Arab Brazilians count on Lula to heal divisions, forge closer ties with Middle East nations

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, center left, narrowly defeated incumbent Jair Bolsonaro, left, to become Brazil’s president. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 04 November 2022
Follow

Arab Brazilians count on Lula to heal divisions, forge closer ties with Middle East nations

  • Campaign left community members torn between business interests and ties to their heritage
  • Businessmen supported Bolsonaro; intellectuals, educators and artists likely voted for his rival

SAO PAULO: On Oct. 30, Brazilians elected former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after a highly polarized campaign against incumbent Jair Bolsonaro.

The divide in the South American country was reflected in the outcome: Lula received 50.9 percent of votes while Bolsonaro got 49.1 percent.

The large Brazilian-Arab community, estimated at more than 10 million people, was also divided.




Lula received 50.9 percent of votes. (AFP)

This could be seen, for example, in Foz do Iguacu, a city on the border with Paraguay and Argentina where thousands of Arab Brazilians live.

In August, part of the community organized a dinner with Lula, but as soon as the invitation was publicized on social media, Arab supporters of Bolsonaro began to protest. The dinner ended up being canceled.

That kind of controversy has been quite common in Brazil’s politically charged atmosphere over the past few months, and it has been no different with the Arab community, analysts say.

The first aspect to consider is that the community does not constitute an organized group of influence, said Tufy Kairuz, a researcher with a PhD in history from York University in Canada.

“Lebanese and Syrian immigrants began to arrive in Brazil at the end of the 19th century. Europeans in Brazil were usually Mediterranean, so Arabs were always considered to be white here. They adapted well,” Kairuz told Arab News, adding that as white, Christian people and members of an economic elite, Arab Brazilians tend to vote like the non-Arab Brazilian elite.

That is why many in the community voted for Bolsonaro, said Murched Omar Taha, president of the Institute for Arab Culture.

“Many Arab Brazilians are businessmen, and businessmen are among the segments who in general supported Bolsonaro,” Taha told Arab News.

At the same time, he said, among Brazilian Arabs there are many intellectuals, educators and artists — groups that tended to vote for Lula.

Mamede Jarouche, the son of Lebanese immigrants and a professor of Arab literature at the University of Sao Paulo, said a large part of the Arab community is completely integrated in Brazilian society, so Arab heritage does not play a role when it comes to voting.

“Descendants of the first waves of immigrants usually don’t feel much connected to their roots,” Jarouche told Arab News.




Bolsonaro received 49.1 percent of the vote. (AFP)

He added, however, that first- or second-generation Brazilian Arabs tend to follow Middle Eastern politics and feel closer to the Arab world.

“Most of the Muslim people who are concerned with the Palestinian cause oppose Bolsonaro,” he said.

Since the 2018 presidential campaign, Bolsonaro had pledged to move the Brazilian Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

He was greatly supported by the Brazilian-Israeli community, and the idea of the embassy move was discussed with it.

THE IRAN FACTOR

A March 11, 2021 report by the Arab News Research and Studies Unit examined Brazil’s role as an important strategic trade partner for Iran in Latin America.

The report’s author Hamdan Al-Shehri noted that relations between Iran and Brazil have passed through several distinct phases in recent decades, sometimes reflecting general shifts in the latter’s foreign policy, at other times resembling an ill-defined relationship based primarily on mutual trade interests.




A worker checks coffee beans on a cleaning machine at a processing plant in Brasilia. (AFP)

He said: “The dynamic of the relationship has also been influenced by the personalities of successive leaders of both states, their ideological leanings, and their perceptions of the West.”

As president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva “placed a high value on the relationship with Iran because he wanted to move the focus of his foreign policy away from the countries of North America and Europe and toward the developing nations of Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.”

By contrast, Al-Shehri added: “The warmth went missing from the relationship after Dilma Rousseff became president of Brazil between 2011 and 2016.

