New Age Islam Edit Bureau
30 August 2017
Europe Under Attack: How Does A
Terrorist Mind Tick?
By Radwan Al-Sayed
Iran Is Too Close for Israel’s
By Yossi Mekelberg
Why Did Hezbollah Cede The ‘Starring’
Role To The Army?
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
Egypt-US Relations: Who Is Misreading
By Mohammed Nosseir
Redefining and Empowering a New Arab
By Ray Hanania
Why Jordan-Syria Relations May
By Osama Al-Sharif
Neymar’s Dubious Deal
By Hussein Shobokshi
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
29 August 2017
Several major or minor motives have been
ascribed to terrorists, who have carried out recent attacks across Europe. It
is averred that their major motive is the desire to exact revenge from states
and communities “that oppose the Muslim ‘Ummah’ and Muslims.” Although terror
attacks in Europe are usually claimed by the ISIS, many security agencies
differ over the extent to which this terror group has links with the lone
wolves conducting these attacks.
What thought drives the ISIS or the
teenagers to kill civilians? It’s clear that they do not think like ordinary
people. Therefore, we must understand the nuances of their religious extremism
and the brutality it incites toward people in areas under their control.
A radical, whose orientation leaned towards
al-Nusra Front once told me: “You must be harsh. You must not leave anything to
chance while you build the new Muslim society following this prolonged period
of corruption!” However, European societies are not the main targets of the
terrorists. To begin with, terrorist groups want to recruit youths to carry out
attacks in Muslim countries, i.e. in “Dar al-Islam” itself.
When this goal becomes difficult to
achieve, they revert to the original aim established by Bin Laden, which is “to
harm the infidels as much as possible.” Youths who may not be able to go to
ar-Raqqah or Mosul can now find their so-called martyrdom in European countries
by inflicting harm and exacting their so-called retribution.
Direct Link to Attacks Questionable
It is clear that these decisions are no
longer taken in Syria or Iraq, either because Baghdadi has already been killed
or because circumstances have changed. Outside Iraq and Syria, the ISIS network
has become highly independent and the central command may not always be aware
of the operations and at times may come to know of them after they happen.
In fact, there is now more space for the
emergence of even lone wolves, local commanders and sleeper cells, like the
Barcelona, Belgium and Istanbul cells have exemplified.
German officials who work in the Federal
Ministry of Interior once told me that in Germany terrorists fall under three
categories: radical Islamists, neo-Nazis and Left-wing extremists. Experience
shows that neo-Nazis are the earliest to repent and mend their ways. Islamists
are next to give up their radical path, while Left-wing extremists have been
found to be the most difficult to reclaim.
Discussing the ideological triggers of
radical Islamists – is it social marginalization, reaction to Western foreign
policies and culture, or the ongoing wars raging in the Arab world – former
officers from the ministry claimed that it is usually new converts to Islam or
older people who want to take part in so-called ‘jihad’ out of a misplaced
sense of guilt.
Initially, they prefer to take part in acts
of violence outside Europe but they are not averse to carrying out terrorist
actions in the continent itself. Those who carry out violent attacks in cities
plan it for a long time. Many of them are not driven by any misplaced religious
reason but are lone wolves who merely want to be known for their infamy or to
become leaders of a local ring, like the Barcelona case illustrates.
Alarm Bells against Islam
The general attitude of Germans towards
Arabs and Muslims has recently undergone a very negative change. I was told
that various civil and non-governmental organizations have started distributing
leaflets to families and are using media outlets to raise alarm against any
change in the behaviour of young boys or girls in any household due to their
introduction to Islam.
These campaigns ask people questions like:
Has your daughter or son converted to Islam and have they begun to read the
Quran? Have they started to isolate themselves and are they choosing new
friends? Is your son going to certain mosques or has he started growing a
After issuing such warning signs, the
campaigners advise the families to better inform about the matter to civil or
religious institutions so that they talk with the son or daughter to ascertain
whether they are harbouring any violent ideas.
It is also being told that as parents or
the person involved may feel hesitant to approach security agencies in this
regard, it would be better for them to contact civil institutions as the latter
will not divulge the details to the police.
In response, I asked the question: “Are
other European cities adopting such measures?” The officials said: “No, life
has a faster pace there.”
Iran Is Too Close for Israel’s Comfort
Following decades of Israeli concentration
on containing Iran’s nuclear program, it seems its main challenge is to contain
Tehran’s regional ambitions, which are carried out via more conventional
It might be the case that in prioritizing
the issue of Iran’s emerging nuclear capabilities, Israel and other actors in
the international community failed to see that a major danger was embodied in
Tehran’s canny exploitation of regional disputes to advance its regional
ambitions. Consequently, Israel can see Iran not only via satellite images, but
also across the Golan Heights’ border with the naked eye.
The nuclear deal of two years ago, as
imperfect as it was, at least created a hiatus, according to most reliable
intelligence assessments, in Iran’s efforts to develop its nuclear-military
capabilities. But this has not stopped Tehran from pursuing its ambition to
extend its presence and influence throughout the region. Whether it is in Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, Yemen or even Palestine, Iranian footprints are clearly
A nuclear threat to Israel from Iran has
always been a remote and unrealistic possibility. Israel has sufficient
conventional and allegedly unconventional military capabilities to deter Tehran
from contemplating attacking the Jewish state with unconventional weapons or
even conventional ones. Yet a permanent military presence in terms of personnel
or bases in Syria is a completely new ballgame for Israel.
Two hastened visits by senior Israeli
officials to meet US and Russian leaders to discuss this development signify
the level of concern of Israeli decision-makers. First, an Israeli delegation
led by the head of Mossad, Yossi Cohen, who was joined by the head of the
Israel Defence Forces’ (IDF) military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Herzl Halevi, met
US President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Deputy
National Security Adviser Dina Power in Washington.
The cease-fire agreement in southern Syria,
and what it entails, was at the top of the agenda. Israel was completely
marginalized in the negotiations to reach the cease-fire, as the draft
agreement that was formulated by the US and Russia did not take into
consideration its security interests.
Following the trip to Washington, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Sochi last week for a meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin to express his deep concern that by the time
the cease-fire is concluded; Iranian forces, Hezbollah and other Shiite
militias will end up permanently closer to the border with Israel. This is a
situation that Israel is adamant it will not tolerate. Neither appeals yielded
the results it wanted.
The US has very little influence on
unfolding events in Syria, and Russia, as much as it would like to see Iran
play a much reduced role in Syria, is unable to make it happen. Cooperation
between the two countries and support for the Assad regime are a matter of
convenience, but their long-term outlook for Syria and their countries’ role in
it are profoundly different.
In neither of the meetings were the
Israelis given any guarantees that Iran’s influence in Syria would diminish.
Tehran, which has invested immensely in the conflict in Syria, is in no mood to
voluntarily surrender the influence it has gained there at a very heavy cost in
casualties and economic terms.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC) has more than 1,000 military personnel in Syria and growing economic
interests. Tehran has also mobilized and financed a 20,000-strong Shiite
militia. It has a distinctive interest in preserving its almost only strategic
ally in the Middle East.
To attain this, preserving the Assad
regime, or something very similar to it, is essential. The regime’s dependency
on Iran and Russia for its survival is almost absolute. This gives Iran an opportunity
to consolidate its political, military, economic, religious and cultural
Moreover, maintaining its position in Syria
is essential to ensuring the supply line to its strategic ally, the Lebanese
organization Hezbollah, and to its aspirations for greater regional power. In
pursuit of this, Iran is determined to maintain pressure on Israel. With
Hezbollah militarily better equipped than ever, and with Iran’s ability to
inflict serious damage on Israel, permanent Iranian bases in Syria potentially
present an even bigger threat to Israel.
Israel has few options, but none of them
can either provide a full answer or are risk-free. It can lobby in coordination
with regional powers and the international community to increase political and
economic pressure on Iran. But this may yield very limited results. Iran feels
so confident that its President Hassan Rouhani threatened to abandon the
Alternatively, Israel could pursue a
military option, as Netanyahu implied this week after his meeting with Russia’s
President Vladimir Putin. This is a limited option, considering the congestion
of multiple forces in this arena, in which any miscalculation could lead to
unforeseen and dangerous escalation. In reality, Israel will have to learn to live
with the close Iranian presence for the foreseeable future, and establish a
credible deterrence to any Iranian or proxy threat.
Can someone explain to us why the Lebanese
army, and behind it Hezbollah and the Syrian regime forces, allowed 250
terrorist fighters from ISIS who are besieged in Jroud, the barren, mountainous
border area between Lebanon and Syria to peacefully be evacuated to the Syrian
city of Deir az-Zour? That’s from the far west to the Far East and it’s more
than 400 kilometres into the war-torn Syria.
