Qatar has donated $250,000 to some of the most extreme pro-Israel organisations in the US, a report by the Electronic Intifada has revealed.
The sums are believed to have been transferred by Joseph Allaham, a lobbyist working for the Qatari government, specifically through his firm Lexington Strategies, with some of the sums being paid as recently as early 2018.
The sums include $100,000 to the Zionist Organisation of America (ZOA), $100,000 to Our Soldiers Speak, an organisation that describes itself as the “vehicle through which the IDF [Israeli army] and the Israeli National Police dispatch senior officers to select campuses overseas” and gives “briefings” to members of the US Congress.
Some $50,000 was also allocated for the Blue Diamond Horizons Inc., an organisation run by Mike Huckabee, the Christian Zionist former governor of Arkansas and father of White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee.
In US government disclosure documents, Lexington Strategies can be seen to have described the payment to Huckabee’s company as an “honorarium for visit”, while the donations to the ZOA and Our Soldiers Speak are labelled as contributions for “charitable goodwill”.
The document explicitly names Qatar’s ruler, Emir Tamim Bin Hamad Al-Thani, as the client of Allaham’s lobbying efforts for the purpose of facilitating “dialogue with [the] Jewish community abroad and in the United States.”
Qatar is believed to have aided pro-Israel organisations in an attempt to strengthen relations with the US in the wake of the blockade on the tiny Gulf state by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt.
Doha reportedly fears that under the influence of the Saudi-led bloc, the US could withdraw its forces from the country’s Al-Udeid air base, making Qatar vulnerable to invasion from its bigger neighbours.
As part of its effort to maintain ties, the Qatari government hired lobbyist Nick Muzin and his firm Stonington Strategies in 2017, and was recorded as paying him a monthly retainer of $50,000 that was later increased to $300,000. The latest revelations now indicate that this was not the only firm targeting causes that would win favour with the US government.
Last year, the Jewish Week also reported that Qatari diplomat and former head of $100 billion sovereign wealth fund Qatar Investment, Ahmed Al-Rumaihi, had also accompanied Allaham as a guest to the ZOA’s gala dinner last year, during which he reportedly requested an introduction to former Trump advisor Steven Bannon.
Allegations that Qatar was attempting to lessen its criticism of Israel were sparked earlier this year after news network Al Jazeera prevented the release of a documentary unveiling the inner workings of the pro-Israel lobby in the US. The ZOA, which took credit for the cancelling of the film, can now be seen to have been one of the recipients of Qatari aid.
هذه المرة، لا أكتب مقال رأي سياسي، بل أبوح بحجم الهزيمة المرّة التي تعتصر صدورنا، ونحن نكشف الغطاء عن آخر مراحل الخيانة لثورة حرية وكرامة، شعارها الأول: "سلمية، سلمية". ثورة تنازع على طعنها الأصدقاء والأعداء، ووفّر لهم ذلك من ادّعوا حمايتها، من دول، وأدوات هذه الدول من قادة فصائل مسلحة مشبوهة، نبتت على دم الناس، واقتاتت من أجسادهم، ومن نخبة معارضين سياسيين أخذوا الثورة على محمل الانتقام من النظام، لاستلام السلطة منه، بكل ما فيها وعليها، ليكونوا بديلا مشوها عنه، كما حدث في مناطق نفوذهم، وقدّموا سورية كلها قرباناً لهذا الانتقام، وليس التغيير الذي تقوم من أجله الثورات، عندما يتحول النظام الحاكم إلى ذهنيةٍ عاجزةٍ عن أداء دورها المفترض في الإصلاح، فأبعدوا النضال السياسي، ليتقدم الصراع المسلح، ودافعوا عنه، بل وتبنوا كل انحرافاته المتطرّفة، من الفصائل المؤدلجة إلى جبهة النصرة وحتى "داعش"، (راجعوا تصريحات مسؤولين تولوا مناصب في المجلس الوطني السوري والائتلاف الوطني لقوى الثورة والمعارضة السورية والهيئة العليا للمفاوضات السورية) المشكوك بها بدايةً، وها هي النهاية تؤكد ضلوعهم الكامل بجريمة خطف الثورة، بل نحرها على أبواب دول التمويل لقتل الثورة في مهدها، وفداء لفكرة الانتقام من النظام.