Read the full report on Arab News Research & Studies by clicking here

“The election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 did little to improve ties. The right-wing president aligned himself closely with former US President Donald Trump, becoming one of the few world leaders to openly back the elimination on Jan. 3, 2020, of Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ extraterritorial Quds Force.”

As opposed to its diplomatic accomplishments, Iran, currently being rocked by anti-government protests, has had limited success in winning over the publics of Latin America.

According to 2015 poll data from the Pew Research Center, involving 45,435 respondents across 40 countries, some 79 percent of Brazilians said they held a negative view of Iran, while just 11 percent looked upon the country favorably.

Al-Shehri said: “Relationships with Latin American nations remain primarily the Iranian regime’s way of countering the impact of international sanctions and diversifying its means of survival.

“Through these connections, Iran hopes to project the image of a global power, overcome diplomatic isolation, win support for its nuclear program, and potentially respond to US pressure from close proximity.”

He pointed out that the Brazil-Iran trade surplus in 2018 reached $2.2 billion in favor of the former.

“Regardless of who is in power, economic and commercial interests have and will remain a consistent driver of bilateral ties between the two countries, particularly in oil, gas, mineral exploration, and agriculture,” he added.

But “he had to give up on that idea after he suffered great pressure from Arab nations, which are important commercial partners for Brazil,” Taha said.

Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of halal meat and poultry. The agribusiness sector, which massively supported Bolsonaro, also pressured him not to move the embassy to Jerusalem, Taha added, “but if he had four more years, maybe he’d do it.”

Bolsonaro’s pro-Israel rhetoric, which displeased many Brazilian Arabs, was amplified by his evangelical allies.

His wife Michelle is a member of a Baptist church and is usually seen wearing the colors of the Israeli flag. On Oct. 30, she was photographed voting with a T-shirt with the Israeli flag.

“As a sheikh, I thought she lacked sensitivity and common sense. It was really a provocation,” Jihad Hammadeh told Arab News, adding that the photos immediately went viral.

“Many people who hadn’t decided yet ended up voting for Lula after that. Many felt it as an insult.”

Hammadeh said many Brazilian Arabs remember that Lula had close relations with Arab countries and played a central role in supporting the Palestinians. In 2010, shortly before leaving the presidency, he recognized Palestine as a sovereign state.

Domestically, Lula has also showed more openness toward Muslims than Bolsonaro has, said Hammadeh.

“When the president himself opens the doors for you and establishes a dialogue, you feel more comfortable,” he added.




Domestically, Lula has also showed more openness toward Muslims than Bolsonaro has, said Jihad Hammadeh. (AFP)

“In Bolsonaro’s administration, we didn’t have the same closeness with the president than we used to have with Lula.”

Kairuz, the researcher, predicts that in his second term, Lula will work to strengthen Brazil’s ties with Arab and Muslim nations. “Lula has a solid reputation in these countries,” he said.

“That’s why many of them, immediately after the election result was publicized on Oct. 30, sent messages to congratulate him.”

On Nov. 1, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sent a cable to Lula in which he “expressed sincere felicitations to the president-elect, wishing him every success and the government and friendly people of Brazil steady progress and prosperity.”


France charges Daesh official’s ex-wife with crimes against humanity

Updated 28 April 2024
Follow

France charges Daesh official’s ex-wife with crimes against humanity

  • The woman identified only as Sonia M. was accused by a Yazidi woman of raping her twice and knowing that her husband was raping her, Le Parisien reported
  • The Yazidi woman was 16 when she was taken captive by Daesh militants and forced into slavery by top Daesh official Abdelnasser Benyoucef

PARIS: France has charged the ex-wife of a top Daesh official with crimes against humanity on suspicion of enslaving a teenage Yazidi girl in Syria, French media reported.

