Obama using the UN to bully Israel

by Anne Bayefsky,  Breitbart.com  8-1-13

The UN made me do it. That’s how Obama officials are explaining Secretary Kerry’s intense efforts to move Israel onto the front burner, and shove over the bloody turmoil immediately affecting millions of Israel’s neighbors and the imminent catastrophe of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Speaking to reporters on July 30, 2013, senior officials said the administration was seeking “to avoid a train wreck” at the United Nations. “Throughout the course of this year Palestinians have been making clear that if they couldn’t see progress on the peace front, their intention would be to seek other elevations of their status…at the UN.” “A new dynamic vis-à-vis the United Nations,” was driving the immediacy for renewed talks.

The comments mirror Secretary Kerry’s remarks in June: “the Palestinians have said that they will go to the UN and seek to join more UN organizations…And the Palestinians have also threatened to take their case to the International Criminal Court.”

Now Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has generously promised to delay those moves during the next 9 months of talks.

The claim that the United Nations – and more specifically, the Arab stranglehold over its output – is genuinely intimidating the President of the United States ought to ring major alarm bells for anyone under the impression that elected American representatives set American foreign policy.

So how true is it?

The new faux peace negotiations between Israel, and a Palestinian leader who doesn’t control the land or the people he purports to represent, follow months of hysterical pressure from UN quarters.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on June 3, 2013 in Washington: “We are approaching a point of no return in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…This may well be the last chance for the two-State solution.” And on June 18, 2013, Ban told a UN Palestinian committee meeting in Beijing: “I cannot stress enough the risk of missing the current window of opportunity.”

No doubt the UN’s goal has been to remove Arabs-murdering-Arabs from the top spot on newswires around the world and replace it with stories about Jews constructing apartment buildings.

But the UN noise-making has been neatly dovetailing with the noises coming from Secretary Kerry. Secretary Kerry told the Foreign Affairs Committee on April 17, 2013. “I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting…We have…a year, a year and a half to two years—or it’s over.” And on June 3, 2013: “We’re running out of time…[I]f we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance.” Events, he said, “could literally slam the door on a two-state solution.”

As Kerry worked over Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, periodic announcements issued forth from the UN Secretary-General, such as: “We all need to support Secretary of State Kerry’s courageous initiative.”

From a UN perspective, the drumbeating makes perfect sense. Settled (and fatuous) UN policy has long been that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” lies at the heart of the failure to deliver world peace. And the nub of that conflict, as Ban Ki-moon repeated in June, was “the occupation, now nearing half a century.” Even the nomenclature of the “Arab-Israeli conflict,” alluding in part to 65 years of Arab rejection of the Jewish state, has been quietly retired.

But what about the American perspective?

When the Palestinians threaten to use the United Nations to act unilaterally, that is a violation of their obligations under the UN’s own Security Council-endorsed Middle East Road Map which demands a negotiated settlement. The supposed Palestinian “gift” of not using the UN to orchestrate another end run around negotiations is really not giving anything at all. It is reneging on the outcome of prior negotiations.

Actually, those prior agreements were already broken by the Palestinians last year. In the fall of 2012 the Palestinians stage-managed a UN spectacle in which they renamed themselves “the state of Palestine” and acquired the status of UN “non-member observer state.” Instead of a major negative response from President Obama, however, they achieved just the opposite.

The administration has been doing its damnedest to get Congress to annul the negative financial fallout experienced merely by the UN agency UNESCO. On every other front, U.S. dollars have just kept flowing and it is diplomatic business as usual. In fact, the ransom floated before Palestinians grew. In April, Kerry gushed about an economic strategy for Palestinians that would “involve the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp., and U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as American corporations.”

The Palestinians got the message: using the UN was a huge success. President Obama and Secretary Kerry were sufficiently cowed by the prospect of more unilateral UN undertakings that the only possible next step was to come down hard on Israel and force it to release convicted Palestinian murderers from Israeli prisons. A hundred are due to be set free in “exchange” for the Palestinians hitting the UN-pause button.

So let’s get this twisted tale straight. Palestinians have magnanimously agreed not to pursue unilateral UN actions – in direct contravention of their previous promises – and not to attempt to prosecute Israel at the “neutral” International Criminal Court (whose statute has a provision written specifically to target Israel). And the Obama administration pretends it is doing Israel a favor by bringing the Palestinians to the table because Washington’s hands are tied by the UN. Except that would be the same UN that is dependent on American taxpayer dollars for its next breath.

The reality looks more like this.

The UN and the Palestinians are doing exactly what the President of the United States and his Secretary of State want. Set aside crimes against humanity in Syria. Millions of Egyptians on the streets can wait. Iran’s next terror victims can forget about it.

Just like UN Israel-haters have always said, it turns out that this American administration also believes that Israel is the root cause of the world’s problems. Bludgeoning Israel is the UN’s – and President Obama’s – game.

Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. 

ANALYSTS PREDICT IRAN ABLE TO PRODUCE ATOM BOMB BY MID-2014

By JPOST.COM STAFF  7-31-13

  Iran expected to achieve "critical capability" think tank says.

Iran is expected to achieve a "critical capability" to produce sufficient weapon-grade uranium by mid-2014, without being detected, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said in a report on Tuesday.

According to the Washington-based think tank, Iran would achieve this capability by implementing its existing plans to install thousands more IR-1 centrifuges at its declared Natanz and Fordow centrifuge sites. 

To counteract this development, the ISIS recommended that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should increase inspections of Iranian centrifuge facilities to at least twice per week.

"However," this ISIS warned in their July report, "there is an inherent limitation and dilemma to increasing the rate of inspections, despite their importance."

If the United States and Israel hesitate to strike out of fear of facing international opposition, the ISIS warned, "Iran could have time to make enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear weapons."

According to the report, breakout times at critical capability would be "so short" that there would not be enough time to organize an international diplomatic or military response.

"IAEA inaction or caution could make an international response all but impossible before Iran has produced enough weapon-grade uranium for one or more nuclear weapons," the ISIS report stated.