لا تنفع البكائيات اليوم، على الرغم من دموعي التي تحجب عني رؤية شاشة "اللابتوب". هزمتنا الخيانات. والهزيمة هنا ليست عودة المدن والمناطق إلى حكم نظام الأسد، فالثورة لم تبدأ في مساحاتٍ محرّرة من حكمه، بل انطلقت في أكثر مناطق نفوذه، واستقراره، ووجوده العسكري والأمني، وحيث أكثر بنيته التنظيمية من مسؤولين هم من أبناء محافظة درعا، لعلي كنت واحدة منهم، رئيسة تحرير لإحدى صحيفتين فقط تملكهما الدولة، أي بنسبة خمسين بالمئة من إعلام النظام المكتوب، تقوده امرأة قيد نفوسها درعا، على الرغم من قناعاتي بأن سورية، بكل تفاصيلها ومدنها وقراها، هي مرجعيتي، وأقف على المسافة نفسها منها عند أداء واجبي، وأن العمل الإعلامي لم يكن يوما يحدّه منصب، أو ينتزعه منك قرارٌ أمني كما حدث معي، مرتين أولهما إثر تحميلي عبر لقاء مع قناة الجزيرة قوات الأمن مسؤولية قتل المتظاهرين في درعا (8 أبريل/ نيسان 2011)، وثانيهما عندما حاول "الائتلاف" انتزاع حقي بالتعبير عن رأيي في أدائه السيئ، طالباً محاكمتي على طريقة الأجهزة الأمنية السورية. نعم، فالهزيمة الفعلية التي منينا بها اليوم أننا، نحن المدنيين، بين حدّي منشار، يتنازع تمثيلنا نظام مستبد ظالم من جهة، ومقابله تاجر أو متسلق مرتهن لدولةٍ ما من جهة ثانية، وكلاهما لا يحمل الهدف النبيل لمفهوم الثورة والتغيير. "هل انهزمت الثورة؟" ربما يكون هذا عنوان سؤال عريض لبسطاء كثيرين اكتووا بنارها، مؤيدين لها كانوا أو معارضين، لكن في الحقيقة يجب أن يكون السؤال: هل كان أمام الثورة طريق للانتصار، واختارت هي الذهاب في طريق الهزيمة؟ أو هل الثورة المهزومة تلك هي الثورة نفسها التي انطلقت من درعا تهلل للحرية، وآمنا بها انتصاراً للحق؟ هذه أسئلة مؤلمة، لكنها جوهر البحث الذي نستخلص منه لماذا نحن هنا، على أبواب درعا نقفل ملف الفصائل المسلحة؟ ونفتح من جديد أبواب مؤسساتنا للنظام العائد إليها، وهو أكثر انكساراً منَا (نحن مجتمع الثورة السلمية). ولا أتحدث عن قادة وتنظيمات وكيانات وروابط (من رابطة)، وما هو مصير شعاراتنا في الحرية والكرامة وحقوق الإنسان؟ نعم، كان أمام الثورة فرصة لاختيار طريق آخر غير طريق الارتهان الذي مارسته الكيانات المحسوبة عليها، من مجلس وطني إلى فصائل مسلحة إلى ائتلاف إلى هيئات تفاوض، وما تفرّع "عنهم" من منظماتٍ تحت مسمى حكومة مؤقتة أو مجالس محلية، أو رابطات، فهذه جميعاً حتى اليوم لم تملك مشروعا وطنياً تدور في فلكه وتدافع عنه، حيث كل كيان أو فصيل أو منظمة تدافع عن مصالح مموليها، أو خلافتها أو دولتها، تحت مسمّى العمل الوطني، وتعطل على بعضها بعضاً فرصة الولوج إلى أي حلٍّ سياسي، ما لم يفصّل على مقاس الدولة التي ترعاها، وهذا ما حدث تباعاً في التشكيلات السياسية والعسكرية، وحتى المجتمعية. سيقول المدافعون: ما كنا نستطيع غير ذلك، ليبرّروا ارتهانهم، وأجندتهم الخارجية التي لا يمكن أن تخدم أجندة وطنية. وهذا ما ينطبق على ما قاله أحمد طعمة، عندما برّر قبوله رئاسة وفد "أستانة"، وهو غير العسكري، والذي "طرد" من هذه الفصائل من على معابرها في سورية، ومنع من دخولها، حين كان يرأس حكومة الائتلاف المؤقتة، في إعلانٍ من هذه الفصائل علناً انقلابها المسلح على أي كيان سياسي، وبرّر قبوله "إذا لم يقبل بالمنصب الجديد فسيكون مصيره الإهمال والجلوس في بيته". ما يعني أننا أمام حالة بيع قضيةٍ مقابل منصب، وهذا ما ينطبق على المعطلين لاتفاق الجنوب، على الرغم مما يشوبه، أنهم لم يجدوا في إتمامه "غنيمتهم المنشودة"، فقرّروا أن يموت المدنيون تحت القصف، حتى يستدرك الروسي المحتل خطأه، ويعيد توزيع الغنائم. بصراحة، نعم انهزمت ثورة القادة المسلحين المأجورين والأتباع، وانكشفت ارتهانات الكيانات، وضحالتهم
الوطنية
