The Palestinian Authority’s endless threats to suspend security coordination with Israel are a carefully crafted bluff designed to extort more funds from Western donors, scare the Israeli public and provide a cover for its refusal to talk peace with Israel.

Many Palestinians say these threats are also intended for “internal consumption” — namely to appease Hamas and other radical factions and to refute charges that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is betraying its people by “collaborating” with Israel.

Hamas has conditioned “reconciliation” with President Mahmoud Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank on Fatah ending all forms of security coordination with Israel. Hamas claims that the security coordination is directed mostly against its members and supporters in the West Bank.

Over the past several years, PA security forces have rounded up hundreds of Hamas men in an attempt to prevent the Islamist movement from establishing bases of power in the West Bank.

Hardly a week has passed during the past few months in which a senior Palestinian Authority official does not threaten to cut off security ties with Israel. Some officials in Ramallah have even claimed that the PA has already taken a decision to suspend not only security coordination with Israel, but also political and economic relations as well.

PA officials are saying that their threats, which until now have been so much dust in the wind, will be realized next month.

“April is going to be the turning point,” declared Jamal Muheissen, member of the Fatah Central Committee. “This is a month that will witness changes with regards to several issues that can no longer be delayed or marginalized. April will witness the complete and public suspension of security coordination [with Israel]. This will be the first step taken by the Palestinian leadership.”

This sounds curiously familiar: nearly a year has passed since leaders from the Palestinian Authority and Fatah first announced their decision to halt all forms of security coordination between the PA and Israel.

Meeting in Ramallah last month, the leaders once again reaffirmed their decision. This time, it is allegedly Israel’s “failure to honor all signed agreements with the Palestinians” that prompts them to suspend security coordination.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was reportedly informed of this intention earlier this month while visiting Ramallah.

But Biden is not the only Western leader to be privy to this threat. Palestinian sources say that foreign dignitaries and leaders who visit Ramallah have become accustomed to hearing Abbas and other Palestinian leaders announce their “intention” to suspend all relations with Israel, including security coordination.

Moreover, the PA recently leaked to the Palestinian media that it has officially notified Israel of its decision to “limit” all relations with it. According to the unconfirmed report, President Mahmoud Abbas dispatched three senior officials — General Intelligence Chief Majed Faraj, Preventive Security Chief Ziad Hab Al-Reeh and PA Minister for Civilian Affairs, Hussein Al-Sheikh — to a meeting with Israeli officials to brief them about the reported decision.

The Palestinian street, however, takes a different view of these threats. The reports, they say, call to mind President Abbas’s incessant threats to resign.

These Palestinians consider the threats a smokescreen to conceal the continued security coordination with Israel which, they say, seems even to have increased in recent months. They say that President Abbas can probably fool Western leaders with these threats, but not his people, who have become used to hearing empty threats from their leaders.

A senior Fatah official in Ramallah summed up the Palestinian Authority’s dilemma: “We are facing a complicated crisis. If we carry out the threat [to suspend security coordination with Israel], we will suffer; similarly, if we don’t we will suffer.”

The situation, however, is not all about money: it is also about power. President Abbas and his security chiefs know perfectly well that the security coordination benefits them first and foremost. They are well aware that without Israel’s help, Hamas would spread in the West Bank like a cancer, ultimately overthrowing the PA and replacing it with another Islamist regime like the one in the Gaza Strip.

It is helpful to remember Abbas’s moment of lucidity, when in 2014, in front of a visiting Israeli group, he declared that security coordination with Israel was “sacred.” He added: “We will continue with it even if we differ on political matters.”

For a change, Abbas was being honest. And he is right. For Abbas, security coordination is indeed “sacred”: it is keeping him in power and stopping Hamas from taking over the West Bank. Hence the security coordination — in Abbas’s words — is very important for the Palestinian Authority – perhaps more than thwarting Hamas terror attacks against Israel.

Abbas has a problem. He cannot tell his people that security coordination with Israel is what is keeping him on the throne. The sacredness of security coordination is a topic for Israeli ears only.

So what are the threats about? Money.

Here is Abbas’s take-home to the world: “Send more money or we will cut off security cooperation with Israel.” And now there is a little added value, messaged mostly to the U.S. and EU: Convene an international conference for “solving” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or we will cut off security cooperation with Israel.

Abbas to the world: “Send more money or we will cut off security cooperation with Israel.” Left: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas with French President François Hollande. Right: Abbas with top European Union officials Federica Mogherini and Jean-Claude Juncker.

Whatever else he is, Abbas is not suicidal. Halting security coordination with Israel would spell both his end and the end of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. What the international community is hearing, then, is nothing more than a new version of the old bid for yet more political concessions and yet more cash.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph on July 31, Britain’s new prime minister, Theresa May, stated, “Last year I introduced the world-leading Modern Slavery Act to send the strongest possible signal that victims were not alone and that those responsible for this vile exploitation would face justice”. Yet these campaigns to tackle modern slavery carefully overlook the countries in the Arab world in which slave-ownership is permitted by the legislation.

In 2015, the Modern Slavery Act came into British law to address heightened levels of human trafficking (now considered by criminals to be more lucrative than drug-smuggling) and the treatment of many of the servants of wealthy foreigners.

Like their wealthy employers, these indentured servants are shepherded straight from an incoming flight to a car waiting on the tarmac, and do not pass through immigration or customs. They are not treated like the rest of us — the supremely wealthy and their employees live under different laws. As such, cases of servant mistreatment rarely get to be heard in court. The few cases that go to trial are the result of these servants escaping the clutches of their “employers,” and the stories they tell are horrific (albeit largely unpunished and unreported for political reasons).

One example was documented in the Daily Mail on March 15, 2011. An African servant was forced to sleep on the floor, a situation she endured at first for £10 a month “wages” until her employer, a female doctor of Asian origin, decided not to pay her anything at all.

A court interpreter in the UK, who works in Arabic and asked to remain anonymous, has told me even worse stories about escaping “servants” who managed to report to a police station, where she got to meet them and interpreted for them. The employers, mostly from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, are rarely prosecuted.

Bribery by Qatar

As the 2022 FIFA World Cup approaches, it is worth investigating the labour practices of the host country, Qatar, which are certainly in breach of even previous European legislation, let alone the Modern Slavery Act. According to Greg Dyke, former Chairman of the British Football Association (BFA), and other BFA officials, Qatar offered bribes to FIFA to be able to host the event.

Qatar, like Lebanon, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (the Gulf States) operates under the kafala (or kefala) system (Arabic: نظام الكفالة niẓām al-kafāla). This translates from Arabic as “sponsorship system,” but is in fact a brutal way of controlling the foreign workforce that provides virtually all of the labour in the wealthiest countries of the Arab world.

The Evils of Kafala

Under the kafala system, any foreigner seeking or being offered employment in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States, including Bahrain, the Emirates and Qatar, has to have a “sponsor” (an employer, agency, or middleman through whom they were offered the job) who arranges their visa. In return, each foreign worker’s passport is confiscated by the employer or agency. This means that the employee has no right to change jobs or leave the country without the permission of the person holding his/her passport. Needless to say, employers and agents rarely give such permission.

This exploitation of foreign labour has been criticized by many human rights organizations. According to The Economist, “The system [also] blocks domestic competition for overseas workers…”

Exploitation in Qatar

In November, 2013, Amnesty International published a report about construction workers in Qatar. According to Salil Shetty, then Secretary-General of Amnesty International,

“The world’s spotlight will continue to shine on Qatar in the run-up to the 2022 World Cup, offering the [British] government a unique chance to demonstrate on a global stage that they are serious about their commitment to human rights and can act as a role model to the rest of the region.”

Recent visitors to Qatar have taken photographs of the appalling squalor in which foreign construction workers live. They are forced to sleep in tiny cell-like rooms in which they barely have room to lie down. There are no proper sanitary or kitchen facilities.

