanistan has had enough incentive to get closer to India. India has also provided various economic, technical and diplomatic assistance to Afghanistan to strengthen this relationship.

With the return of the Taliban, India was forced to close its embassy and consulates in Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Nangarhar and Kandahar provinces. Following this, India severed all ties – even people-to-people links – with Afghanistan.

Thousands of Afghan students were prevented from continuing their studies in Indian universities due to lack of visas. After the political collapse in Afghanistan, many believed that the history of India’s influence in Afghanistan was also over.

But the Taliban, unlike the previous period, is trying to establish relations with all countries in the region and is not dependent on a particular country, and took steps to strengthen relations with India.

Yaqoob Mujahid, the Minister of Defense of the Taliban, in an unprecedented statement said that the Taliban is ready to send its forces to India for training. India also responded to the goodwill of the Taliban by sending its diplomats to Kabul.

Recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian about expanding relations with Afghanistan through Chabahar port. The government of Iran said that “the talk about Afghanistan was made because of the interest of the Indian side.”

India is seriously trying to reduce the Taliban’s dependence on Pakistan and strengthen its relations through Chabahar.

Approaching the enemy border

The importance of India’s efforts to improve relations with the Taliban and open a foothold in Afghanistan should be seen from the eyes of Pakistan. Islamabad has consistently complained about India’s diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, especially in its border areas.

Pakistan considers India a vital threat and does not accept the country’s proximity to its borders. In the previous government of Afghanistan, relations between Kabul and Islamabad were cold.

Pakistani officials had repeatedly expressed concern about the activities of Indian consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar in meetings with Afghan leaders. Even some Pakistani leaders had made cooperation in securing peace and stability in Afghanistan conditional on reducing relations with India and closing the country’s embassies in the mentioned cities.

Analysts are unanimous on the point that Pakistan considers Afghanistan as a barrier or an area free of Indian influence. This country has continuously supported the paramilitary groups and the subversive central government in order to establish a pro-Pakistan government.

India sees an opportunity to expand its influence in Afghanistan in the worsening relations between Islamabad and the Taliban. However, it is not clear how far this tension will make the Afghan Taliban rely on Delhi.

What is certain is that Pakistan finds the closeness of the Taliban and India intolerable, just as it was angry about the close relations of the former Afghan government with New Delhi.

Of course, we should not ignore the fact that the Afghan Taliban is as much a double-edged sword for Delhi as it is for Pakistan. Because the Afghan Taliban has not cut off its relations with militant and terrorist groups.

Strengthening the Afghan Taliban also means strengthening Pakistani militant Islamist groups, which Delhi considers a tool in the hands of Pakistan and a threat to its national security.

Rising unrest in Pakistan by TTP, a close ally of the Afghani Taliban has benefited India

In recent decades, part of India’s strategy in Afghanistan has been to weaken Pakistan. Supporting separatist groups and creating unrest in Pakistan is an important part of this policy.

Rising unrest in Pakistan by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a close ally of the Afghan Taliban, has benefited India. From 2020 until now, the level of insecurity in Pakistan has increased steadily and 2024 was the most unstable year in Pakistan in a decade.

Pakistan believes that the insecurity and violence in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is organized from the soil of Afghanistan and that the Afghan Taliban have collaborated with India.

Understanding the depth of these tensions, India has taken steps to intensify the differences between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban by supporting the Taliban. India seeks to increase the dependence of the Afghan Taliban on New Delhi in order to exploit these relations in the long run to weaken Pakistan.

The statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of India can probably increase Islamabad’s skepticism towards the Taliban. To solve the problem of militants, Pakistan has increased military and political pressure on the Taliban. However, this pressure will make the Afghan Taliban more inclined towards Delhi.

Despite the absence of three years in the diplomatic arena of Afghanistan, India has been able to advance its goals. Pakistan has suffered the most from the recent developments in Afghanistan. The increase in insecurity in Pakistan is largely related to the events after the fall of the republican system in Afghanistan.

Continue Reading

MIDDLE EAST

Biden approves $8 billion arms deal for Israel amid Gaza conflict

Published

on

The Joe Biden administration has provisionally approved an $8 billion arms sale to Israel in a last-minute demonstration of support for the U.S. president’s close ally after more than a year of war in Gaza.

The U.S. State Department announced the sale to Congress late on Friday through an informal notification, according to Financial Times (FT) sources. This step precedes a public announcement and requires approval from the Senate and House Foreign Affairs Committees before implementation.

The arms package includes $6.75 billion worth of precision-guided missiles and small bombs, $300 million worth of 155 mm artillery shells, $600 million worth of Hellfire missiles, and $300 million worth of Amraam air-to-air missiles, according to one source familiar with the matter.

Another source indicated that while some of the weapons would come directly from U.S. stockpiles, most deliveries would take a year or longer.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently accuses the United States of delaying arms and ammunition deliveries—claims the Biden administration denies.

In November, Netanyahu stated that he had agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon to allow Israeli forces to replenish their stockpiles. Around the same time, the Biden administration informally notified Congress of its intention to supply Israel with $680 million worth of precision weapons. This notification followed an unsuccessful attempt by some Democrats in Congress to block a $20 billion arms sale to Israel last summer.

In April, Congress approved an additional $26 billion in war aid to Israel, supplementing the $3.8 billion in annual U.S. security assistance to the country.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey