I picked a funny time to write a column about the various conspiracies that are being sprung against noble Egypt, apparently.

I wrote it a couple of days ago, before the news about Ilan Grapel, the alleged Israeli spy who was everywhere broke. It seems this guy managed to be in Tahrir, at the church arsons in Sol in March and Imbaba in May, and various other occasions. He's a real troublemaker, oh yes, and served in the IDF in Lebanon 2006 so is guaranteed to be an asshole.

There's much skepticism circulating about this story, of course: the previous regimes kept accusing people of the most unlikely of conspiracies, would quickly eke out a confession with torture, sent them to be tried by a crooked judge and then the whole affair would be quickly forgotten if they were lucky and acquitted on appeal. I remember the young Islamists who were supposed to have dangerous banned literature, according to the police, until the judge pointed out that he owned copies of the same books which were academic theological treatises. The Israeli spy who infiltrated the revolution, brought to you by the country with the Mossad sharks. It's easy to be a skeptic. 

With his background, of course, this guy could very well be a spy. Or stupid enough to think it's ok to be an Israeli who recently served in the IDF (mind you they have compulsory military service in Israel, so a lot of people go through that unless they have the moral courage to do national service instead and not participate in the occupation and repression of the Palestinian people) and still hang out in Egypt at a moment of massive political upheaval. But hardly anyone is going to take this seriously unless the government shows real proof, not just snapshots from Tahrir. 

What also worries me is the media coverage of the story. First, newspapers were given pictures to publish showing Grapel in Tahrir and various locations. Why? If the investigation is so serious, if he is innocent until proven guilty, why are the security services sharing this information with the media? Why are the intelligence services parading Grapel around like some kind of treasure trophy before a complete investigation, and even (according to Zenobia) offering the media a copy of his Israeli passport?) If it looks like propaganda, is probably is propaganda.  Secondly, it is ominously reported that he hung out with foreigners including foreign journalists — because of course that is suspicious in itself. More strumming of the xenophobic chord that we saw in the Mubarak era and during the revolution itself.

Spy or not, is this the way an intelligence service should behave?

Update: I forgot to add something else about the Ilan Grapel story. One of the main tasks of this alleged Mossad spy was apparently to incite the crowds in Tahrir. As if they needed incitement. This is really quite disgusting, it's a minimization of the role of activists in Tahrir at best and a reframing of the revolution as the product of Mossad at worst. Consider that today's al-Ahram top headline is "The Israeli spy incited people at al-Azhar against the army." So is the idea now that any criticism against the military is espionage? Pathetic.

I've been traveling for the last few days and have not been able to blog much. Here's a contribution to the blog by Arabist reader Paul Mutter, on the case of Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Hajj. Normal activities will resume next week. 

Sami al-Hajj, Al Jazeera Cameraman Held at Guantanamo Bay for Six Years, Detained over His “Intelligence Value” as an Al Jazeera Employee

By Paul Mutter

(Photo © Al Jazeera English, 2008)

Sami al-Hajj (pictured), a 42year old Sudanese man, was an Al Jazeera journalist detained by Pakistani authorities on December 15, 2001 when he and a colleague attempted to leave Afghanistan. The Pakistanis then turned him over to U.S. forces as a suspected “enemy combatant.”

He was eventually sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he arrived on June 14, 2002. He then spent the next six years there, until he was cleared of all charges in 2008.

Al-Hajj was considered an “enemy combatant” whose “access to senior terrorist leaders demonstrates his probable connections to the al-Qaida network and other militant jihadist organizations . . . . Detainee is a member of al-Qaida who is an expert in logistics with direct ties to al-Qaida leadership.”

However, new evidence has come to light that shows the U.S. government hoped to use al-Hajj as a source of intelligence, perhaps even an informant, on Al Jazeera’s work, either to spy on the network’s operations, or to track down Taliban and al Qaeda leaders.  

al-Hajj was, in actuality, also viewed as a valued asset in the U.S. government’s efforts to keep tabs on the news outlet and, according to some, send a message to the agency over its allegedly anti-American coverage of the “War on Terror.”

His dentition was symbolic of the way many in the U.S. policy establishment viewed Al Jazeera. al-Hajj’s imprisonment was only one aspect of the wider contention between the U.S. government and the news network.

Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, told reporters in 2004 that “I can definitively say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.” “Al Jazeera’s real transgression during the “war on terror” was a simple one: being there,” wrote The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill in 2005. al-Hajj’s, according to the AL Jazeera interviewer who spoke to him recently, was someone “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Although al-Hajj won his freedom in 2008, no documentation surfaced regarding his arrest and imprisonment. But, in April 2011, Wikileaks released “The Guantanamo Files” to several news outlets. The 779 internal memos in the documentary collection are profiles of detainees produced for Department of Defense and Joint Task Force Guantanamo officials. They chronicle multiple instances of mismanagement, abuse and other questionable actions taken towards the detainees.

The document “Recommendation for Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD) for Guantanamo Detainee, ISN US9SU-000345DP (S)” is Sami al-Hajj’s prisoner profile. The first reason given for his detention is as follows:

The relationship between UBC [United Beverages Company, a suspected front company for mujahedeen organizations] and al-Haramayn [a Saudi charity that is as of 2004 a “specially designated global terrorist organization”], to include specifically the role played by UBC Director Abdul al-Latif al-Imran. 

His overall guilt and association with al Qaeda’s logistics arm is demonstrated, in the eyes of the analyst writing the memo, partly by being “knowledgeable about certain illegal activities such as weapons and drug smuggling . . . he is careful not to implicate himself as a member of an extremist organization, or to have had any dealings with extremists beyond performing interviews as a journalist.” Most of the evidence for his supposed terrorist ties was circumstantial and based on testimony from other Guantanamo prisoners or unnamed foreign intelligence sources in the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan.

A second reason was also given:

The al-Jazeera News Network’s training program, telecommunications equipment, and newsgathering operations in Chechnya, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, including the network’s acquisition of a video of UBL [Usama bin Laden] and a subsequent interview with UBL.

The second reason is significant because the anonymous analyst writing the document, signed off on by then-Guantanamo commander Rear Admiral Mark H. Buzby, rated al-Hajj’s “intelligence value” as “high” because “during his employment with UBC and al-Jazeera, he made numerous contacts with high-level extremists to include leaders of al-Qaida and the Taliban” and “He can probably provide information about al-Jazeera Media’s possible support to al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other Islamic militant groups.”

The conclusion was symbolic of the Bush administration’s mistrust and dislike of Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera, founded in 1996 in Qatar, has had a troubled relationship with the U.S. government since its inception, particularly over its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. However, the relationship took a turn for the worse after 9/11, when the U.S. government accused it of airing “terrorist propaganda” and lies, and in actively collaborating with al Qaeda. Their coverage of civilian causalities from U.S. military operations (the Battle of Fallujah was a particularly contentious example) and showing of footage from videos by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups drew sustained criticism from the Bush White House, the State Department and the Pentagon

Relations have improved, with the U.S. eager to demonstrate support for the movements that have toppled the Mubarak and Ben Ali regimes, writes Politico, “the Arab Spring has brought Al-Jazeera in from the cold,” for now, anyway. Relations are still frosty (and stirred up by anti-Muslim sentiment: Al Jazeera’s entry into the U.S. media market has been torturous).

 And, perhaps more significantly, Guantanamo Bay, as well as the legal system and logic behind it, are still operating.

This AIPAC vs. Steve Rosen story just keeps getting better and better. First there was all the admission that viewing porn is routine in AIPAC's office, one of the most surreal passages of the long deposition now available in PDF [8MB, cache]. It all starts at page 68, but some genius has made the passage into a cartoon with cute cartoon characters and put it on YouTube.

Unfortunately it's not viewable outside the US, but click on the image below for another version.

Then there was the admission Steve Rosen, five times married, used AIPAC offices for gay hookups. Well not exactly gay actually:

The Israel lobby gone wild - Israel - Salon.com

The putative purpose of the porn line of questioning was to establish that Rosen had not comported by AIPAC's standards for employees. Less clear is why AIPAC's attorney asked the married Rosen about his sexual encounters with men found on Craigslist. From Page 68:

Q If you had browsed the web for sexual encounters with gay men while at AIPAC , would that in your opinion be a violation of the computer usage policy at AIPAC?

A First, a technical correction. I actually sought married men like myself, not gay men, or I don't know what you mean by the word "gay men," but not men who were primarily living the life that's referred to as the gay community and so on.

We also find out about Rosen's reaction when he found out he would be charged with espionage:

From: AIPAC On The Brink: And Not One Word In MSM | TPMCafe

Beyond the smut, the most shocking revelation in the court documents is when Rosen reveals that immediately upon being told by the FBI that he was in serious trouble, and being warned by AIPAC's counsel to come immediately to his office and talk to no one in advance, he immediately ran to meet with the #2 at the Israeli embassy!

And also about the generosity of major donors to AIPAC and other pro-Israel and/or Jewish organizations decided they would back the man accused of espionage (and who has pretty much admitted to passing on classified information to Israeli diplomats). 

From: AIPAC Gets Down and Dirty in Pushback vs. Defamation Suit - Forward.com:

The court documents also shed light on Rosen's attempts to support himself and his family after being fired from AIPAC. The former lobbyist, as the depositions indicate, received cash gifts from several prominent Jewish philanthropists, among them some who are also major donors to AIPAC. The list includes Hollywood mogul Haim Saban, one of AIPAC's key funders, who gave Rosen a total of $100,000; Daniel Abraham, founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, who gave Rosen, his wife and three children gifts of $5,000 to $10,000; and philanthropist Lynn Schusterman, who paid off a college loan for Rosen's daughter. The list includes several other backers, including two described as "bundlers" who raised up to $200,000 for Rosen from other donors.

But of course the real scandal is how much this reveals about the way AIPAC works. The embarassment from the sexual content of the testimony is not much compared to AIPAC avoiding a full FBI investigation into the way it does business and its established practice of passing on confidential or classified information to spin for Israel. As Grant Smith writes:

As Rosen and AIPAC tussle in court over the organization’s long history of using classified national defense and economic information for the benefit of their foreign principal, Americans must begin to ask some very serious governance questions. Why won’t the mainstream media cover any aspect of the defamation suit? Shouldn’t this matter have been resolved in a bona fide criminal setting in 2009 rather than being surrendered by prosecutors under the watchful eye of Obama political appointees? Why wasn’t AIPAC itself indicted for espionage? And most important of all, why isn’t AIPAC properly registered as a foreign agent of the government with which it breaks bread (and chocolate) on Fridays?

The Wall Street Journal has a very nice long investigative piece on the investigation into the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, focusing especially on one suspect, UK citizen Christopher Lockwood, aka Yehuda Lustig, an Israeli believed to have died in Sinai in the 1973 war. It all sounds like a spy thriller.

Lockwood/Lustig, believed to be the son of early Zionist settlers in mandate-era Palestine, had a nominal British residence but traces of him exist around the Middle East. He came in and out of Dubai, prepared the ground for the assassins, and even shipped a van to Iran (possibly for a related operation, since some of the alleged killers took a ferry to Iran after Mabhouh's death.)

From the end of the article:

When investigators discovered that Mr. Lockwood was once known as Mr. Lustig, the plot appeared to thicken. Mr. Lustig's birth certificate indicated he was born in Glasgow on Feb. 23, 1948. Mr. Lustig's father was a veterinary student who had married in Palestine, then under British control.

Investigators figured he probably changed his name from Lustig to avoid suspicion while traveling in the Middle East, according to people familiar with the probe.

But Mr. Lustig's military service history—described in six Israeli memorials, including an official obituary posted on the Israeli Ministry of Defense's website—indicates the man of that name died in combat in a barrage of rocket fire in the Sinai Peninsula.

That clouded the picture—and suggests that an unknown person fraudulently used the dead soldier's identity to obtain a British passport. Investigators appear to be back at square one in figuring out who that is.

Not so sure about that conclusion. If you look at the pics the WSJ provides of Lockwood and Lustig, they could very well be the same man, 40 years apart.

Lockwood and LustigSimilar nose and eyes, same chin and lips. Maybe Lustig never died in 1973, but was simply made to disappear so he could more easily operate as an agent.

Sponsored links:

Our prep course include COG-612 dumps along with 642-902 exam key, in addition of testking SY0-201 and testking 220-702 dumps. We guarantee 100% victory in testking 642-185.

Here's an odd story:

Algerian authorities have arrested an Israeli Mossad agent carrying a fake Spanish passport in the city of Hassi Messaoud near an Egyptian office providing service for oil companies, Algerian Ennahar El Djadid newspaper reported on Tuesday.

According to the Algerian sources, the Mossad agent entered Algeria under the fake identity of a 35-year old Spanish man named Alberto Vagilo, and spent over ten days in the country prior to his arrest.

The report came a week after an Israeli citizen who went missing for several days in Algeria, who was also carrying a Spanish passport, raised suspicions that he might have been kidnapped by al-Qaida.

The man notified the Foreign Ministry that he contacted his family and that he was safe.

The Algerian paper also reported that the Mossad man received entry visas through a European embassy before traveling to the country via Barcelona.

According to the Algerian sources, deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), John Pistole visited Algeria last Thursday to negotiate on behalf of the Israeli citizen, as there are no diplomatic relations between Israel and Algeria.

Ennahar El Djadid went on to report that the man has a good command of Arabic, is well acquainted with the city, and even participated in the Muslim prayers in the Bilal Ibn Rabah mosque.

There are reports elsewhere that up to six Israelis have been arrested in Algeria, and that the affair is causing an inter-regime raucus. It's all extremely strange — what would an Israeli operative be doing in Algeria, why would he be in oil-producing areas, what's the role of the Egyptian firm involved, and how come this is all happening as Algeria's state-owned oil company, Sonatrach, gets a new CEO after months of corruption investigations and apparent attempts at political destabilization? And how does it fit in the looming succession crisis over Bouteflika's success, for now, in creating a relatively strong presidency? And what does it have to do with the War on Terror in the Sahel?