In its recommendations, the ISIS suggested increasing the frequency of inspections and pushing for remote monitoring of the nuclear sites as conditions for progress in negotiations. 

"The point is that by themselves these measures are not sufficient if Iran reaches critical capability," the report cautioned. 

According to the ISIS, there are reasons to conclude the Iran could now be building a new centrifuge plant, "based primarily on Iranian officials’ past statements."

A new plant could produce sufficient weapon-grade uranium relatively quickly if the centrifuges worked well, the ISIS reported.

"The immediate priority must be limiting the number and type of Iran’s centrifuges at Natanz, Fordow, or a site not yet finished," the ISIS stated, calling on the P5+1 negotiators to achieve the suggested conditions and prevent the progression of the Iranian nuclear program.

Nothing “Reasonable” About Mideast Divide Jonathan S. Tobin  7-29-13

Thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to swallow a painful and embarrassing concession to please the Palestinians, Secretary of State John Kerry had his moment of triumph today. In announcing the start of a new round of Middle East peace talks, Kerry has seemingly justified the way he has concentrated his efforts on an issue that was not in crisis mode and with little chance of resolution while treating other more urgent problems such as Egypt, Syria, and the Iranian nuclear threat as lower priorities. But now that he has had his victory, the focus turns to the talks where few, if any, observers think there is a ghost of a chance of that the negotiations can succeed despite Kerry’s call for “reasonable compromises.”

The reason for that is that despite the traditional American belief that the two sides can split the difference on their disagreements, as Kerry seems to want, the problem is much deeper than drawing a new line on a map.

Ironically, proof of this comes from a new poll that some are touting as evidence that both Israelis and Palestinians support a two-state solution. The poll (h/t Shmuel Rosner) was a joint project of the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. It shows, among other often contradictory results, that:

A majority of Israelis (62%) supports a two-state solution while 33% oppose it. Among the Palestinians, 53% support and 46% oppose the two-state solution.

But the question to ask about this poll and the conflict is what the two sides mean by a two-state solution. The answer comes in a subsequent query:

We asked Israelis and Palestinians about their readiness for a mutual recognition as part of a permanent status agreement and after all issues in the conflict are resolved and a Palestinian State is established. Our current poll shows that 57% of the Israeli public supports such a mutual recognition and 37% opposes it. Among Palestinians, 42% support and 56% oppose this step.

In other words, Israelis see a two-state solution as a way to permanently end the conflict and achieve peace. But since a majority of Palestinians cannot envision mutual recognition even after all issues are resolve and they get a state, they obviously see it as merely a pause before the conflict would begin anew on terms decidedly less advantageous to Israel.

There are lots of reasons why the peace negotiations are likely to fail. The Palestinians are deeply split with Gaza being ruled by the Islamists of Hamas who still won’t even contemplate talks with Israel, let alone peace. Kerry praised Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas today, but he is weak and hasn’t the ability to make a peace deal stick even in the unlikely event that he signs one. Though Netanyahu went out on a political limb to enable the talks to begin by releasing over 100 Palestinian terrorists, Abbas has shown in the past that he will say no, even when offered virtually everything that he has asked for. Netanyahu will rightly drive a harder bargain and refuse to contemplate a deal that involves a complete retreat to the 1967 lines or a Palestinian state that isn’t demilitarized. But it’s hard to imagine Abbas ever recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn.

But the real problem isn’t about where negotiators would draw those lines. As the poll indicates, even after Israel withdraws from almost all of the West Bank (reports indicate Netanyahu is ready to give up 86 percent of it), a substantial majority of Palestinians still can’t fathom the possibility of mutual recognition and normal relations.

How can that be?

The reason is very simple and is not something that Kerry or his lead negotiator Martin Indyk (a veteran of numerous diplomatic failures who hasn’t seemed to learn a thing from any of them) can fix. Palestinian nationalism was born in the 20th century as a reaction to Zionism and not by focusing on fostering a separate identity and culture from that of other Arab populations. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t now a separate people with their own identity, but it does explain why they see that identity as indistinguishable from the effort to make Israel disappear.

While a “reasonable compromise” can be forged in theory between two nations determined to live in peace with each other once a border is devised, it is not possible in the absence of such recognition. Given the constant incitement and fomenting of hate against Israel and Jews in the official PA media (let alone that run by Hamas), it’s difficult to see how Abbas could ever agree to anything that would require a true end to the conflict rather than a mere truce. Until a sea change in Palestinian culture that would change that takes place, this won’t happen.

Is There a Partner for Peace?

By Rabbi Joshua Gerstein 7-30-13

A recent article published in The Jewish Press (Abbas: Palestine will be Judenrein), quoting the remarks of Mahmud Abbas: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands,” must compel us to honestly ask the question, is this really the partner for peace that we have been waiting for?

Since the inception of the modern day State of Israel, peace with its Arab neighbors has always been one of its highest priorities. Though true peace is a great and noble ideal, we must not become blinded by its “siren song” and refuse to see the reality as it exists in front of our eyes. Peace is not a one sided decision or state of mind; rather peace is the state of affairs that exists between two individuals or societies when they live harmoniously with mutual understanding and respect.

We must remember that peace needs to start from the ground up and cannot and will not be successful with grand slogans coming from pontificating politicians. I believe that if we take an objective look at what is happening in the Palestinian Authority and in the character of its leader Mahmud Abbas, we will see that the basic foundation for peace, i.e. mutual understanding and respect, is far from being in place.

In addition to glorify terrorists by according them official military funerals, and proudly listing their murderous activities, the Palestinian Authority continues to educate its youth to hate and demonize both Jews and the State of Israel. The next generation of children is being taught in PA schools about their “right of return “to all of Palestine," completely negating any Jewish right to the Land of Israel.

The tragedies of the holocaust are being distorted and a glowing admiration is expressed for the exploits of Hitler in PA literature and school books. Coupled with the PLO Charter which calls for the “armed liberation of all of Palestine,” and the “elimination of Zionism in Palestine,” leads me to believe that mutual respect and understanding is considerably lacking there.