، لكن تلك الثورة التي تحدت النظام في عقر داره، وبين أجهزته الأمنية، لا تزال ترعب النظام، كما ترعب المعارضة المأجورة، ولا تزال شراراتها قابلةً للاشتعال، فحيث يستطيع مدنيٌّ أن يرفع صوته بوجه الاحتلال الروسي، ويطلب منه ما عجزت بنادق الفصائل وأسلحته عن طلبه، يكمن انتصار ثورة الحرية التي تمضي قدماً، ويظن (وبعض الظن إثم)
النظام والمعارضة أنهما أخمداها، بفعل الحرب والقتل والتدمير والتشريد، بينما هي تتمدّد أكثر واكثر، وتطبع سورية الجديدة بملامحها، رغماً عنهم جميعاً، فهذه الثورة التي بدأت سلميةً لا تنتهي بالخيانات العسكرية، بل تستكمل طريقها عبر الصراع السياسي الذي يمكن أن نستعيده حراً مع لحظة إنهاء الصراع المسلح الذي لم تسع إليه الثورة بدايةً، ولا يمكنه أن يكتب بتخاذله النهاية، وانتصار سلاح روسيا لا يمكنه أن يمحي هزيمتها الأخلاقية والسياسية عبر الأجيال القادمة التي لم تلتفت الكيانات المعارضة إلى أهميتها، كحاضنة للثورة، ولم تستشعر أي مسؤولية تجاهها، لتكتب لها وثيقةً تعترف فيها بما صنعته لهزيمة وتعطيل الحريات في كل مناطق نفوذها (حتى في دوائرها السياسية وهيئاتها التفاوضية) في مقابل السلطة والمال.
سيعود النظام ليس فقط إلى درعا، لكنه سيعود حاملاً انكساره أكثر مما تحمله المعارضة من هزيمة، حيث يعود متخلياً عن سيادته الوطنية لروسيا، وحامياً حدود دولةٍ تحتل أرضه، وتتبجح بحمايته، ما يجعل هذا أكثر أنواع السقوط إيلاماً في نظر حاضنته الشعبية الوطنية التي رفضت
تصريحات رامي مخلوف بداية الثورة، واستهجنتها، "أن أمن إسرائيل من أمن النظام".
وقبل أن يكون سقوطه مدوياً في نفوسنا، نحن الذين ما زلنا نؤمن بقضيتنا فلسطين العربية، وبالجولان أرضاً سوريةً لا تنازل ولا تفريط فيها وبأهلها، شاء النظام أم أبى، هو ومن يتوافق معه.
There is growing pressure on Iran to withdraw its forces from Syria. A GOOD PIECE by Marwan Kabalan Link
As Syria's civil war draws to a close, Iran's activity in the country is coming under increasing scrutiny. The US, Israel, and the Gulf states are all working towards making Iran's military presence in Syria untenable and its withdrawal - a prerequisite for resolving the conflict.
The Trump administration is not as tolerant of Iran's regional ambitions as its predecessor. The Pentagon has maintained US military presence in Syria after the defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIL) and the Levant in order to stop Iran from establishing a land corridor from Iraq to Lebanon, through Syrian territories.
Over the past year, the US-led coalition has succeed in preventing Iranian-backed militias from establishing a foothold on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, near the border with Iraq.
The US has also blocked these militias from advancing towards al-Tanf border crossing between Syria and Iraq near the Jordanian border, where it maintains military presence to monitor Iranian movement on the main road between Baghdad and Damascus.
Over the past year, there has been a shift in Israel's Syria policy, too. From the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011 to mid-2017, Israel had a hands-off policy, which worked in Iran's favour.
During this period, Israel tolerated Iranian military presence in Syria, as its main objective was to help sustain the Syrian regime and prevent an opposition victory. Israel did not perceive the Syrian conflict as a threat, as it weakened its foes on both sides of the divide.
