In an American television studio, while the billboards of Times Square light up behind him, Ronald Sandee warns of a “huge security crisis” in the Netherlands. Muslim youth in Amsterdam are being deradicalized by municipal workers who are themselves dangerous and radical, he said in 2019 journalism program The Investigative Journal. And the city government is “trying to keep everything quiet” by “bribing people in one way or another and not telling anyone about it.” According to Sandee, the government money ends up in the pockets of mosques, or otherwise in Moroccan real estate projects, “as I have heard from whistleblowers.”
„That’s really unbelievable Ronald“, says the presenter in the New York studio. She had introduced Sandee at the beginning of the broadcast as a former employee of the Dutch military intelligence service MIVD, who now runs its own investigative company from the American state of Tennessee. Sandee has lived in the United States for almost twenty years and regularly acts as a terrorism expert – in American media, in The Telegraph. And now for the first time in the Dutch courtroom.
This Wednesday, the Rotterdam court will rule in an extensive Hamas criminal case. Amin Abou Rashed, chairman of the largest Palestinian association in the Netherlands, is suspected of transferring approximately 8.4 million euros to Hamas. His full name may be mentioned. The Public Prosecution Service has demanded a four-year prison sentence, one of which is conditional. The expert on whom the Public Prosecution Service relies in the process is called Ronald Sandee.
Also read
“In all my work I have always had in mind: to stay away from Hamas,” says Abou Rashed, who, according to the Public Prosecution Service, financed the group
Independent researcher
In 2023, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, he was appointed as a ‘judicial expert’: an expert who provides information in a legal case, such as the psychiatrist who identifies a suspect’s disorder. These experts usually come from a special register that monitors their quality. This does not apply to Ronald Sandee. According to his appointment letter, he is an “independent researcher” who, according to his own statement, has been “engaged in research into the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an integral part” “since 2003.”
He did this around the turn of the century as an analyst for the MIVD, then for American non-profits and think tanks – for example the NEFA Foundation, an abbreviation of Nine Eleven Finding Answers.
According to Sandee, European countries have admitted ‘millions of Muslim refugees’ with a ‘backward way of thinking’
Sandee also writes on blogs about Islamism and Hamas. European countries according to him, have problems brought upon itself by admitting “millions of Muslim refugees” with “backward thinking” from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. In addition, there were also young Palestinian refugees, with whom Hamas has established itself in Europe, according to him. But the “useful idiots within progressive-liberal circles we still do not see the problems.”
A central figure in what Sandee calls “Hamas’ European infrastructure” is said to be Amin Abou Rashed. What is certain is that Abou Rashed, who came to the Netherlands in the 1990s, is an important fundraiser for Gaza. And that the money he raised was intended for various Gazan organizations. The big question in the lawsuit is what happened to the money there. According to the Public Prosecution Service, the schools, orphanages and other clubs that receive financial support are controlled by Hamas. And that would make the donations punishable, because the militant fighting group is on the sanctions list for terrorist organizations.
Also read
Hamas has not been destroyed, but no one knows how strong it still is
Suicide bombers
In reports for the Public Prosecution Service, Sandee explains how it works: Hamas has a “strategy” to raise money through charities that “do not have a directly demonstrable link with Hamas”. Abou Rashed and supporters would collect donations under the “umbrella organization Union of Good” and send them to charities “directly affiliated with Hamas.” They would spend the money on the spot on, among others, “family members of suicide bombers and slain Hamas fighters.”
It is exactly the explanation that the Public Prosecution Service needs. In a statement of the evidence, seen by NRCthe Public Prosecution Service refers to Sandee’s statements no fewer than 23 times.
But how does Sandee make those claims? For the claims about the umbrella organizations that allegedly channel money to Hamas relatives, he refers to Israeli reports. They come from the security service and from the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. This is an Israeli think tank that has close ties to the Israeli intelligence services. The center’s researchers are former employees of the security services. The purpose of this think tank, the director said earlieris “influencing” foreign policy toward Israel.
“As a scientific researcher you cannot use these types of reports as a source,” says Joas Wagemakers, associate professor of Islam and Arabic at Utrecht University and author of the book Hamas (2024). “The Israeli security service and these types of think tanks have a clear agenda. They try to portray Palestinian activists and aid organizations and activists in a bad light by accusing them of ties to Hamas. In doing so, they try to delegitimize these organizations. As a scientist you cannot rely on the reliability of such reports.”
Judge: these documents are not evidence
Sandee himself does not see the problem, he says NRC. According to him, the Meir Amit Center provides thorough reports, often based on internal Hamas documents that the Israeli army has captured. “I don’t know exactly where they get all those pieces from. They were won during military actions in Gaza, the West Bank and in southern Lebanon.” In October, the judge in Rotterdam ruled that such documents may not be used as evidence in this case.
Sandee believes he has been transparent. “I have more or less opened up by literally including the source reference. Then the judge, Public Prosecution Service and defense can make their own decision about it.”
Last year Sandee herself published for the Meir Amit Center. He wrote together with Aviv Oreg, an Israeli army reserve major with whom Sandee has worked for years a report about a Hamas network in Europe that ‘manages charities’. Abou Rashed, the suspect in the Dutch criminal case, also appears in the report: he is a “senior Hamas operative”, write Sandee and Oreg.
Sandee says that he did not see the report after the final editing and cannot imagine that he described Abou Rashed in that way. “I always call him: pro-Gaza and pro-Hamas.”
‘Then you must withdraw’
Sandee has previously spoken out about the suspect. In an article in The Telegraph from 2018, Sandee said that Abou Rashed is active for Hamas. Also in 2007, Sandee linked him to Hamas financing in a report.
According to the code of conduct for judicial experts, to which Sandee is bound, an expert in a criminal case must be “impartial” and “not biased”. Is this still the case when the expert has been speaking out about the suspect’s alleged Hamas ties for almost twenty years?
“Of course not,” says legal psychologist Peter van Koppen, who regularly acts as an expert in legal cases and was on the committee that monitors compliance with the code of conduct. “Once I have said something about a suspect, I will no longer act as an expert. Then you have to withdraw. You have to be independent and that no longer seems to be the case in this case.” He calls it “very unwise of the Public Prosecution Service to appoint this man.”
Impartiality of the expert is crucial, says Michel Smithuis, director of the register for judicial experts. “If an expert is influenced by previous involvement, this is in principle no longer the case fair play. That can have an unfavorable outcome for a suspect.” An expert should at least report if he has previously commented on a suspect, “so that the examining magistrate can check whether you are still independent.”
‘Finger in the pie’
The criminal file does not contain any documents showing that Sandee reported those previous statements. He himself says he has done this. “My report from 2007, in which Abou Rashed is mentioned, is known to the Public Prosecution Service and the investigating judge. They approved it, so apparently it didn’t matter too much to them.”
The Public Prosecution Service does not want any questions NRC answer about Sandee. “We have told our story in court.” There, after a complaint from the defense about the expert’s lack of neutrality, the prosecutors emphasized that they did not rely solely on Sandee in their evidence. The investigation has produced many facts that “support” his statements, according to the officers.
The mere statement that Sandee is speaking from Israel is completely insufficient to banish his reports
For example, the Public Prosecution Service also said that it had established that “Hamas had a finger in the pie” with the receiving charities in Gaza. “The mere assertion that Sandee is speaking from Israel is completely insufficient to ban his reports.”
The officer concluded the argument by noting that “not all Israeli sources” are unusable as evidence in the Hamas case. He wanted to emphasize this especially, “with Sandee in mind.”
Also read
The fact that the money for Palestinian victims may have gone to Hamas hits home hard in Italy