The character of Mahmud Abbas, the man who is supposed to be “our partner” in peace, should be seriously questioned. This is the man who wrote his thesis on “The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement, 1933 – 1945,” claiming that the Zionists “created the myth of six million murdered Jews," which he then went on to call a "fantastic lie” ( Morris, Benny, Exposing Abbas. The National Interest. May 19, 2011).

Abbas repeatedly refuses to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, going as far as to say on a live television broadcast: "You can call yourselves whatever you want, but I will not accept it." Is such a person really capable of mutual understanding and respect with a nation and a people which he constantly vilifies?

Since before the signing of the Oslo accords, the political establishment in the State of Israel seems to be suffering from the “battered spouse syndrome” when dealing with the issue of peace in the region. Just like in an abusive relationship where when a person is abused for a long period of time they actually come to believe that they are responsible for their own abuse, so to the political establishment believes that the conflict in the region is intrinsically its fault.

But we need to remember that the Arab riots of 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-1939 all occurred before the establishment of the State of Israel. The political establishment in Israel needs to realize that it's never a good option to stay in an abusive relationship, and giving the abuser 20% of your home so he'd leave you alone would not engender mutual understanding and respect, it would only encourage the abuser to continue their actions.

Peace must start from the ground up, not with grand slogans coming from pontificating politicians.

The writer serves as the Jerusalem Campus Rabbi for the Aardvark Israel Immersion Program. Previously, he served as Av Bayit and Talmud Instructor at Yeshivat Orayta, a post High School Yeshiva in the Old City. Originally from Lancaster, PA, Rav Josh came to Israel in 2007 and lives with his wife in Jerusalem. 

Why Are 104 Terrorists Being Released? No Good Reason

By: Barry Rubin

Published: July 30th, 2013

What is truly puzzling about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposing to release more than 100 of the worst Palestinian terrorists to have ever murdered Israelis is that it is so impossible to figure out any reason to do so.  It is not just that one might oppose this plan, it is that I cannot think of a single reason for supporting it.

Let’s go very carefully through the arguments and try to find one.

It is true, of course, that Israel has released prisoners before. Yet this was under different circumstances.

In one case,  prisoners, sometimes in very large  numbers, were released in exchange for Israeli soldiers. This could be controversial but also one could make a case for it. The prisoners might have been convicted on less serious charges or they might have been near the end of their imprisonment. There was a nobility in putting the value of Israelis high, keeping the promise of doing everything possible to release them. And while the families of the victims could be considered so were the families of the captives.

A second rationale for such releases is if there is a calculation of diplomatic gain. Perhaps the release of some prisoners will help bring a ceasefire or get serious negotiations going—when we thought that these were possible—or get some valuable gains or material benefits from the West.

I have supported such past releases, painful and dangerous as they were. But the curiosity here is why Israel is releasing the worst terrorists for no gain, not even good publicity?

Surely it isn’t to win domestic popularity because Israelis hate this decision.

Nor is it related to the previous Netanyahu strategy which has been to humor Obama, play along, keep him happy, make minimal and low-cost concessions, and let the PA show it doesn’t want to make peace.

Nor will it get Israel any good public image in Europe or America. On the contrary, the mass media will not tell the readers and viewers the extent of the crimes perpetrated by these terrorists or what would generate sympathy for the real victims. No. If anything the coverage will emphasize sympathy for the terrorists’ families and leave the impression that the terrorists were political prisoners arrested for no good reasons by the cruel occupation authorities.

Is the PA offering something? No. Any hint that the PA will suspend the demand that all Palestinians can come live in Israel (and subvert it), or that it will recognize Israel as a Jewish state, or that the pre-1970 lines be altered in Israel’s favor are simply not going to happen.

Any concession will be pocketed and then the PA will demand more. We know that. The strategy of unilateral creation of Palestine, without any deal at all, will continue.

Okay, so perhaps some big prize will be given by the United States? Like what? In Egypt and Syria the United States is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, against Israel’s interests. In Turkey, Obama loves an anti-Israel Turkish government.

Is there some secret American promise? But what is an Obama promise worth? Two examples. Obama has gone back on a pledge to support a frontier change to allow Israel to include large settlement blocs.

And then there was Turkey where President Obama personally mediated a deal with Turkey in which Israel made concessions, than did nothing when Turkey ignored all the provisions and openly broke the agreement.

In fact, remember how Obama asked Israel for a construction freeze on settlements and then gave it no credit when it did so twice!

Perhaps the secret promise pertains to Iran and its nuclear weapons drive. But what would that be? Is the Obama Administration going to attack Iran or cooperate with Israel in doing so? Of course not. And even if such a promise was made does anyone believe this?

Merely to continue past presidencies’ policies toward Israel would not be sufficient to get such continued concessions in exchange for nothing new.

Or was there a credible threat against Israel, that Obama would do something terrible or apply pressure if he didn’t get his way? Yet as the saying goes in Hebrew, yesh gavul, there’s a limit.

As for the nominal reason for the Netanyahu policy, the prime minister has said that perhaps there is some real chance for peace this time. He just doesn’t believe that.

What is the real effect of this policy?

--To undermine Israel credibility.

--To increase the risk from terrorism to Israeli citizens.

--To build confidence in Palestinian intransigence.

--To encourage Palestinians to commit terrorism believing there will be no or a reduced price. --To convince the PA’s belief that it can get something for nothing.

--To persuade Europeans and Americans that they can endlessly pressure Israelis into concessions.  (Would America release al-Qaida terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison in the belief that this would lead them to make pace?)

I just don’t get it and there is simply no proper motive for following—or needing to pursue—such a terrible policy. 

About the Author: Professor Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

 PA minister: New peace talks will help us conquer Israel later

Monday, July 29, 2013 |  Ryan Jones  

There are more than a few in the Palestinian Authority who are upset over the pending renewal of peace talks with Israel. Hamas in particular believes the move to be a detriment to the Palestinian cause.

But Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash reassured everyone last week that the political peace process is just a ruse, and part of a larger scheme to defeat their enemy.

In a sermon delivered in the presence of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV, Al-Habbash compared the US-driven peace negotiations to the Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty concluded between Islam's prophet Mohammed and the Quraish tribe of Mecca.

Peace talks with Israel at this time are "the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Mohammed] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah," Al-Habbash stated, noting that all of the Palestinians' achievements to date "never would have happened through Hamas' impulsive adventure."

Al-Habbash explained that, like Hamas, many of Mohammed's companions burned with anger that their leader was negotiating with the Quraish tribe rather than attacking Mecca. But Mohammed knew that only a more measured approach would lead to ultimate victory.

Two years after signing the treaty, Mohammed's forces had gained enough strength and he launched the brutal conquest of Mecca.

"This is the example and this is the model" that the Palestinian leadership is following, Al-Habbash acknowledged.

Amazingly, all of the doe-eyed Israeli commentators who believe that this round of negotiations is for some reason going to be different from all the previous fail to take the simple step of listening to what the Palestinians themselves are saying.

"Abbas is a real peace partner," they shout, while willfully ignoring what Abbas' own ministers are telling the public, in his name and in his presence, without any refutation by the "president."

#2.     PA MINISTER: PA AGREEMENTS ARE MODELED AFTER MUHAMMAD'S HUDAYBIYYAH PEACE TREATY

Muhammad signed a 10-year truce

at Hudaybiyyah with the tribes of Mecca,

but two years later he attacked and conquered them

PA Minister of Religious Affairs Al-Habbash, 

in the presence of Mahmoud Abbas,

compared PA agreements with Israel

to Muhammad's pact that led not to peace

but to defeat of the peace partners:

"This is the example and this is the model"

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

On the eve of the renewed peace talks with Israel, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash said in his Friday sermon that when PA leaders signed agreements with Israel, they knew how to walk  "the right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah." Al-Habbash's sermon was delivered in the presence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and was broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV.

The Hudaybiyyah peace treaty was a 10-year truce that Muhammad, Islam's Prophet, made with the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years into the truce, Muhammad attacked and conquered Mecca. The PA Minister of Religious Affairs stressed in his Friday sermon that Muhammad’s agreeing to the Hudaybiyyah treaty was not "disobedience" to Allah, but was "politics" and "crisis management." The minister emphasized that in spite of the peace treaty, two years later Muhammad "conquered Mecca." He ended his comparison by expressing the view that the Hudaybiyyah agreement is not just past history, but that "this is the example and this is the model."

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, there have been senior PA officials who have presented the peace process with Israel as a deceptive tactic that both facilitated the PA's five-year terror campaign against Israel (the Intifada), and which will weaken Israel through territorial compromise that will eventually lead to Israel's destruction.

US Bus Bomb Victims Relive Horror over Terrorists’ Release

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: July 28th, 2013

The terrorists who firfebombed a public bus in 1988 mixed glue with the gasoline to make sure the victims would suffer maximum pain

The Palestinian Authority terrorists who firebombed an Egged bus in the Jordan Valley in 1988, killing five and wounding five, made sure the wounds would be as painful as possible.

Juma'a Adem and Mahmoud Kharbish mixed glue with the gasoline, causing the flammable liquid to stick to the skin of the victims, two of whom were American-Israelis Sandy Bloom of New York City and her husband Dov of Pittsburgh.

These terrorists, among 104 who Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu wants to free, cruelly murdered a mother and her three children, an IDF soldier who tried to save them, and severely wounded five people, including the Blooms.

They were walking free at the time they firebombed the bus, after having been previously jailed for attacking Jews with Molotov cocktails.

They will go free again following Sunday's Cabinet approval of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s request to contradict his stated policy not to resume talks with the Palestinian Authority if it insists on pre-conditions, such as freeing convicted terrorists who have maimed, wounded and killed hundreds of Jews.

The Egged bus in 1988 was travelling from Tiberias, on the shores of the Kinneret, to Jerusalem. On board were Eliezer Weiss, her wife Rachel, and their three young sons.

Eliezer escaped alive. His wife and children died in the flames, and an Israeli soldier who tried to save them also did from smoke inhalation.

Dov and Sandy Bloom were living at the time at Kibbutz Maaleh Gilboa, overlooking the Jordan Valley and where they made aliyah in 1979 as part of a Bnei Akiva group from the United States. They were on the bus for a vacation and ended up in the hospital for five weeks for severe burns.

The terrorists struck at night Bloom told the Jewish Press.

“We left their children with the grandparents at the Kibbutz. We were on the bus when there was a flash and a boom,” he continued. “Within a second, we were covered with a flammable liquid and were burning up. The terrorists threw several firebombs, and one of them smashed through our window.

“The flammable liquid spilled on us, and we later found out that the terrorists mixed glue with the gasoline to cause more pain and more severe burns.

“We managed to get off the bus, and two passengers who were in the army, helped out out the flames, which inflicted second degree burns on both of us.”

The Blooms were rushed to Hadassah Hospital. It was five weeks before Dov and Sandy could leave. “We also spent years of painful recuperation with more operations and skin grafts,” Dov Bloom added.

The Blooms cannot fathom how the Israeli government can release the Palestinian Authority Arabs who murdered six others and tried to murder them.

Dov said Saturday night that the prosecutor was contemplating requesting the death penalty for the terrorists but eventually settled for life sentences.

A life sentence in Israel, unless you are Yigal Amir, usually means early release with plenty of years ahead. For terrorists, those years are not always filled with helping old ladies across the street and going to a mosque. Sometimes they mellow. Sometimes they revert to killing Jews.

“I am horrified at the thought these murderers will be walking free again,” Bloom told the Jewish Press. “Politically, it is extremely unwise to offer one-sided concessions to the Palestinian Authority, which is offering no concessions. This flies in the face of Netanyahu’s promises that ‘if you give, you will receive something in return.’

“This undermines the Israel legal system.”

Sandy Bloom recalls that when the terrorists were convicted in court, they flashed the “V’ sign for victory.

What victory?

“They are happy to kill Jews,” she answered. 

 European Courts Unravel Sanctions on Iran 

Shoshana Bryen  JULY 23, 2013 

\

Supporting sanctions against Iran is understood to be a position designed to moderate Iranian behavior regarding the acquisition of nuclear capability. It is the position of people and countries that do not want to contemplate military action by either the United States or Israel. It is the position of the European Union, the UN, Congress, the U.S. President, and Israel. As such, giving sanctions as much backbone as possible seemed an unassailable position — until Iranians began to sue in European courts to see the evidence against them. In a pattern of behavior disconnected from the possibility that they are aiding the Islamic Republic ‘s nuclear programs, European courts are obliging them.

If Iran’s acquisition of nuclear technology is a legal problem, the theory is, Iran has the same rights in Western courts as an accountant accused of stealing from the firm. But if, as many believe, Iran is planning to acquire nuclear weapons for the war in which it claims it will engage with Israel and the West, its use of the Western legal system is Lawfare (coined by Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap; meaning “the use of the law as a weapon of war”). The Lawfare Project defines it as, “The abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends.” Those ends appear to include using Western companies as a conduit for technology and financing.

Proving the link between banks or commercial enterprises and Iran’s nuclear program is frequently a matter of good intelligence, but European courts have no mechanism for keeping information secret once it is introduced, and European governments have been unwilling to compromise their information and their sources. Iran’s Bank Mellat, one of the biggest private lenders, sued in the EU General Court to challenge a 2010 freeze of its assets. It won. The court wrote that the EU was, “in breach of the obligation to state reasons and the obligation to disclose to the applicant… the evidence adduced against it.” The EU had “breached the bank’s right of defense.”

Iran’s lawyers reveled in the wonders of courts in free countries.

Reuters quoted one Maya Lester, “who represents companies and individuals in litigation concerning European sanctions, including the Iranian central bank and the country’s main tanker company, NITC,” saying, “It may be politically embarrassing, but in terms of upholding the rule of law, what the European court has done is impressive and quite brave. It shows it to be a court upholding human rights … which is not easy given how political Iranian sanctions are.”

Mentioning Iran and human rights on the same side of the same sentence is awkward enough, but there is a second problem. British courts do, indeed, have a mechanism for closed testimony on national security matters. Bank Mellat sued in Britain to have restrictions lifted and the British government produced its arguments in secret. But the court not only sided with Bank Mellat, it slammed the government for using classified information. That it did not find the secret evidence compelling is fair enough. “It turned out that there had been no point in the supreme court seeing the closed judgment [which related to the secret intelligence], because there was nothing in it which could have affected [our] reasoning in relation to the substantive appeal.” But the judges went further: “If the court strongly suspects that nothingin the closed material is likely to affect the outcome of the appeal, it should not order a closed hearing. Appellate courts should be robust about acceding to applications to go into closed session or even to look at closed material.”

In other words, said the British justices, the court should have a presumption against hearing classified information from the government. Again, if a London accountant is accused of embezzlement, the likelihood of needing a closed session is remote; in national security cases, it is not — but the judges admit no difference among defendants.

A lawyer for a group supporting the Iranians said, “Proud principles of open justice and the rule of law are casualties as the secret justice disease infects the highest court in the land. Today’s chilling judgment brutally exposes the government’s claims and lays bare its willingness to overstate the importance of secrecy to serve its own ends.”

The U.S. government and several of its European allies are becoming concerned that the legal basis for sanctions on Iran may be coming unraveled, and well they should. But the problem of sanctions is not only the legal point, there are two others:

First, there is international collusion with Iran. Iran cheats and Western banks, governments and companies help it — as do the Russians and the Chinese. New York State’s attempts to uncover Iran’s illicit money transfers by Standard Chartered Bank and its accomplice, the very well respected Deloitte & Touche, is instructive. A four-year investigation uncovered 60,000 secret transactions covering more than $250 billion dollars, and collusion in both the U.S. and the UK. Furthermore, some countries have financial interests in Iran that could be harmed. Sweden, for example, opposed the last round of sanctions because of an Ericsson telecom deal that provided the mullahs with more up-to-date technology to track the opposition through their cell phones. The volume of Germany’s trade with Iran is 4 billion euros.

Second, although sanctions have caused serious economic dislocation for the people of Iran, there is little evidence that economic sanctions force governments to change their national strategy. People starved in North Korea, while the well-fed Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear and missile programs continued apace, shipping in new, illegal, weapons and threatening neighbors. The Castro brothers have never missed even a cigar after decades of U.S. sanctions. Saddam and his sons lived palatial splendor even as the UN reported that 60,000 Iraqi children died annually as a result of sanctions-related medical and nutritional problems. And Russia, China, India and seven other countries have U.S.-supplied waivers on the purchase of Iranian oil, helping to provide Islamic Republic with hard currency.

Iran’s nuclear program is outside UN inspection. Iranian “advisors,” money and weapons make it party to the monstrous violence against civilians in Syria. It threatens the West with war and Israel with eradication both directly and with financial and military support to Hamas and Hezb’allah. Domestically, Iran has the world’s second-highest (to China) capital punishment, including dozens of public hangings. Homosexual sex and adultery (based on men’s testimony alone) are punishable by death, and women are subject to assault by “modesty police.” Demonstrators have been shot in the streets.

Iran’s interest in Western standards of law and justice goes no farther than its interest in using our laws against us. For those who believe — or hope — that economic sanctions can cripple the Mullah’s race toward nuclear capability and possibly even aid in the regime’s demise, it is disheartening to find European courts apparently neutral between the West and those who wage war upon it.

This article by Shoshana Bryen was originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

Peace Deal Would Be Temporary Arrangement Before Conquering Israel Outright Sharona Schwartz July 24, 2013

As Secretary of State John Kerry pushes full steam ahead to try to bring the Israelis and Palestinian back to the negotiation table, a new video is casting doubt regarding true Palestinian intentions and tactics. Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in an on-camera sermon on Friday hinted any peace deal secured would secretly be only a short-term arrangement by comparing it to a truce the Muslim prophet Mohammed negotiated but broke two years later.

This is just the latest example of Palestinian leaders discussing their stepwise plan to liberate Palestine from the "river to the sea," starting with the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash delivers sermon at Friday Ramadan prayers (Screenshot: Palestinian Television)

At the Friday Ramadan services, which were attended by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and broadcast on Palestinian television, Habbash explained to Muslim worshipers that Palestinian Authority officials "only through the wisdom of the leadership, conscious action, consideration, and walking the right path" are headed toward "achievement, exactly like the Prophet [Mohammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, even though some opposed it."

Palestinian Media Watch - an Israeli research institution that translates anti-Israel broadcasts in the Palestinian media - explains that the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty of 628 A.D. refers to "a 10-year truce that Mohammad, Islam's Prophet, made with the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years into the truce, Mohammad attacked and conquered Mecca."

The Religious Affairs Minister emphasized that Mohammed's choosing the path of negotiation with an enemy was not "disobedience" to Allah, but was rather "politics" and "crisis management."

Indeed, he broke the peace treaty two years later and conquered Mecca.

The Palestinian minister called Mohammed's example "the model" to be followed.

According to a transcript provided by Palestinian Media Watch, Habbash explained how Mohammed's followers who weren't enlightened as to his true intentions were upset. "The hearts of the Prophet's companions burned with anger and fury. The Prophet said: 'I'm the Messenger of Allah and I will not disobey Him.' This is not disobedience, it is politics. This is crisis management, situation management, conflict management," Habbash said, adding, "Allah called this treaty a clear victory."

In his sermon, Habbash made a distinction between the Palestinian Authority strategy and Hamas which rules Gaza, saying "All this never would have happened through Hamas' impulsive adventure." In his speech, he insisted that "We hate war. We don't want war. We don't want bloodshed, not for ourselves, nor for others. We want peace."

The Palestinian Authority has been insisting to Kerry that it will only negotiate on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, which means it refuses to agree to anything less than a full Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and east Jerusalem, including the Old City, the Western Wall and the Temple Mount which is the holiest site in the Jewish religion. Some Israeli officials refer to those borders as "Auschwitz borders," because it would leave Israel only nine miles wide at its narrowest point.

If Palestinian officials say this is just a stepping stone, the suggestion is that the true goal is to take over all of the land of Israel as part of a future Palestinian state. Note the Palestinian Authority is  considered by the U.S. and Europe to be the more moderate Palestinian leadership, as opposed to the Islamist Hamas which states openly that its goal is to destroy the State of Israel.

PMW writes, "Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, there have been senior PA officials who have presented the peace process with Israel as a deceptive tactic that both facilitated the PA's five-year terror campaign against Israel (the Intifada), and which will weaken Israel through territorial compromise that will eventually lead to Israel's destruction."

In an article discussing Friday's sermon, Palestinian Media Watch provided past quotes from Palestinian officials touting the same piecemeal peace negotiations tactic.

In 1994, Arafat also compared the Olso Accords to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah saying, "This agreement [the Oslo Accords], I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Mohammad and Quraish..."

Arafat was speaking at a mosque in Johannesburg and did not know that he was being recorded on audiotape.

Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki in 2011 tried to calm critics of the peace agreement with Israel, explaining, "the President [Mahmoud Abbas] understands, we understand, and everyone knows that it is impossible to realize the inspiring idea, or the great goal in one stroke."

"If I say that I want to remove it [Israel] from existence, this will be great, great, [but] it is hard. This is not a [stated] policy. You can't say it to the world. You can say it to yourself," Zaki told Al Jazeera.

Palestinian Authority Representative for Jerusalem Affairs Faisal Husseini said in 2001, "This effort [the Intifada] could have been much better, broader, and more significant had we made it clearer to ourselves that the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger."

"We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political staged goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure. ... [Palestine] according to the higher strategy [is]: 'from the river to the sea.' Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation," Husseini added.

There is a lot we don't know about Rouhani but this much ought to be obvious: He is a political clergyman, a loyal acolyte of Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and self-proclaimed "shadow of God upon Earth.  

Clifford D. May 7-25-13

There's nothing wrong with wishful thinking -- unless it gets confused with serious thinking. Policymakers and legislators have a professional responsibility to resist that temptation.

Yes, I have something in mind: A letter sent last week by 131 members of the U.S. House of Representatives urging President Barack Obama to "pursue the potential opportunity presented by Iran's recent presidential election." What "potential opportunity" is that? Hasan Rouhani, the new president-elect, they say, "campaigned on the promise to 'pursue a policy of reconciliation and peace' and has since promised 'constructive interaction with the outside world.'"

Should we not expect American politicians (of all people!) to demonstrate a little skepticism when it comes to "promises" made by an Iranian politician? And how much research is required to figure out that Rouhani has said nothing even to suggest that he opposes Iran's support for terrorism abroad (including past attempts to blow up airplanes and restaurants in the U.S.), gross violations of human rights domestically, threats of genocide against Israelis and, of course, illegal nuclear weapons program?

There is a lot we don't know about Rouhani but this much ought to be obvious: He is a political clergyman, a loyal acolyte of Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and self-proclaimed "shadow of God upon Earth." Were that not so, Khamenei would not permit Rouhani to become Iran's president. Remember: There were 686 registered candidates for the last election. Only eight were allowed to run. Loyalty to the supreme leader and adherence to his ideology/theology were required. Khamenei also made clear to the lucky finalists that under no circumstances are they to "make concessions to the enemies."

There are ways in which Rouhani is different from your run-of-the-mill Iranian jihandist/apparatchik: He speaks our language. He studied in Scotland. He certainly has insights into the peculiar psychology of the Westerner which may explain why, when he served as Iran's lead nuclear negotiator a decade ago, he consistently ate the lunch of those on the other side of the table.

Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has taken the trouble to read what Rouhani has written over the years. He tells me that Rouhani has candidly stressed that "one of the goals of his nuclear diplomacy was to create a wedge" between the United States and its European allies so that Iran could import nuclear technology without incurring Western penalties. By contrast, the antagonistic approach of Rouhani's predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, raised Western hackles and brought painful sanctions upon Iran.