Last year, however, Israel's policy shifted in response to a new Iranian strategy in Syria. Since the beginning of the conflict, Iran's primary objective was to defend Assad.
Syria government takes most of Deraa in two-week offensive
Yet last year,as it became clear that Assad was winning the war, it started to work towards establishing permanent military presence in Syria to challenge Israel. Iran's end game was to set up paramilitary forces independent from the Syrian government and loyal to Tehran - similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon. That posed a direct threat to Israeli interests.
In July 2017, Israel tried to insert a clause in a de-escalation agreementbetween the US, Jordan and Russia to keep Iranian forces at least 40km away from the occupied Golan Heights, but failed. As a result, it decided to take the issue into its own hands. Since early 2018, the Israeli air force has intensified strikes against Iranian bases and outposts across Syria.
Russia is undoubtedly alarmed by the escalation in tensions, but it also views it as an opportunity. A confrontation between the two regional foes in Syria could undermine its strategy aimed at ensuring the survival of the Assad regime, rebuilding the Syrian army and resurrecting the state bureaucracy and the security apparatuses. But Moscow could also use the Israeli pressure as leverage against Tehran to force it to fall in line with its Syria policy.
The Syrian government's onslaughton Deraa backed by Russian forces showed that the Russians and the Israelis have already identified some common interests in southwest Syria.
According tothe Washington Post, an agreement has been reached to keep Iran away from the Golan Heights in exchange for allowing the Syrian regime to regain control over the opposition-held territories in the southwest.
The Russians seem willing to go even further. They want to strike a broader deal with the Trump administration to trade US military presence in Syria with that of Iran. That would include the US pulling its troops out of the Kurdish-held Syrian territories east of the Euphrates and from al-Tanf base in the southeast of the country.
This option seems to have been discussed during the June 27 visit of US National Security Adviser John Bolton to Moscow and it is likely to be finalised at the upcoming Helsinki summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
If such a deal is made, it would make almost everyone happy, except Iran. It would please the Israelis, the Gulf states, the Assad regime, the Americans and, indeed, the Russians, who have emerged as the biggest winners in the Syrian civil conflict.
It was Iran that invited Russia in 2015 to help ensure the survival of the Syrian regime after it failed to stop the advances of the opposition. The Russians answered the call and rescued the Assad regime, but they seem to be planning to throw the Iranians under the bus at the earliest opportunity.
In recent months, the Iranians have become increasingly wary of Russia's policies in Syria and elsewhere. They complain that the Russians are doing nothing to stop the movement of the Israeli air force over Syria despite having anti-aircraft missile systems stationed in the country, including the S-400. This has led some to believe that Russia condones Israel's actions against Iran in Syria.
The Russians also took an ambivalent position when Trump decided to withdraw the US from the Iran nuclear deal.
Russia's acting deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, even suggestedthat Iran should make some concessions to save the deal. To add insult to injury, Russia sided with Saudi Arabia - Iran's arch enemy - when the increase of oil production to restrain prices was discussed.
Before OPEC's latest meeting, Russia pressured Iran to drop its reservations on the issue. It is very likely that Russia and Saudi Arabia are planning to compensate for any shortages in the oil market that may arise as a result of the US sanctions against Iran which will take effect in August.
Over the past seven years, Iran has invested heavily in Syria. It threw its weight behind the Assad regime, providing both financial and military support. Hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guards - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) and intelligence personnel have been killed in Syria.
According to the UN special envoy, Staffan de Mistura, Iranspends $6bn annuallyto prop up Assad. To make a return on its investment, Iran was hoping to take on a sizable part of Syria's post-war reconstruction. All these investments are now at risk of being lost.
Indeed, Iran will do everything in its power to resist any attempt to be forced out of Syria, a very important asset in its geopolitical game. If it were to lose it, its grip on Iraq would also be weakened and its only direct land route to Lebanon, where its key ally Hezbollah is based, would be blocked.
This could cause Iran's entire Middle East project to collapse. According toone Iranian official, Syria is more important to Iran than its oil-rich southern province ofKhuzestan.
Yet, Iran's options appear to be limited. It would find it very difficult to resist the emerging US-Russian-Arab-Israeli consensus on throwing its forces out of Syria to stabilise the war-torn country.
All in all, the Syrian civil war - a conflict that was once seen as Iran's greatest regional victory - may end up becoming its greatest regional failure in the near future.