The deal seems suspicious as it’s based on
a ceasefire between the Lebanese army – though it has not fought for the past
four years there – and ISIS. When it comes to this deal, it seems the Lebanese
army is the one ending the siege of the murderers in exchange of taking the
corpses of Hezbollah’s fighters and learning where its soldiers are buried.
ISIS had abducted nine Lebanese soldiers
and the army recently found the remains of six of them. Why didn’t Hezbollah
play the starring role as usual?
It is because the deal obviously reflects a
defeat and represents a scandal. It’s therefore a good excuse to say that the
army struck the deal considering it is a legitimate power. As long as Hezbollah
claims that it controls mountainous areas, it will not be logical or even
understandable why it would allow so many ISIS fighters to leave in exchange of
the remains of the dead.
This is why the families of the dead
soldiers viewed the deal as a betrayal to their sons. It’s all based on the
army’s statements that they seized control of Qalamoun and that there are only
20 kilometres left to seize control of out of an area which area is 100
Safe Haven for ISIS
The truth is obvious. Hezbollah was not
capable of controlling this area and it justifies the agreement by saying that
it’s not a strategic area anyway. However, this is not true as it’s a safe
haven for ISIS where it can threaten all of northeast Lebanon with it terrorist
operations, and it’s only few kilometres away from Syria’s borders.
Hezbollah is saying that the deal with ISIS
aims to clear the area from ISIS and impose control over it so it can focus on
fighting the Americans in the Syrian Badia region! Of course no one believes
these claims! The mysterious part is how will ISIS fighters go to Deir az-Zour?
It’s a long journey that in the times of peace take five hours. During these
circumstances it may take an entire day or more.
What concerns us about this small battle
within the context of Syria’s big war? We’re trying to understand the forces’
formation on ground through it. If ISIS can save its fighters who are besieged
in the Jroud and the Lebanese region of Qalamoun and secure their transport to
the faraway city of Deir az-Zour, then this means it’s still strong unlike
everything we’ve been told.
This means that any agreement which the
Russians and the Iranians impose on Syrian warring groups later will be just an
illusion of peace.
Legitimacy of the Regime
This does not mean terrorist groups are not
collapsing in their strongholds in Syria. It’s actually true and it’s mainly a
result of the western coalition’s strikes as the Iranian-Russian alliance only
focuses on fighting the Syrian organizations that are fighting the legitimacy
of the Assad regime and they are trying to force these factions to accept its
The difference between defeating an armed
Syrian faction and a terrorist group like ISIS and al-Nusra Front is that
terrorist organizations are capable of surviving after defeat and becoming
underground groups since they are ideological parties that live in a secret
Hezbollah wants its name to be associated
with victories because it popularly lives off them. It let the Lebanese army
sign the Qalamoun agreement so people get angry at the army and condemn it. The
people will conclude that it was the army who agreed to the deal of evacuating
ISIS fighters in exchange of recovering the corpses of dead soldiers.
However, everyone views this as a losing
deal and an embarrassing defeat. This time, Hezbollah made its choice and ceded
the “starring” role to the Lebanese army which is still helpless.
By Mohammed Nosseir
Did the cutting and delaying of $291
million in US aid to Egypt come as a surprise to Cairo, which had been certain
of President US Trump’s full support? Cairo reacted quietly to the decision,
saying it reflects poor judgment over the decades-long strategic relationship
between the two countries.
It also said it would decline a meeting
(that eventually took place) between senior White House adviser Jared Kushner
and Egypt’s foreign minister. Trump called President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi to
underscore the “strength of the friendship” between the two nations.
The bilateral relationship is monitored
closely by many American experts, who are presently arguing about whether the
withholding of US aid relates to the deterioration of human rights in Egypt, or
to its ties to North Korea, which Egyptians had not been aware of. Nor do we
know the magnitude of Egyptian support to North Korea that could have upset the
US to this degree.
Egypt wants to receive the full amount of
US aid, unequivocal endorsement of its domestic policies, and American blessing
of its regional political activity. But it also wants to preserve its
independence from the US.
Egypt believes it deserves to be rewarded
because by fighting terrorism on its soil, it is serving the entire world and
preventing terrorism from spreading to the West. So Egypt thinks its
relationship with the US should be a one-way road in its favor.