In other words, Rouhani's "moderation" has been stylistic, not substantive. The evidence indicates that to him "constructive interaction" means persuading the enemy to let down his guard.

Which is essentially what the congressmen propose -- right after telling the president that Rouhai has "publicly expressed the view that obtaining a nuclear weapon would run counter to Iran's strategic interests."

No, actually Rouhani has expressed the view that Iran's strategic interests are best served not by obtaining "a" nuclear weapon but by developing an industrial-size nuclear capability to manufacture dozens of them. Achieving that requires spinning centrifuges and stocking up on enriched uranium until there is enough for "undetectable breakout" -- the ability to make weapons-grade uranium (or sufficiently reprocessed plutonium) so quickly that neither U.N. inspectors nor foreign intelligence agencies are aware it's happening.

This approach is not new. Alfoneh tells me it was spelled out by Abdollah Ramenzanzadeh, a spokesman for Muhammad Khatami, Iran's president from 1997-2005. Defending Khatami's record on the nuclear portfolio in 2008, Ramenzanzadeh said: "We had one overt policy, which was one of negotiation and confidence building, and a covert policy, which was continuation of the activities…" meaning advancing toward a nuclear weapons capability.

Ramezanzadeh concluded: "Today, in the field of confidence building, Japan is the most advanced country in the world, but Japan can produce a nuclear bomb in less than a week…" Exactly: The minute politicians give the command.

The congressmen advise the White House that "it would be a mistake not to test whether Dr. Rouhani's election represents a real opportunity for progress toward a verifiable, enforceable agreement on Iran's nuclear program that ensures the country does not acquire a nuclear weapon." Quite right but, perversely, no test of Rouhani is then proposed. What they recommend instead is more like a test of the United States. Washington, they say, must be "careful not to preempt this potential opportunity by engaging in actions that delegitimize the newly elected president and weaken his standing relative to hardliners within the regime…"

How in Heaven's name would it "delegitimize" Rouhani if American negotiators were to make clear that he'll be judged by his actions, not his rhetoric, and that the offers we've put on the table -- most recently during negotiations in Kazakhstan in the spring -- will remain on the table, but will be neither weakened nor sweetened in exchange for his smile?

Is it so difficult to comprehend that if we backpedal now, signaling our eagerness to appease, Rouhani will say to the hardliners: "You see how simple this can be? Do you finally understand why it is more effective to attract flies with baklava than with vinegar? And do you further grasp that, when you do it my way, the flies become calm and easier to swat at a time of our choosing?"

If last week's letter is bad advice, what should the congressmen be telling Obama instead? To stay on track -- as they should be, too. Of the 131 signers of the letter, 86 also are co-sponsors of legislation authored by Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, the top Republican and Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, establishing a de facto oil embargo against Iran as well as a significant reduction in non-humanitarian commercial trade.

The impact of sanctions is hard to gauge with precision because Tehran conceals basic economic facts. For example: If the current level of Iran's accessible foreign exchange reserves is north of $100 billion, the regime can soldier on for a long time. If, however, as some analysts believe, the Iranians have only between $20 billion and $30 billion in their coffers with a rapid rate of depletion, they could be facing imminent economic collapse.

Rouhani will have more influence on the supreme leader -- not less -- if he can warn that an oil embargo is coming and will hit Iran hard. After that, as economist Nouriel Roubini and Foundation for Defense of Democracies analyst John Hannah recently wrote, "Time is running out on peaceful options to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

Rouhani needs to be convinced that force is a credible option. Remember that in 2004, he did persuade the supreme leader to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment in response to American soldiers pulling Saddam Hussein out of a spider hole in neighboring Iraq.

In the coming months (not years), American leaders will have to decide whether, on their watch, the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, a self-proclaimed revolutionary jihadist regime that calls America "Satan incarnate," will be permitted to acquire the nuclear weapons it needs to dominate the Middle East and reshape the world order.

How wonderful it would be if, within Iran's ruling elite, there were a moderate eager to avoid this confrontation and establish amicable relations. But that is not reality. If wishes were horses, 131 members of Congress would be galloping down Pennsylvania Avenue this week. It's their job to dismount, and plant their feet firmly on the ground

PA Minister: Peace Deal Is Like Mecca Truce Broken by Muhammad

By: JNS News Service

Published: July 24th, 2013

Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash, in a sermon attended by PA President Mahmoud Abbas on the day that renewed peace negotiations with Israel were announced, compared PA peace agreements to a 10-year truce that was broken by the Prophet Muhammad after only two years.

The PA minister, according to a July 19 Palestinian Authority TV broadcast cited by Palestinian Media Watch, compared the Palestinian leadership’s approach to peace agreements such as the 1993 Oslo Accords to the “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah” between Muhammad and the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. Just like the Palestinian leadership encountered “much criticism and much opposition by some [Palestinians]” over the Oslo Accords, Muhammad was initially met with “anger and fury” from his followers for the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Al-Habbash said. Questioned at the time why he didn’t decide to conquer Mecca, Muhammad assured his followers the 10-year truce would turn out to be a “victory.”

“In less than two years, the Prophet returned and, based on this treaty, he conquered Mecca,” Al-Habbash said. “This is the example, this is the model [for contemporary agreements with Israel].”

Similarly, the Oslo Accords brought Palestinians “to where we are today,” Al-Habbash said.

“We have a [Palestinian] Authority and the world recognizes the [Palestinian] state,” he said.