Emails will be of interest to Mueller investigation, which is looking at whether the UAE and Saudi funnelled payments to Trump’s campaign By David Hearst Link
Donald Trump’s closest confidants were willing to exchange inside information about US government appointments with Yousef al-Otaiba, the Emirati ambassador to Washington, a new set of leaked emails has revealed.
The president-elect's advisers also pledged to Otaiba that they would keep his government’s interests at the heart of the new administration’s Middle East policy. The emails reveal that the relationship between the Emiratis and the president’s inner circle was cemented earlier than previously thought.
Tom Barrack speaks at the Republican National Convention in July 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio (AFP)
The correspondence is between Otaiba and Tom Barrack, a longstanding friend of Trump and billionaire fundraiser. It reveals how Barrack offered to bring Trump, then a candidate, to meet the Emirati ambassador for a coffee in April 2016; how the Republican platform for 2016 was altered to remove a call for the publication of 28 pages of allegedly incriminating documents from the 9/11 inquiry; and how Otaiba sought information about top appointments from Barrack while Trump was president-elect.
The close working relationship that developed between the Emirates and Trump’s inner circle when he was still a candidate is coming under increasing scrutiny
The key emails were written when Trump was still a presidential candidate and at least six months before the key meeting at Trump Tower in December 2016 between Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ) and Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, Jared Kushner, his Middle East adviser, and Steve Bannon, his chief strategist, which was reported by the Washington Post.
At the time, Barack Obama, the outgoing president, was so annoyed by MbZ’s unannounced arrival in New York that the names of the people who attended the meeting were released.
The emails will be of especial interest to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has widened his inquiry into potential Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election to investigate whether the Emiratis and Saudis funnelled payments to Trump’s election campaign. Barrack was questioned by Mueller’s team last December: he himself is understood not to be a target of the investigation.
The close working relationship that developed between the Emirates and Trump’s inner circle when he was still a candidate is coming under increasing scrutiny.
Bin Zayed’s sensitivity to the Mueller inquiry is such that he cancelled a planned visit to Washington last month. He is understood to have sought a written guarantee that neither he nor his entourage would be detained for questioning, the Middle East Eye has previously reported.
How the relationship developed
Contact between Barrack and Otaiba started in 2009 over a property deal in California, but the relationship blossomed when Trump was a presidential candidate in 2016 and his confidant offered to introduce him to the ambassador.
“I am happy to bring him to you for a cup of coffee if you are interested," Barrack wrote on 26 April 2016. Otaiba, who was then in Abu Dhabi, replied that confusion about Trump was “very high” because of his proposed Muslim ban.
Donald Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan at the White House in May 2017 (AFP)
Barrack insisted that Trump was not anti-Islam and dangled the following offer: "We can turn him to prudence - he needs a few really smart Arab minds to whom he can confer - u r at the top of that list!”
Throughout their correspondence Barrack, the son of a Lebanese immigrant and an Arabic speaker, referred to “our agenda”, and “our region” and offered to introduce Otaiba to Jared Kushner, the future president’s Middle East adviser, adding: “You will love him and he agrees with our agenda."
Otaiba for his part was keen to introduce the Trump circle to his bosses, starting with Tahnoon bin Zayed, the crown prince’s brother and his national security adviser. On 26 May, Barrack replied: “Youssef this would be the best thing we could do. I promise you we could accomplish so much if you and HH [His Highness] will give me an hour or so with 'the man'."
'If you have any insights about postings to places like state, DOD, CIA and national security adviser, I would be grateful. I would only brief my bosses'
- Yousef al-Otaiba, UAE ambassador
As the November election neared, part of the Republican Party platform for 2016, which was potentially embarrassing to the Saudi government, was removed. The deleted section called for the publication of 28 pages of documents gathered during the 9/11 investigations which implicated members of the Saudi royal family in funding the attackers.
The missing passage had been inserted originally by lobbyists working on behalf of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to an email sent to Barrack by Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort.
A week after Trump’s surprise defeat of Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Otaiba asked for “any insights” about the people who the incoming president was going to choose for the key positions at the State Department, the Department of Defense and the CIA.
On 16 November, Otaiba wrote: “If you have any insights about postings to places like state, DOD, CIA and national security adviser, I would be grateful. I would only brief my bosses. Any indicators would be highly appreciated."
Barrack replied: “I do, and we’re working through them in real time and I have our regional interest in high profile. When you get a chance let’s talk by phone.”