A woman identified as Sonia M., the former wife of the jihadist group’s head of external operations Abdelnasser Benyoucef, was charged on March 14, Le Parisien said Saturday.
The Yazidi woman, who was 16 when she was forced into slavery by Benyoucef, accused Sonia M. of raping her twice and knowing that her husband was raping her, the report said.
The woman, now 25, said she was held for more than a month in 2015 in Syria, where she was not allowed to eat, drink or shower without Sonia M.’s permission.
Sonia M. denied the allegations against her in a March 14 interview with French investigators, saying “only one rape” had been committed by her former husband.
The teenager “left her room freely, ate what she wanted, went to the toilet when she needed to,” she said in her interview, seen by AFP.
Sonia M.’s lawyer Nabil Boudi slammed the charges as “opportunistic accusations,” saying that prosecutors were seeking “to make her responsible for the most serious crimes, because the courts have not managed to apprehend the real perpetrators.”
An arrest warrant has been issued for Benyoucef, according to a source close to the investigation.
France launched an investigation in 2016 into genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria since 2012.
The probe has focused on crimes suffered by members of the Yazidi and Christian communities as well as members of the Sheitat tribe, according to France’s PNAT anti-terror unit.
“The aim is to document these crimes and identify the French perpetrators who belong to the Islamic State organization,” PNAT told AFP.
 


US announces $6 billion in security aid for Ukraine

Updated 28 April 2024
Follow

US announces $6 billion in security aid for Ukraine

  • The package is the second this week, following another valued at $1 billion
  • Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said the US delay in approving new assistance has been costly for Kyiv

WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday announced the United States will provide key air defense munitions and artillery rounds to Ukraine as part of a $6 billion military aid package that is its largest ever for Kyiv.
The package is the second this week, following another valued at $1 billion that was announced just after US President Joe Biden signed a much-delayed bill to provide new funding for Ukraine as it struggles to hold back Russian advances.
“This is the largest security assistance package that we’ve committed to date,” Austin told journalists following the conclusion of a virtual meeting of dozens of Kyiv’s international supporters.
“They need air defense interceptors, they need artillery systems and munitions. They need... armored vehicles, they need maintenance and sustainment. So all of those kinds of things are included” in the package,” he said.
Ukraine has in recent months pleaded for more air defenses from its Western allies as it struggles to fend off a surge in deadly attacks on civilian infrastructure, and the new package includes interceptors for both Patriot and NASAMS air defense systems.
But unlike the $1 billion package announced Wednesday, which featured items that will be drawn from US stocks, the latest assistance will be procured from the defense industry, meaning it will take longer to arrive on the battlefield.
Speaking at the opening of the virtual meeting, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said the US delay in approving new assistance has been costly for Kyiv.
“While we were waiting for a decision on the American support, the Russian army managed to seize the initiative on the battlefield,” Zelensky said.

“We can still now not only stabilize the front, but also move forward, achieving our Ukrainian goals in the war,” he said, while noting that “Ukrainian defenders need your sufficient and timely support.”
A senior US defense official said this week that “Ukrainian forces have been rationing their ammunition for quite some time, rationing their capabilities.”
Aid from the United States and other countries “will enable the Ukrainians to begin to retake the initiative,” but “this will not be a rapid process,” the official said on condition of anonymity.
“The Ukrainians will need to rebuild quite a bit to take on board all of these new supplies... and ensure that they can defend their positions. So I would not forecast any large-scale offensive in the near-term,” the official added.
The United States has been a key military backer of Ukraine, committing tens of billions of dollars in security assistance since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.
But prior to this week, Washington had announced new aid for Ukraine on just one other occasion this year, a $300 million package in March that was only made possible by using money that the Pentagon had saved on other purchases.
A squabbling Congress had not approved large-scale funding for Kyiv for nearly a year and a half, but eventually took action starting last week after months of acrimonious debate among lawmakers over how or even whether to help Ukraine defend itself.
The US House of Representatives on April 20 approved legislation authorizing $95 billion in aid funding, including $61 billion for Ukraine, while the Senate passed the measure on Tuesday and Biden signed it into law the following day.
 