In order to get the PA to agree to renewed peace negotiations with Israel, announced July 19 by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Israel agreed to release 85 Palestinian terrorists who were imprisoned before the Oslo Accords

MARTIN INDYK: THE OBJECTIVE MEDIATOR? By David Bedein blogs.timesofisrael.com  Jul 23 2013 Martin Indyk, who served two stints as US ambassador to Israel, was reported to be the choice of Secretary of State Kerry to serve as the mediator between Israel and the PLO in negotiations that may soon commence in Washington. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/martin-indyk-the-objective-mediator/ Indyk’s record as an objective mediator should be examined. Indyk is generally looked upon as the man who planned the Oslo process that gave Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population. In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War. Indyk oversaw every step of the Oslo process with that precise policy in mind - Israel giving up land that is vital to her defense. Indyk, during his stint as US ambassador to Israel. did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so, obfuscating the fact that the PLO never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant was finally canceled. The PLO never did so, yet the foreign aid money kept rolling in to the Palestinian Authority. On April 24, 1996, the PLO convened a special session of its Palestine National Council (PNC) to consider the subject of the PLO covenant cancellation. Our news agency dispatched a Palestinian TV crew to cover that session, which turned out to be the only crew that filmed the event. The film crew brought back a videotape that showed a lively discussion, the conclusion of which was to ratify Arafat’s suggestion that the PNC simply create a committee to “discuss” the subject. At my own expense, I rushed the VHS copy to Ambassador Indyk for comment, but he did not respond to that request for comment. Instead, he chose to ignore the decision of the PNC and, in moment of perjury. issued a falsified report to President Clinton and to the U.S. Congress that the PLO covenant had been canceled. As a result of Indyk’s false report, Arafat was provided with a red carpet greeting at the White House on May 1, 1996, and the PLO was only then allowed to open an office in Washington. The next day, however, Hebrew University Professor Yehoshua Porat, a former leader in Peace Now who ran on slot 13 on the Meretz ticket in 1992,an expert in Palestinian studies and fluent in Arabic, convened a press conference in which he shared protocols of the PNC session and the videotape which proved Arafat never canceled the PLO covenant. But the damage was already done. Thanks to the obfuscations of Martin Indyk, Arafat and the PLO received United States diplomatic recognition and foreign aid from the U.S., which continues to this day. In December 1998, President Clinton, finally convinced that Indyk’s 1996 covenant report was wrong, arrived in Gaza, accompanied by Indyk, where they asked for a show of hands from members of the PNC as to whether they want to cancel the PLO covenant and make peace with Israel. The real answer, however, they got the next day. Arafat’s personal spokesman, Yassir Abed Abbo, told the media that the PNC had, of course, not canceled any covenant. Yet there is more. In September, 2000, Dr. Uzi Landau, now a senior minister in the Israeli government, who served then as the head of the Knesset State Control Committee (the equivalent of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs), took the unusual step of filing a formal complaint against United States Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. Landau quoted the September 16, 2000 report in the Guardian of London that “the U.S. Ambassador to Israel yesterday urged Israel to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians.” Mr. Indyk said: “There is no other solution but to share the holy city... ” and Landau also noted that Ambassador Indyk was similarly quoted by the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz. Landau went on to say that “the timing of the speech and the political context in which it was delivered leave no room for doubt that Ambassador Indyk was calling on the Government of Israel to divide Jerusalem. Indeed, the Guardian correspondent described the remarks as ‘a sharp departure from Washington orthodoxy in recent years.’” In addition to his remarks concerning Jerusalem, Ambassador Indyk offered his views regarding secular-religious tensions in Israel and the role of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism. He also intimated his tacit support for Prime Minister Barak’s so-called secular revolution. As a commentator in the liberal daily Ha’aretz, noted: “readers are urged to imagine what the Americans would say if the Israeli ambassador to Washington were to come to a local religious institution and say such things.” Landau, who has served in a ministerial post in the Israeli government that negotiated sensitive relations between the U.S. and Israel, mentioned in his letter to Clinton that he wished to “strongly protest Ambassador Indyk’s blatant interference in Israel’s internal affairs and democratic process... I am sure you would agree that it is simply unacceptable for a foreign diplomat to involve himself so provocatively in the most sensitive affairs of the country to which he is posted. If a foreign ambassador stationed in the United States were to involve himself in a domestic American policy debate regarding race relations or abortion, the subsequent outcry would not be long in coming... Ambassador Indyk’s remarks about Jerusalem are an affront to Israel, particularly since he made them in the heart of the city that he aspires to divide. By needlessly raising Arab expectations on the Jerusalem issue, rather than moderating them, Ambassador Indyk has caused inestimable damage to the peace process. It is likewise inexplicable that Ambassador Indyk would choose to interject his private religious preferences into the debate over secular-religious tensions in Israel.” Landau made it a point even more by stating that “this is not the first time that the American Embassy in Israel has interfered in our internal affairs. In February, I wrote to you in the wake of media reports that Embassy officials were lobbying Israeli-Arab leaders regarding a possible referendum on the Golan Heights. My fear is that such interference in Israel’s affairs is rapidly becoming routine.” Landau concluded his letter to Clinton with a “request that you recall Ambassador Indyk to the United States.” Two months later, in early November 2000, Arafat’s Second Intifada terror campaign was getting underway, Indyk was strongly condemning Israel’s military actions against Arafat’s forces. Indyk remarked that what the Israelis had to do was to get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, such as Hamas, Tanzim gangs and the Islamic Jihad diplomatically. He did not mention that Arafat’s own Force 17 bodyguard, Preventive Security and other Palestinian Authority forces were also responsible for a considerable portion of the violence. Indyk never wanted to hold Arafat responsible when Arafat’s forces carried out terrorist activities. In late November 2000, when Israel issued a “white paper” on intercepted intelligence from Arafat’s headquarters that showed documentary evidence that Arafat and his mainstream PLO gangs were indeed facilitating the campaign of terror, Indyk made a special trip to Jerusalem to demand that the Israeli government withdraw its report. Indyk had just reported to the U.S. Congress that the Palestinian groups organizing the terror campaign were NOT under Arafat’s control. Eight months later, on May 21, 2001, in an address to Ben Gurion University, Indyk stuck to his guns and continued to position that Arafat and the PLO were the “U.S. colleagues in the War on Terror by telling Israel”: “What you do is you get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, Hamas, Tanzim gangs, the Islamic Jihad and you get the Israeli government to hold back the Israeli army while he does so. But that requires a great deal of energy and commitment on Arafat’s part - in very risky circumstances to take on the very angry Palestinian street - and that requires a great deal of restraint and forbearance on the part of the government of Israel.” Indyk’s admonition to Israel to turn the other cheek when it came to Arafat became his mantra.