Meanwhile, under Trump, the US has a very
clear and practical “what’s in it for me?” foreign policy. This policy is based
on the premise that the US, as the global superpower, should only privilege
nations or alliances that truly deserve it. Nevertheless, it is well known that
the US political dynamic comprises multiple players that work on influencing and
manipulating one another.
Cronies of Egypt’s ruling regime are
convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated the Trump administration,
influencing its decision to partially withhold aid. Egyptian state media often
describe a former US ambassador to Egypt as a Brotherhood agent.
These cronies have been working to
strengthen the relationship between the two nations by advocating for their
viewpoints with key influencers in the Trump administration. These deceptive
actions and narratives are not only popular among Egyptians, but also among
many state executives and legislative representatives.
Meanwhile, American scholars and
journalists have been strongly condemning Egypt’s domestic policies in many
areas. Almost all American political scholars described the 2013 ouster of
then-President Mohammed Mursi as a military coup or, less critically, as a
popularly backed military coup.
Additionally, many American pundits believe
that Egypt’s current policy is provoking terrorists, who could eventually expand
their activities to other nations. In Cairo’s view, these scholars are enemies
of Egypt, and their aim is to see the Brotherhood re-assume leadership of the
Egypt often demands that Western nations
not interfere in its domestic affairs, while asking them to help boost its
economy — a challenging proposition for many countries. Neither side is willing
to voice its differences publicly.
The amount of withheld aid is insignificant
to Cairo, so it will presumably overlook the issue and maintain its current
internal policies until the matter fades away. This philosophy has served Egypt
well in the past.
I doubt that Trump is genuinely worried
about human rights in Egypt, or that he cares about Cairo’s support of North
Korea. Either issue could be more usefully addressed without involving US aid,
which is often used as a tool either to appease American political stakeholders
who call for real change in Egypt, or to signal that the US penalizes countries
that support North Korea.
Establishing a genuine relationship between
Egypt and the US requires a direct and candid exchange of viewpoints. Equally
important is dialogue between political experts on both sides that is open to
the media and the public. Withholding US aid to Egypt has become a deceptive
tool that is misguiding many citizens in both countries, although both
governments are aware of its ineffectiveness.
By Ray Hanania
Every day I get press releases about
pro-Israel activists and spokespeople appearing on TV and radio programs to
defend the country. Israel and its allies are spending millions to develop
effective communications strategies to manage public perceptions of it as a
peace-loving victim and Arabs as violent terrorists. One of the best-funded
campaigns is the drive to merge criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
I rarely receive anything from pro-Arab
activists fighting racism against Arabs. They are out there fighting, but ineffectively.
They are in disarray, much like the rebel factions competing against each other
in the war for freedom against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and his neo-Soviet
colonialists and Iranian nannies.
Communications is the new battlefield.
Technology makes it easier to empower words and messages. The pen is mightier
than the sword, and in today’s technological world, the pen has been replaced
by cell phones, text messaging, social media and instant video messaging.
Israel is one country. The Arab world consists
of 22, including a dozen that are stable and effective; the rest are consumed
by political and economic turmoil. The concept of the Arab League was great,
but it needs to be restructured. Differences between the 22 Arab countries have
always stood in the way of effective consensus.
The UN embraced one agenda advanced by
Western interests, which is why even today UN votes are inconsistent and
hypocritical. The US, which helped found the UN, decides which atrocities are
addressed and confronted. The US always condemns atrocities in the Arab world,
but not those committed by Israel.
The Arab League needs to be reorganized and
its mission redefined. What is its mission? Trying to keep everyone happy? The
Arab world is today influenced by moderates and extremists. The extremists
include Syria, Iran and Qatar, and their violent stooges fueling extremism
throughout the region.
The moderates include Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. They have a challenge defeating the extremists
because the latter base their empowerment not on how many people they
represent, but on violence and loud rhetoric. One fanatic can create more chaos
than 100,000 moderates can achieve peace.
So why try to bring all 22 Arab countries
together? Syria and Qatar do not deserve voices in the Arab League. That is the
first step to making the new league effective. It needs to marginalize them
until they renounce extremism. The second step is to better define its mission,
which is to bring Arabs together.
The Arab world is changing in a bad way,
losing its identity and embracing individualistic and selfish agendas driven by
politics and religion. The power of the word “Arab” needs to be restored. Arab
empowerment can change the world for the better. It can also put real pressure
on Israel, which is exploiting the Arab world’s disarray.