It’s 30 years since apartheid ended. South Africa’s celebrations are set against growing discontent

Updated 28 April 2024
Follow

It’s 30 years since apartheid ended. South Africa’s celebrations are set against growing discontent

  • South Africa is still the most unequal country in the world in terms of wealth distribution, according to the World Bank, with race a key factor
  • While the damage of apartheid remains difficult to undo, the ANC is increasingly being blamed for South Africa’s current problems

PRETORIA: South Africa marked 30 years since the end of apartheid and the birth of its democracy with a ceremony in the capital Saturday that included a 21-gun salute and the waving of the nation’s multicolored flag.
But any sense of celebration on the momentous anniversary was set against a growing discontent with the current government.
President Cyril Ramaphosa presided over the gathering in a huge white tent in the gardens of the government buildings in Pretoria as head of state.

He also spoke as the leader of the African National Congress party, which was widely credited with liberating South Africa’s Black majority from the racist system of oppression that made the country a pariah for nearly a half-century.
The ANC has been in power ever since the first democratic, all-race election of April 27, 1994, the vote that officially ended apartheid.
But this Freedom Day holiday marking that day fell amid a poignant backdrop: Analysts and polls predict that the waning popularity of the party once led by Nelson Mandela is likely to see it lose its parliamentary majority for the first time as a new generation of South Africans make their voices heard in what might be the most important election since 1994 next month.

People queue to cast their votes in Soweto, South Africa, on April 27, 1994, in the country's first all-race elections. South Africans celebrate "Freedom Day" every April 27, when they remember their country's pivotal first democratic elections in 1994 that announced the official end of the racial segregation and oppression of apartheid. (AP Photo/File)

“Few days in the life of our nation can compare to that day, when freedom was born,” Ramaphosa said in a speech centered on the nostalgia of 1994, when Black people were allowed to vote for the first time, the once-banned ANC swept to power, and Mandela became the country’s first Black president. “South Africa changed forever. It signaled a new chapter in the history of our nation, a moment that resonated across Africa and across the world.”
“On that day, the dignity of all the people of South Africa was restored,” Ramaphosa said.
The president, who stood in front of a banner emblazoned with the word “Freedom,” also recognized the major problems South Africa still has three decades later with vast poverty and inequality, issues that will be central yet again when millions vote on May 29. Ramaphosa conceded there had been “setbacks.”
The 1994 election changed South Africa from a country where Black and other nonwhite people were denied most basic freedoms, not just the right to vote. Laws controlled where they lived, where they were allowed to go on any given day, and what jobs they could have. After apartheid fell, a constitution was adopted guaranteeing the rights of all South Africans no matter their race, religion, gender or sexuality.
But that hasn’t significantly improved the lives of millions, with South Africa’s Black majority that make up more than 80 percent of the population of 62 million still overwhelmingly affected by severe poverty.
The official unemployment rate is 32 percent, the highest in the world, and more than 60 percent for young people between the ages of 15 and 24. More than 16 million South Africans — 25 percent of the country — rely on monthly welfare grants for survival.

A crowd of people sing and give peace signs during a lunchtime peace march in downtown Johannesburg, South Africa, on Jan. 27, 1994 ahead of the country's all race elections. South Africans celebrate "Freedom Day" every April 27, when they remember their country's pivotal first democratic elections in 1994 that announced the official end of the racial segregation and oppression of apartheid. (AP Photo/File)

South Africa is still the most unequal country in the world in terms of wealth distribution, according to the World Bank, with race a key factor.
While the damage of apartheid remains difficult to undo, the ANC is increasingly being blamed for South Africa’s current problems.
In the week leading up to the anniversary, countless South Africans were asked what 30 years of freedom from apartheid meant to them. The dominant response was that while 1994 was a landmark moment, it’s now overshadowed by the joblessness, violent crime, corruption and near-collapse of basic services like electricity and water that plagues South Africa in 2024.
It’s also poignant that many South Africans who never experienced apartheid and are referred to as “Born Frees” are now old enough to vote.
Outside the tent where Ramaphosa spoke in front of mostly dignitaries and politicians, a group of young Black South Africans born after 1994 and who support a new political party called Rise Mzansi wore T-shirts with the words “2024 is our 1994” on them. Their message was that they were looking beyond the ANC and for another change for their future in next month’s election.
“They don’t know what happened before 1994. They don’t know,” said Seth Mazibuko, an older supporter of Rise Mzansi and a well-known anti-apartheid activist in the 1970s.
“Let us agree that we messed up,” Mazibuko said of the last 30 years, which have left the youngsters standing behind him directly impacted by the second-worst youth unemployment rate in the world behind Djibouti.
He added: “There’s a new chance in elections next month.”
 


