When The Knights Start Falling: A View From Amman

Saleem Ayoub Quna
Opinion
February 23, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

Five years after his controversial disappearance from his cell in a Miami prison, Jeffry Epstein’s infamous legacy, remerges in unexpected ways and places.

His ex-clients, associates and “victims” are, one after the other, involuntarily, coming back to center stage, in no less embarrassing circumstances, than the ones they were, voluntarily, involved in in the first, hush-hush, part of this unfolding drama.

The released three million pages, certainly, harbor much more details about Epstein’s clandestine part of his empire, which he started in the late 1980s, and lasted for nearly three decades, than anyone could have anticipated, when Epstein was announced dead in 2019.

Potentially, it would take life-time assignment for brigades of investigators and researchers to turn every stone out of this huge pyramid of documents, i.e. more stunning information should be expected, more names of celebrities and heads of states could be queuing to be unmasked.

One of the most intriguing pieces of information revealed so far, yet not conclusively, is the one related to former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak’s connection with Epstein.

While it is widely believed that Epstein was originally recruited by Israeli intelligence services the ‘Mossad’, to build this international web of contacts for reasons that are familiar to all, it is not clear why among other present or ex-Israeli officials, Ehud Barak’s name would pop out in the way it did!

When asked about it, Ehud Barak, admitted that he had good relations with Epstein that lasted for the period of 15 years, during which Epstein had hosted him in his Manhattan private residence on many occasions!

The question here is who, among these two men, was using the other? Or who was working for the other and being paid by him? Or was it that kind of swapping stuff, whose value could not be translated into cash, considering that Barak was not a playboy!

Then, other big names came out such as Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and many other VIPs, who all expressed their regret to have known or been associated with Epstein! Why any one of them did not do that, the “expression of regret”, five years ago when Epstein died? Or did they think or hope that their, behind the doors, relationships with Epstein would be buried, simultaneously, with the burial of Epstein’s body?

But there are other big names that were associated with Epstein who, seemingly, did not have neither the time nor the will to express their regret to have known Epstein. A group of VIPs, whom I would like to nickname the “Knights” of a very special order; knights of hot nights who willingly fell into the well-orchestrated silk traps weaved by Epstein’s establishment. Instead they found themselves, practically, paying dear for their friendship with him.

One of the most prominent knights is no other than ex-Prince of the British throne, Andrew Mountbatten who certainly was a big fish caught in Epstein’s net. He, the ex-prince, also knew how to keep his mouth shut for 5 years. But now and after his royal title and embarrassing pictures popped out, the local British police dared to book him, in broad day light, for preliminary interrogation. His elder brother, the actual King Charles III, had but to consent to the idea that his younger playboy brother should be put on trial for what he did!

Other high status figures and “knights” who already fell off their, once immune little thrones; include: Jack Lang, the ex-French politician and Head of Arab World Institute in Paris, Peter Mandelson, from the British political establishment, the Labor Party, Mona Juul, a Norwegian ex- Ambassador, Alexander Acosta, the ex-US labor Secretary and lastly Sultan Ahmad bin Suleim, the UAE tycoon businessman.

From this angel the whole thing looks absurd and surreal: When you think how all those big names of movers and shakers of world affaires were united, by their free-will, to fall in the smallest trap hole ever known to mankind?

Saleem Ayoub Quna is a Jordanian author writing on local, regional and international affairs and has two books published. He has a BA in English Literature from Jordan University, a diploma from Paris and an MA from Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

Saleem Ayoub Quna

News Opinion

World Cup, Wimbledon Kicks: Flags, Nepotism, Red Cards and a Watermelon!

Saleem Ayoub Quna
July 9, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

For a change I would like to give credit to President Trump’s, latest attempt to support the American team before facing off Belgium’s team on July 6, when the day before, and despite his tight and loaded schedule, he called “his friend” Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s President, and asked him for a second look at the punishment against the American striker Folarin Balogun, who made a foul against a Bosnia-Herzegovina player in the match they played earlier on July 2, and which the US won 2-0.

FIFA regulations stipulate that when a player gets a red card during a match for an offense he makes against the other team, he should be suspended from playing in the following match! Mr. Infantino obliged and lifted the ban against the American player. But the match against Belgium in which Balogun played was won by Belgium 4-1.

This intervention episode by Trump on behalf of the American national soccer squad did not end there and led to a controversy that would not be settled before the closing of the 32nd round of the current international tournament.

Infantino was criticized by many within and outside the FIFA body and was asked to resign his post as head of this huge powerful organization. In brief, this episode shows that behind the broad smiles and nice words, sits a huge monster of nepotism and even possible corruption!

Also it means that sports, as a human “noble” endeavor, is not immune from certain uncouth and loath viruses that can affect and may shatter the dreams of other less resourceful nations!

Then we have the phenomenon of waiving national flags when a team wins a match. This occasion is ceased by some staff of the winning teams and players to demonstrate their support for a certain political or human cause or admiration of a person. This is exactly what Hossam Hassan, head-coach of the Egyptian team did when his players defeated Australia on July 3 as they scored 4 goals against Australia which scored only 2 goals, in the final shootout play of the match.

Coach Hassan came down to the pitch and waived the Palestinian flag in a sign of support for the Palestinians in beleaguered Gaza, which celebrated Egyptian performance at the tournament. Israel protested this solidarity gesture with Palestinians and labeled it as anti-Semitic, but FIFA officials maintained that flags belonging to FIFA members, (including Palestine) are allowed to be waived on this occasion!

On the other side of the Atlantic, and in London to be precise, another major sports event is underway, known as the Wimbledon grand slam championship. Wimbledon is known for its strict rules starting with the must-wear white attire, by all players and staff!

On June 29, the Turkish Tennis player, Zeynep Sonmez, ranked 51 by WTA, defeated American player Ann Li 2-1. Sonmez wanted to waive a sign of support for the Palestinians, but could not and according to Jamie Baker, the Wimbledon Tournament Director: “Wimbledon rules do not allow political massaging from players”!

So, what does Ms. Zeynep Somez do?! She sticks a small rubber shock absorber to her racket in a shape of a watermelon composed of the four colors of red, white, black and green! To that subtle demonstration, the Wimbledon people could not raise a finger or blow a whistle!

In this regard, other sources insisted that some people among the audience waived the Israeli which was received by a blind eye!

So next time I attend an important tournament or watch it on TV, I will keep my eyes open on tactics and kicks of this sort, which actually might add to the fun of watching!

Opinion

New York: AIPAC Stranglehold No More !

CrossFireArabia
July 8, 2026

By James J. Zogby

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long held sway in elections, threatening and intimidating any opposition. When a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory as a lesson for others. In last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, pointing to the potential end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.

 AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and donors they used to effectively influence members of Congress to embrace pro-Israel positions.  They’d visit elected officials in Washington seeking endorsements of legislation and enlist local leaders in a congressperson’s district to make the pitch.

They’d have local representatives offer to help write new candidates’ Middle East policy positions. Implicit were the promise of support if the official or candidate did what was asked—and the threat of opposition if they didn’t.  AIPAC also spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel.  Strategic in their operations, not everyone benefited from AIPAC’s largesse.

Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive congressmembers facing tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would benefit from PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors.  Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. When an election went their way, the lobby would crow about the victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was communication: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”  

With the end of federal oversight of independent election expenditures, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups created “super-PACs” to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars each cycle. In 2022 and 2024, they effectively targeted a few candidates critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat them.  After Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of public support for Israel—especially among Democrats. AIPAC can no longer make examples of just a few candidates, with well over 100 electeds now critical of Israel. Add to this that AIPAC has become so toxic they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates to distribute funds to candidates.  Meanwhile, Israel’s behaviors alienate more voters. And the more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand—even when they win, their heavy-handed tactics lead to declining support.

This brings us to last week’s New York primaries, a turning point in US politics when two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress were defeated by challengers critical of Israeli policies and supporters of Palestinian justice, and a former leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests won an open race. Not only did AIPAC and its allies spend millions and fail, but also these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.  

A hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past campaign involvement was the lengths they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They’d raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but their expenditures would pay for ads criticizing a candidate’s age or “radical agenda,” never mentioning the candidate’s position on Israel. In these NY contests, many issues mattered to voters, especially frustration with the Democratic establishment’s failed policies—but they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.   

In predictable reactions from the pro-Israel side, some accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—ignoring decades of AIPAC boasting about its money and influence as the source of its power. Others claimed that with the election’s results, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring that the most prominent contest’s victor is Jewish—a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. Finally, some desperately attempted to dismiss the entire election as just about New York with no larger significance, ignoring the changed national political landscape as similar contests emerge everywhere.   

The bottom line is that after a half-century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but a real debate over US Middle East policy can now take place. Thank you, New York voters

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute  and contributed this article to The Jordan Times