Israel talks the talk of peace, but walks
the walk of conflict. Its government pretends to want to resolve the conflict
with the Palestinians, but embraces policies that strip Arabs of their rights,
including in occupied Jerusalem.
Disarray in the Arab world, the
ineffectiveness of the Arab League and the extremism embraced by many Arab
activists in the West have made it easier for Israel to cast itself as the
victim and Arabs as the oppressors, when it is in fact the other way around.
The Arab world has always needed a tough
father figure to impose order and achieve goals. Just because the US pretends
that Western democracy is fair, that does not mean the Arab world should make
the same mistake and embrace Western democracy. Instead, the moderate
leadership of the Arab world, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, should
reorganize the Arab League’s membership and mission.
The real mission is to communicate to the
world who Arabs really are, to advance the cause of Arab moderates, and to
confront extremists, whether they are militias such as Hezbollah or tyrannical
governments such as those in Syria and Qatar.
Qatar has done much over the years to
undermine the influence of the Arab League, blunting moderate voices and
challenging moderates like the current head of the Arab League, Ahmed
Aboul-Gheit. Qatar opposed his appointment mainly because they continue to
embrace a radicalized and extreme religious agenda in conspiracy with Iran and
The Arab League needs an effective and
articulate spokesperson, and a powerful PR and public affairs mission, to
strengthen moderate voices, confront Israel’s obstinacy and call out extremists
in the Arab world and especially in the West.
The Arab world’s future rests in the West.
If the former fails to support moderate Arab voices in the latter, they will
fail in their fight against Middle East extremists, who survive because the
image of the Arab in the West remains distorted, stereotyped, vilified and
confused with the image of Muslims. This is an intentional tactic by the Arab
We have failed to use the PR weapon. What
are we waiting for? Semantics have meaning. How you convey messages empower the
powerless. A fundamental communications campaign can make a huge difference for
Arabs and Muslims. We can criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic, and we can
call out extremism in Qatar and Syria without being anti-Arab.
Why Jordan-Syria Relations May Improve Soon
Jordan and Syria could soon be opening a
new chapter in relations, following an indirect exchange of positive remarks by
officials in both countries. Butheina Shaaban, special adviser to Syrian
President Bashar Assad, last week said relations with Jordan are destined to
She later told a visiting Jordanian
non-governmental delegation that Damascus is ready to respond to positive steps
that Amman may take. A senior Syrian official was also quoted as saying his
country is looking to the future, not the past, vis-a-vis relations with
Responding indirectly to these statements,
Jordanian government spokesman Mohammad Al-Momani on Friday said: “Our
relations with the Syrian state and regime are going in the right direction.”
He added that his remarks are “a very important message that everyone should
These positive statements point to a
willingness by both sides to turn the page on what was often a tense and
distrustful relationship following the outbreak of the Syrian uprising in March
2011. While normalization is yet to start, and may take a number of
confidence-building measures before achieving its goals, it should not come as
a surprise that Jordan may be the first regional country to move closer to
Since the Syrian conflict erupted, Amman
has chosen to follow an independent course, and has adjusted its position in
response to developing geopolitical realities. But the fundamentals of that
policy have remained firm and unchanged: Jordan has always insisted on
preserving Syria’s territorial integrity, while calling for a political
resolution to the crisis.
It has also underlined the importance of
preserving Syria’s state institutions in order to prevent the country’s
collapse and fragmentation. Unlike other regional players, Jordan never called
for Assad’s removal as a condition to ending the crisis. That decision was left
to the Syrian people.
But that did not prevent Amman from
criticizing Damascus’ response to the popular uprising and condemning
atrocities committed by all sides. And while Syrian officials, including Assad,
attacked Jordan on many occasions — accusing it of training and funding rebels,
and allowing “terrorist fighters” to enter Syria — Amman’s response was always
prudent and diplomatic.
Jordan was among the few countries that
kept its embassy in Damascus open, while allowing the Syrian embassy to
function. Only when the Syrian Army lost control of the border crossing between
the two countries did Jordan close it from its side. And despite the huge
economic burden, Jordan continued to receive hundreds of thousands of refugees,
allowing them to work and benefit from health and education services.
While keeping communication channels open
with the Syrian opposition, Amman’s position was always clear in calling for a
negotiated political solution to the crisis. It backed the Geneva process, and
joined the Astana technical talks as an observer. It played a crucial role in
the fight against Daesh in Syria, especially in preventing the terrorist group
from expanding its presence into southern Syria.
Jordan was quick to welcome Russia’s
enhanced role in Syria, and viewed Moscow as a capable player that could
preserve the country from fragmentation and influence the Assad regime’s
position toward accepting a political settlement.
More importantly, Jordan’s King Abdullah
was able to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to exclude southern Syria
from major military operations, allowing Amman to use its influence over
moderate rebel groups in the south to focus their efforts on fighting Daesh.
These efforts were translated into the
trilateral agreement last month to enforce a de-escalation zone in most of
southern Syria. The truce there has held so far, and allowed Damascus to begin
negotiations with rebel groups in Daraa, which should result in reconciliation
and a peaceful end to the conflict in the south.
More importantly, the pacification of the
south should allow Damascus to take control of the border crossing with Jordan,
resulting in the opening of that vital link soon. It should enable the
repatriation of Syrian refugees in the near future, and the beginning of
Throughout the past seven years, Amman and
Damascus have kept some channels of communications open, at least at the
military and intelligence levels. Both countries have a shared interest in
preventing southern Syria from falling to Islamist militant groups. Jordan’s
key objective was to secure its long border with Syria. This is why the return
of the Syrian Army to these borders is viewed positively by Amman.
Jordan was quick to read the changing
political mood in many Western capitals regarding Assad’s fate. Its initial
policy toward the Syrian crisis has given it flexibility, and while a political
solution has a long way to go, a normal bilateral relationship may give a
much-needed boost to that process.
During this time every year, the world
returns to buy-and-sell deals among international football clubs. This is the
so-called transfer season. However, this year the transfer of the Brazilian
player Neymar from Barcelona club to Paris Saint-Germain club was in the
It made headlines not merely as sports news
but as a political issue as well. The deal was exaggerated and unprecedented,
prompting surprise and opening questions about the motives of this dubious deal
across the world.
The reported amount that changed hands is
220 million euros, but other financial details, which were not disclosed,
suggested that the total deal was between 500 and 800 million Euros, which is
of course, an astronomical figure that cannot be followed by a natural or
normal sports deal.
Paris Saint-Germain is owned by the coup
regime in Qatar and this regime has been making negative news headlines because
of evidence and proof that Qatar and its regime are involved in financing and
supporting terrorism in the Middle East.
It is a known fact that any amount
exceeding one billion Qatari riyals must be approved by Hamad Bin Khalifa, the
former Emir personally, and this is precisely what happened in the case of the
purchase check for Neymar. The check was issued by Qatar National Bank owned by
Hamad Bin Jassim personally, which proves that “Hamdeen” have the complete
control on all affairs in the state of the coup regime in Qatar.
The dubious deal in which Qatar wants to
score more than one point is that it is helping a great and gifted player of
the most important country in Europe, its heart (France), to move to the
country’s most popular club which enjoys the support in the street. The French
media is therefore a pressure force on the French administration.
This is a summary of what has been
communicated to the leaders of the coup regime in Qatar regarding the Neymar
deal. They have been told to regard it as a public relations and advertising
campaign to improve the country and its regime’s image in one bold move that
deserves any expensive payment.
But the deal raised some reservations among
some of the European football federations, the first of which is the Spanish
Federation, which called for an investigation into the dubious deal. It also
called on the media to wait for the acceptance of the Qatari money because it
may be dirty money like the Russian mafia and Colombian drug money, which is
invested with the sole purpose of whitening it. Today the phenomenon is known
internationally as money laundering.
The Qatari coup system has taken into
account the importance of using and exploiting the most popular sports football
around the world in order to improve its image and gain worldwide political
attention. It sought to establish sports channels and purchased exclusive
broadcasting rights for the most important sports tournaments in general and
football in particular.
It won the right to host the World Cup in
Qatar in 2022, with bribery and corruption charges, leading to investigations
and resignations. It tried to transplant one of its employees (Ibn Hammam) in
the corridors of decision-making of the International Federation of Football
(FIFA), but he soon got exposed and was subsequently fired.
The Neymar deal has nothing to do with
football but a new attempt by the coup in Qatar to change the subject and push
away the finger on it in the terrorist financing files, but the issue is bigger
and Neymar and his deal will not whiten the face of a black, bloody and ugly
Blurb: It made headlines not merely as
sports news but as a political issue as well. The deal was exaggerated and
unprecedented, prompting surprise and opening questions about the motives of
this dubious deal across the world.