According to an article published in the British Guardian newspaper on December 23, 2014 — a newspaper normally supportive of the Arabs — Nepalese migrant workers are dying at the rate of one every two days, from work accidents or from sheer exhaustion, as they labour to build the infrastructure for the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

The family of a Nepalese worker, who died in Qatar while working on a football stadium site, prepares to bury him in Nepal. Foreign labourers in Qatar work in dangerous conditions, and Nepalese labourers alone die at the rate of one every two days. (Image source: Guardian video screenshot)

Kafala Applied to Employees of Every Grade

It is often assumed that the kafala system is only applied to workers from third-world countries employed in blue-collar jobs, such as domestic service and the construction sector. This perception is false — kafala applies to all foreign workers, even those hired for top jobs.

For instance, on November 14, 2013, The Guardian published the story of Zahir Belounis, a French footballer held against his will in Qatar. He had been hired on a five-year contract by a local football club because the club wanted to use him to get into a higher division. Once the club had been promoted, it stopped paying Belounis’ wages but would not let him leave the country, continuing to hold on to his passport. He was trapped in his apartment with no income and a family to feed. In desperation, Belounis appealed to the president of France and to footballing personalities throughout the world. Finally, after 19 months, he was allowed to leave.

On September 30, 2009, the English-language daily “Flanders Today” reported:

“Philippe Bogaert, the Flemish businessman held hostage in Qatar for more than a year, is back home after escaping by boat under cover of darkness. Bogaert went to Qatar in October 2008 to work for the local subsidiary of a Belgian company. When the Qatari partners pulled out of the contract, the company became bankrupt, and Bogaert resigned. Under Qatari law, he was only allowed to leave the country if a release form was signed by his sponsor, a former business partner. The partner refused, leaving Bogaert without a job, without an income, and with no way to leave.”

The French newspaper L’Express published a similar report on August 2, 2013:

“Nasr Al-Awartany, a Frenchman of Jordanian origin, is stuck in his hotel in Doha. He is unable to leave Qatar and return to his family in France because his Qatari associate, who is also his sponsor, is denying him an exit visa. This is not an unusual occurrence [author’s emphasis]… An incredible 80% of the population [of Qatar] are foreigners… The case has gone to court, but it could last for years and in the meantime, Nasr’s exit visa has been denied.”

According to Doha News in an article published on December 25, 2014, changes to the kafala law in Qatar are due to be implemented on December 14, 2016. They will include the ability to appeal refusal of exit permits, and expatriates whose employment has ended will no longer need approval to take up other work. Whether it will be applied or not in practice is another matter.

Bahrain allegedly abolished the kafala system in 2012, but according to experts, including Andrew Gardner, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Puget Sound, this was merely for the sake of appearances and the system continues in practice. In Qatar, the new law will only apply — if applied at all — to foreigners who took up employment after the law was passed.

Josephine Bacon is a journalist, author, and translator based in London. She is an active member of the British Labour Party and the Cooperative Party.

Last week Austria ordered the first foreign-funded imam to be expelled when his visa expires. The decision was made under the new provisions of an anti-radicalization law, which Austria passed one year ago under considerable controversy. The main aim of the law is to counter extremism by requiring imams to speak German, and to prohibit foreign funding for mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in Austria. It also stresses that Austrian law must take precedence over Islamic sharia law for Muslims living in the country.

“We want a future in which increasing numbers of imams have grown up in Austria speaking German, and can in that way serve as positive examples for young Muslims,” said Integration Minister Sebastian Kurz, who helped draft the law. Another 65 imams are expected to be deported in the coming weeks, after being informed that their visas will not be renewed. The decision to deport the foreign imam has — predictably — been deemed unconstitutional by Austria’s Constitutional Court, which finds the law discriminatory because it targets only Muslims.

In a similar vein, the Belgian government recently earmarked €3.3 million to be able to pay the wages of 80 new imams in order to “help stimulate a moderate European form of Islam,” reported the Flemish daily newspaper De Standaard last week. Justice Minister Koen Geens said that official recognition of mosques forms “part of our strategy to promote a more integrated form of Islam,” one intended to counter radicalization, violent extremism and terrorism. He added: “A recognized mosque is a sign of an integrated Islam. In the fight against radicalization, it is important that young people don’t drift into the arms of radical mosques. This also provides us with more interlocutors.”

Last year, the news outlet Antwerpen revealed that a young Moroccan imam who had preached in the officially recognized “moderate” mosque, the Dome in Borgerhout, had gone to Syria with two other men to join the jihadists. Youssef El G. — the imam in question — had not been monitored, because the mosque was considered moderate. The police said his departure came as a surprise.

Encouraging Muslims toward a more moderate “European” Islam is an old idea, but has not yet succeeded in practice anywhere in Europe and its specific nature remains largely undefined.

In France, the concept of a “French Islam” was put to the test in 2003, when Nicolas Sarkozy, then interior minister, created the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM) to help address issues such as imam training, mosque building and regulating halal slaughter. The purpose was to encourage a homegrown, liberal version of Islam. “What we should be afraid of is Islam gone astray, garage Islam, basement Islam, underground Islam. It is not the Islam of the mosques, open to the light of day,” Mr. Sarkozy said at the time.

The project of a “French Islam” has failed abysmally. Already in 2011 a 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la Republique” (Suburbs of the Republic), commissioned by the influential French think tank L’Institut Montaigne — directed by Gilles Kepel, a well-known political scientist and specialist in the Muslim world — concluded that Muslim immigrants in France were increasingly rejecting French values and identity, and instead immersing themselves in Islam. The report also warned that Islamic sharia law was rapidly displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris.

The report showed how radical Muslim leaders in France, who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society ruled by sharia law, are exacerbating the problem. The report described a proliferation of mosques and prayer rooms in the suburbs. The religious orientations of the mosques were already heavily influenced by the national origin of the founder or president of a given mosque, in other words, not nearly close to any “French” Islam, regardless of what that concept might actually contain.

Indeed, according to Reuters, only 25-30 percent of practicing imams in France are French nationals. Many do not speak French and have no knowledge of French law or customs. According to Abdelali Mamoun, an imam of Alfortville, just outside Paris, of the roughly 2,500 mosques in France, 800 are Moroccan, 600 Algerian and 400 Turkish-linked. The Grand Mosque in Paris, for example, was assigned to Algeria’s trusteeship by the French government in 1957. Since 1982, Algeria has been responsible for funding the Grand Mosque. Only between 30% and 40% of the mosques in France are independent, says Mamoun. He defines independent mosques as institutions that set out to serve all Muslim communities, that are not sponsored from abroad and do not have imams imported and paid from abroad.

The Grand Mosque in Paris was assigned to Algeria’s trusteeship by the French government in 1957. Since 1982, Algeria has been responsible for funding the Grand Mosque. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Nevertheless, France still holds onto the idea of a French “moderate” Islam. In March 2015, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the concern about the influence of radical foreign imams on Muslims in France, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced that France would finance double the number of university courses on Islam — from six to twelve — to stop the influence of foreign funding on the training of French imams.

Valls said he wanted more imams and other religious figures, such as prison chaplains, who have been trained abroad to “undergo more training in France, to speak French fluently and to understand the concept of secularism” that is a core pillar of French Republican values. “The only response to the dangers that we face is the French Republic,” Valls said. “This means the acceptance of the secular state, improving education, universities, understanding and intelligence… But there will be no laws, decrees or government directives to define what Islam means,” Valls said. “The French state will never attempt to take control of a religion.”

After the Paris attacks in November 2015, Anouar Kbibech, president of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, said it would fight extremists by creating a permit to preach for imams, as well as a new religious body to fight jihadist propaganda. The certificate would be given to those imams who promote a “tolerant and open Islam.”