'She [Fran Townsend] would make a perfect Director of National Intelligence or DHS secretary'
- Yousef al-Otaiba, UAE ambassador
Five days later, Otaiba attempted to get Fran Townsend, George W Bush’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, who he described as a “dear friend” of his, appointed as Trump’s director of national intelligence.
He wrote to Barrack: “I saw her last night and immediately thought she would be huge asset to you. She would make a perfect Director of National Intelligence or DHS secretary. She would hit the ground running on every issue.”
In May 2017 Townsend confirmed that she had been shortlisted for the post of FBI director after James Comey had been sacked. Asked whether she would have accepted had she been offered, Townsend told Politico: "You know what? I learned in the White House I don’t do hypotheticals, but I will say I was quite honoured and quite flattered to be approached.”
Anti-Saudi comments removed
Barrack was interviewed by Mueller’s investigators last December, when he was asked chiefly about Paul Manafort, whom he recommended as Trump’s campaign manager. Manafort has since been indicted by Mueller.
Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman at the White House in Washington in March 2018 (AFP)
In July 2016, one month after he became Trump’s campaign manager, Manafort sent Barrack an email he had received from a Republican Party source about the removal of the reference to the alleged Saudi funding of the 9/11 bombers. The email was then forwarded on to Otaiba, along with Barrack's comment that it was “really confidential but important. Please don’t distribute”.
“Paul. Something you can pass along to your friend Tom Barrack. I made certain that language that was anti the Saudi Royal Family was removed from the platform. It was inserted by AIPAC lobbyists and would have been a part of the 2016 Platform. When I saw the amendment that was passed in the subcommittee, I gave instructions to our political team to remove the language in the full committee."
The sender of the original email is unknown.
Barrack also emerged in the correspondence as the key conduit through whom Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was introduced to the White House.
Bin Salman attempted to introduce himself to Trump by requesting a meeting with Manafort in New York. There was then a discussion about the best channel for setting up the meeting.
'Something you can pass along to your friend Tom Barrack. I made certain that language that was anti the Saudi Royal Family was removed from the platform'
- Email forwarded to Tom Barrack and Yousef al-Otaiba
When the ambassador for Saudi Arabia contacted “a middle level person” at the major investment company Blackstone, Barrack moved quickly to close down this rival avenue of approach.
“Paul called me and will do so if introduced through us ! I would like to align in Donald’s mind the connection between the UAE and Saudi Arabia which we’ve already started with Jared [Kushner]. I think it is important that you are the center pin!”
This email exchange reveals that Trump himself was keen that contact between him and bin Salman should only be arranged through Barrack himself, his most trusted advisor.
Barrack wrote: “The candidate did not want to take the meeting if it was arranged through Blackstone for a number of reasons! If arranged by you and I we will make sure that everything runs smoothly, elegantly and appropriately and the candidate is properly briefed !”
Barrack, Otaiba become close friends
The exchange of emails also show how Barrack and Otaiba became close friends, with their correspondence starting with the formal “Your Excellency” and ending with “Marhaba Habibi” which means "hello my friend" in Arabic.
At one point during the correspondence the Emirati ambassador asks for a “small favour” - for his wife, Abeer al-Otaiba, to meet Melania Trump’s stylist. “Any chance we can get an introduction to Melania’s stylist for abeer’s fashion line?” Otaiba wrote.
Yousef Al Otaiba, UAE ambassador to the US, and his wife Abeer attend the Allen and Company Sun Valley Conference in July 2015 in Idaho (AFP)
After a dinner Otaiba arranged with Adel al Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, Barrack was obsequious in his praise for his host.
“I have to tell you it was one of the most wonderful and interesting evenings I have had in a long time," he wrote. "Your incredible home, the elegant cuisine, irreplaceable wine and the bevy of the most intelligent and eloquent guests imaginable. Thank you for your generosity and hospitality and including me in such a prestigious group. You’re an amazing man.”
Middle East Eye contacted the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in Washington, Barrack and Townsend for comment. They had yet to reply at time of publication.
According to the New York Times, Barrack’s company Colony NorthStar has raised more than $7bn in investments since Trump won the Republican nomination, 24 percent of which came from the Gulf.
US President Donald Trump's Middle East team has been visiting the region frequently, and the administration purports to be one step closer to announcing the details of its peace plan, also known as "the ultimate deal", after each visit.
Last week Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and top aide who was tasked last year with reviving the stalled peace process, and Middle East Envoy Jason Greenblatt embarked on yet another Middle East tour, visiting countries including Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
While the US administration continuously acts as if the big reveal is just around the corner, what these frequent visits really indicate is that the Trump team has not been able to gain the support it needs to announce its plan just yet.
Kushner and Greenblatt's latest visit also aimed at securing political and financial support for the peace plan. However, it seems the visit has also not been successful, as no deal was announced and the US administration continues to increase pressure on those opposing the deal, particularly Jordan and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Jordan and the PA have fiercely rejected the deal since the beginning of negotiations, and - it appears - for good reason.
According to several leaks, Trump's "ultimate deal" would include recognising Jerusalem as the united capital of Israel, no removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank, and no return of the Palestinian refugees to their land.
In addition, the deal allegedly foresees Israel retaining control of the Jordan valley and the borders with Jordan. What the Palestinians get is financial support for development projects in Gaza, especially in energy, to alleviate the humanitarian crisis there.
For the PA the deal is a non-starter. In the recent history of Palestine, there has never been a president more open to peace negotiations than Mahmoud Abbas. But despite his record of political pragmatism, Abbas not only utterly rejected the plan, but also "fired" the mediator.
When Trump announced its decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognised it as Israel's capital, Abbas said the Trump administration was no longer accepted as a mediator in the conflict with Israel. Consequently, the PA cut all diplomatic ties with the White House and withdrew its ambassador from Washington
Palestinians are probably the weakest of the players in terms of military might, but the deal is unlikely to succeed without their approval. They may not have military power, but they are the only ones who can make the deal legitimate. The Trump administration is well aware of this fact, and this is why they are pressuring, and at times threatening, the PA leadership to accept their positions.
Saeb Erekat, secretary-general of the PLO committee, recently acknowledged these pressures, and said Kushner and Greenblatt are trying to topple the Palestinian leadership.
In an interview for al-Quds newspaper, Kushner said that if Abbas is not willing to negotiate, they would proceed with the deal anyway.
King Abdullah of Jordan, too, seems to have received his own share of American-Israeli pressure to "legitimise" the deal. During Kushner's visit to Amman, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, also met with the king to address Jordan's concerns over the implementation of the deal. In particular, Netanyahu wanted to assure King Abdullah that the Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem's holy sites would continue under the deal.
Israel sometimes tries to put Amman in a vulnerable position by hinting that the Jordanian royal family's custodianship could be transferred to their newly emerging ally, Saudi Arabia. In fact, Isaac Herzog, a Knesset member and the former leader of Israel's Labour party, suggested in an interview with Saudi-funded Elaph news website: "When we reach the stage [during negotiations] of talking about Jerusalem and the holy sites, such as Al-Aqsa [Mosque], I think there must be a Saudi role and responsibility for the holy sites."
Furthermore, Jordan recently experienced economically motivated protestsover IMF-backed price increases and a new tax reform law. With an aid-dependent economy, Jordan is in serious need of financial support. The US and Israel can exploit this need in order to secure Amman's support for the deal.
Nevertheless, it does not seem King Abdullah buckled under US-Israeli pressures just yet. For this reason, it has been announced that King Abdullah will be visiting Washington on Monday to discuss with Trump various matters including, "working towards a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians".
No official statements have been made on whether Trump's team has been able to secure any financial support from Gulf states during their visit, but this task is not as complicated as securing the necessary political support needed for the deal to be announced.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly announced its support of Trump's efforts and it can be assumed that Riyadh will not hesitate to put its considerable resources behind the deal when the time comes. Furthermore, since the financial support is going to be invested in development projects in Gaza, the Saudi leadership is likely to be on board which sends a message to its own domestic constituency that it is not "selling out" on the Palestinian cause.
While it is likely that Trump's team will get promises of financial support for the deal in the near future, securing political support especially from the PA and Jordan remains a far trickier task.
Even toppling the current Palestinian leadership would not solve the Trump administration's problems, as it will undoubtedly result in a significantly more radical leader than Abbas taking over. Most PLO and PA institutions have already demanded from Abbas to take a series of escalatory steps like freezing recognition of Israel and ending security coordination with Israel.
Convincing Jordan is not going to be any easier either. The hands of its political leadership are tied because the Jordanian society itself firmly rejects the deal - something unlikely to change no matter what incentives and/or threats the White House uses.
The will of the Jordanian people, who successfully toppled their government by taking to the streets earlier this month, is something Amman cannot afford to ignore when taking positions regarding Jerusalem and the Palestinian issue.
In this sense, it seems more likely than ever that the ultimate deal will ultimately fail. Unfortunately, until this happens, it will cause enough damage to seriously hinder the possibility of a legitimate peace deal being made in the future.
Bishop Michael Curry damns Trump’s immigration policy and its malign effects on families A VERY GOOD COMMENT THE GUARDIAN Link
The screams of children being taken from their mothers and fathers at our border, under our flag, haunts the nation. Across political and religious divides, the nation – and the world – is aghast and Americans are refusing complicity in all the ways they can. Millions of people are crying, protesting and praying in our houses of worship and in the public square. In a moment of national shame, huge swaths of people are acting in love.
The families making treacherous and often dangerous journeys to seek refuge in the US are desperate. They face extreme violence, persecution and poverty in their home countries. You cannot deter people who are fleeing for their lives, even with policies as cruel as taking children away from their parents. People who come to our borders only hope to give their children a chance. We should be meeting these people with compassion.
Christians have recoiled against the notion that ripping children from their parents – euphemistically called “family separation” – in any way comports with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth, his mother, Mary, and Joseph were refugees who fled persecution and emigrated to Egypt. Love thy neighbour is the Christian way. There is no biblical mandate or warrant for what is occurring on our borders. Christianity must never be confused with cruelty.
The agony of migrant parents at our border is immense. Every parent has feared the unthinkable: my child is gone. For me, it was a flash of dread in an everyday experience while shopping with my two young children in a department store. My oldest daughter wandered away and for the 10 seconds before I found her nestled between hanging clothes I felt a panic I had never before imagined.
Those remain the longest 10 seconds of my life and are seared in my memory. I can still taste the fear and I relive that sick feeling in my body remembering what it was like to be physically shaken by the fear that I had lost my daughter and would not be able to find her. Imagine those seconds multiplied by days and weeks and months.
Quick guide
Why are families being separated at US border?
Today, there remain thousands of children scattered in foster homes and child prison camps with no system in place for reunification. Each of these children needs our prayers, our voices of outrage and our help to reunite them with their families and heal from this terror. And the children who came before them, those who have crossed the border as children alone and some who were remanded to youth prisons that are under scrutiny for abusive practices – these children also need our intervention.
The rhetoric from our government leaders, which casts “the other” – in this case, families seeking refuge – as dangerous, inhumanely violates the Christian tradition. Selfishness is a sin. We cannot live up to our country’s ideals if we embrace only our own desires and put our needs above all others – even above God. Being a US citizen does not make us more human than people on the other side of our border.
We are in the midst of a global migration crisis, where millions of families have been separated after fleeing their homelands due to violence, conflict and persecution.
Play Video
1:04
Separated migrant families held in cages at Texas border – video
This crisis touches almost every continent in the world. The US is on track to resettle the fewest refugees since the refugee resettlement programme began in 1980. God does not condone our attack on immigrants. Jesus says: “Love your neighbour.” Jesus says: “Love your enemy.” Jesus says: “Welcome the stranger.” We ask that our friends in Britain continue to pray for our country in hopes that we may continue to follow a moral compass pointing in the direction of love, compassion, goodness.
What is the Christian way to manage borders? Strength does not require cruelty. Indeed, cruelty is a response rooted in weakness. Jesus was clear about what true strength is and it always is driven by love. There may be many policy prescriptions, but the prism through which we view them should be the same: does the policy treat people with love, acknowledging our common humanity? If the answer is no, it is not a Christian solution.
Detaining and separating families – children and their parents – is not just happening at the border. Some immigrant parents and care-givers who have lived in the US for decades – and have children who are US citizens – are being rounded up and deported, leaving a trail of countless children in this country without their parents.
President Trump’s executive order has not quieted the cries of the children still separated from their parents. It has not comforted the parents still panicked because they cannot see their babies. It does nothing to stop the heartless deportations of immigrants who are longtime neighbours and members of our communities.
All of those families weep. And so we must respond to the weeping by working to help America to live out one of its core ideals, enshrined in words on the Statue of Liberty.
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
• The Most Rev Michael Bruce Curry is presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal church
Tom Barrack speaks at the Republican National Convention in July 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio (AFP)
Donald Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan at the White House in May 2017 (AFP)
Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman at the White House in Washington in March 2018 (AFP)
Yousef Al Otaiba, UAE ambassador to the US, and his wife Abeer attend the Allen and Company Sun Valley Conference in July 2015 in Idaho (AFP)
Link