US intel suggests Putin may not have ordered Navalny death in prison: WSJ

Updated 28 April 2024
Follow

US intel suggests Putin may not have ordered Navalny death in prison: WSJ

  • The Russian prison service said that Navalny collapsed on February 16 after a walk at the isolated camp

WASHINGTON: US intelligence agencies believe that while the Russian president was ultimately responsible for the death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, he didn’t order it to take place when it did, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
The finding, which the Journal said was based on both classified intelligence and an analysis of public facts, raises new questions about Navalny’s death in a remote Arctic prison camp, which led to a new round of sanctions against President Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Among those facts was the timing of the opposition leader’s death in mid-February, which overshadowed Putin’s reelection a month later.
While the new finding does not question Putin’s responsibility for Navalny’s death, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies believe he probably didn’t order it “at that moment,” the Journal said, quoting people familiar with the matter.
It said that some European officials, briefed on the US finding, were skeptical that the 47-year-old dissident could have been targeted without Putin’s prior knowledge, given the tight controls in today’s Russia.
President Joe Biden and several other world leaders have publicly expressed little doubt about the matter. “Make no mistake. Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death,” Biden said after the stunning news of the death emerged.
The Russian prison service said that Navalny collapsed on February 16 after a walk at the isolated camp. It said attempts to revive him failed.
Navalny had seemed relatively healthy and in good spirits when seen in a video just a day earlier.
A week before that, he reportedly had been the subject of high-level talks over a potential prisoner swap that could have freed him.
Navalny had been serving a 19-year prison sentence on charges he and his backers insist were fabricated.
He had earlier survived a poisoning that US and other investigators blamed on the Kremlin. Russian officials have denied culpability in the poisoning or in his death.
A number of prominent Kremlin opponents have died, been jailed and or forced into exile in recent years.
Reached by AFP, the National Security Council declined to comment on the report.
 

 


Some US officials say in internal memo Israel may be violating international law in Gaza

Updated 28 April 2024
Follow

Some US officials say in internal memo Israel may be violating international law in Gaza

  • The submissions to the memo provide the most extensive picture to date of the divisions inside the State Department over whether Israel might be violating international humanitarian law in Gaza