“The time for action has come. The Muslims of France will play their part,” said Kbibech. Actually, the time for action was over more than a decade ago, in 2003, at the founding of the CFCM. By now, any action is probably too little, much too late.

The pattern of “importing” imams with no knowledge of the local European languages and customs is the same all over Europe. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where the official form of Islam is Wahhabism, are the main financiers of mosques in Europe. Qatar has financed mosques in France, Italy, Ireland and Spain, among other places, thus spreading Wahhabism across the continent. Wahhabism is a version of Sunni Islam that discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims. The former emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, vowed a few years ago to “spare no effort” to spread the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam across “the whole world.”

In October 2014, General Jonathan Shaw, a former commander of British Forces in Iraq, who retired as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in 2012, told The Telegraph that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires Islamic State terrorists by funding the global spread of radical Islam. “The root problem is that those two countries are the only two countries in the world where Wahhabi Salafism is the state religion – and Isil is a violent expression of Wahhabist Salafism,” said Gen. Shaw.

In December 2015, German vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said that the Saudi regime is funding extremist mosques and communities that pose a danger to public security. “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over… Wahhabi mosques all over the world are financed by Saudi Arabia. Many Islamists who are a threat to public safety come from these communities in Germany,” the vice-chancellor said. In addition to the mosques it has already built, Saudi-Arabia offered to build an additional 200 mosques for the benefit of the mass migration of Muslims into Germany, one for every 100 migrants and refugees entering the country.

The question that invariably arises is whether European governments genuinely believe in the possibility of a moderate “European Islam” in the face of the failure that attempts to bring about such a concept, still largely undefined, have met with thus far.

Considering the massive Muslim radicalization with which the continent is faced, much of it homegrown — the head of Europol said last week that the terror threat in Europe is the highest in over a decade — trying to foster a hazy concept of a “moderate” European Islam at this late point is like trying to stem a tidal wave with a band-aid.

In some European countries, the most basic concepts of how Islamic radicalization works are seemingly not even understood by the relevant judicial authorities. Denmark’s State Prosecutor recently decided that imam Hajj Saeed will not be prosecuted for his statements in a sermon where he incited Muslims to wage war against Jews, and said that the Western “infidel” civilization has led non-Muslims “to an abyss of deprivation and corruption and has reduced them from being human to being at the level of animals.” Saeed incited war against Jews at a mosque associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir in Copenhagen on February 13, 2015 — in the very same sermon that the terrorist Omar Abdel Hamid El-Husseini attended the day before he murdered two people in separate terrorist attacks at the local synagogue and at a café.

The Danish State Prosecutor, in her decision, writes that the imam’s statements,

“…were part of a sermon about interfaith dialogue. It is my assessment that the statements regarding war against Jews must be understood in that context and as a historical reference to the reaction of the prophet Muhammed in a particular historical situation. It therefore cannot be assumed that this was a direct encouragement to attack Jews. I therefore do not find that there is sufficient evidence to find the imam guilty of breaching § 266b and I do not find that further investigation will bring such evidence.”

The sermon had been organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical organization that works for the re-establishment of the caliphate — not for “interfaith dialogue.”

When investigations against imam Hajj Saeed began in March 2015, after a private Danish citizen filed a complaint, Hizb ut-Tahrir told Danish journalists that the complaint against the imam was baseless: “The sermon refers to a historical context and it is taken out of context… He has not incited to violence or murder. He is just referring to a historical event.” Conspicuously, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s “explanation” ended up being exactly what the state Prosecutor decided in the end.

It is noteworthy that several European governments have finally come to the realization that foreign funding of local mosques and imams is counterproductive to the security of their states and that it is essential that this foreign funding and training of foreign imams stop. Based on previous experience, however, the hope that a “European Islam” will be fostered is a vain and rather utopian one. In Belgium, the existence of a state-recognized “Belgian mosque” did not stop the “moderate” imam in question from traveling to Syria to join the jihadists there.

Judith Berman is a journalist based in the Middle East.