WASHINGTON: Some senior US officials have advised Secretary of State Antony Blinken that they do not find “credible or reliable” Israel’s assurances that it is using US-supplied weapons in accordance with international humanitarian law, according to an internal State Department memo reviewed by Reuters.
Other officials upheld support for Israel’s representation.
Under a National Security Memorandum (NSM) issued by President Joe Biden in February, Blinken must report to Congress by May 8 whether he finds credible Israel’s assurances that its use of US weapons does not violate US or international law.
By March 24, at least seven State Department bureaus had sent in their contributions to an initial “options memo” to Blinken. Parts of the memo, which has not been previously reported, were classified.
The submissions to the memo provide the most extensive picture to date of the divisions inside the State Department over whether Israel might be violating international humanitarian law in Gaza.
“Some components in the department favored accepting Israel’s assurances, some favored rejecting them and some took no position,” a US official said.
A joint submission from four bureaus — Democracy Human Rights & Labor; Population, Refugees and Migration; Global Criminal Justice and International Organization Affairs – raised “serious concern over non-compliance” with international humanitarian law during Israel’s prosecution of the Gaza war.
The assessment from the four bureaus said Israel’s assurances were “neither credible nor reliable.” It cited eight examples of Israeli military actions that the officials said raise “serious questions” about potential violations of international humanitarian law.
These included repeatedly striking protected sites and civilian infrastructure; “unconscionably high levels of civilian harm to military advantage“; taking little action to investigate violations or to hold to account those responsible for significant civilian harm and “killing humanitarian workers and journalists at an unprecedented rate.”
The assessment from the four bureaus also cited 11 instances of Israeli military actions the officials said “arbitrarily restrict humanitarian aid,” including rejecting entire trucks of aid due to a single “dual-use” item, “artificial” limitations on inspections as well as repeated attacks on humanitarian sites that should not be hit.
Another submission to the memo reviewed by Reuters, from the bureau of Political and Military Affairs, which deals with US military assistance and arms transfers, warned Blinken that suspending US weapons would limit Israel’s ability to meet potential threats outside its airspace and require Washington to re-evaluate “all ongoing and future sales to other countries in the region.”
Any suspension of US arms sales would invite “provocations” by Iran and aligned militias, the bureau said in its submission, illustrating the push-and-pull inside the department as it prepares to report to Congress.
The submission did not directly address Israel’s assurances.
Inputs to the memo from the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and US ambassador to Israel Jack Lew said they assessed Israel’s assurances as credible and reliable, a second US official told Reuters.
The State Department’s legal bureau, known as the Office of the Legal Adviser, “did not take a substantive position” on the credibility of Israel’s assurances, a source familiar with the matter said.
State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the agency doesn’t comment on leaked documents.
“On complex issues, the Secretary often hears a diverse range of views from within the Department, and he takes all of those views into consideration,” Miller said.

MAY 8 REPORT TO CONGRESS
When asked about the memo, an Israeli official said: “Israel is fully committed to its commitments and their implementation, among them the assurances given to the US government.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Biden administration officials repeatedly have said they have not found Israel in violation of international law.
Blinken has seen all of the bureau assessments about Israel’s pledges, the second US official said.
Matthew Miller on March 25 said the department received the pledges. However, the State Department is not expected to render its complete assessment of credibility until the May 8 report to Congress.
Further deliberations between the department’s bureaus are underway ahead of the report’s deadline, the US official said.
USAID also provided input to the memo. “The killing of nearly 32,000 people, of which the GOI (Government of Israel) itself assesses roughly two-thirds are civilian, may well amount to a violation of the international humanitarian law requirement,” USAID officials wrote in the submission.
USAID does not comment on leaked documents, a USAID spokesperson said.
The warnings about Israel’s possible breaches of international humanitarian law made by some senior State Department officials come as Israel is vowing to launch a military offensive into Rafah, the southern-most pocket of the Gaza Strip that is home to over a million people displaced by the war, despite repeated warnings from Washington not to do so.
Israel’s military conduct has come under increasing scrutiny as its forces have killed 34,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the enclave’s health authorities, most of them women and children.
Israel’s assault was launched in response to the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, in which Israel says 1,200 people were killed and 250 others taken hostage.
The National Security Memorandum was issued in early February after Democratic lawmakers began questioning whether Israel was abiding by international law.
The memorandum imposed no new legal requirements but asked the State Department to demand written assurances from countries receiving US-funded weapons that they are not violating international humanitarian law or blocking US humanitarian assistance.
It also required the administration to submit an annual report to Congress to assess whether countries are adhering to international law and not impeding the flow of humanitarian aid.
If Israel’s assurances are called into question, Biden would have the option to “remediate” the situation through actions ranging from seeking fresh assurances to suspending further US weapons transfers, according to the memorandum.
Biden can suspend or put conditions on US weapons transfers at any time.
He has so far resisted calls from rights groups, left-leaning Democrats and Arab American groups to do so.
But earlier this month he threatened for the first time to put conditions on the transfer of US weapons to Israel, if it does not take concrete steps to improve the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza.