Iranian Global Terror

15-minute video published on YouTube, Jul 22, 2012 by RightSightings:
With Civil War raging in Syria, and Israel charging Iran was behind a bombing that killed five tourists, Chris Wallace is joined by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to a compelling interview to expose the truth, and to determine which steps need to be taken to avoid further death in the future.


Transcript:
….WALLACE: With civil war raging in Syria and Israel charging Iran was behind the terror bombing that killed five tourists, we are joined now live from Jerusalem by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu…. Let's start with the civil war in Syria. How much control does President Assad have over his country at this moment?
NETANYAHU: Well, before I answer that, let me just offer my condolences on behalf of all the people of Israel to the bereaved families from this massacre in Denver and to the entire American people. I think if any people on Earth that empathize with the Americans at this time, it's the Israelis because we've been through so much of this and you've always stood by us in our grief and we stand with you.
Now, you ask does Assad have control. Look, I think the regime will go. I don't know if its days or weeks or months, but I don't think it's sustainable and I think it will go, and I’m less concerned with what replaces it. But I am more concerned with what could happen to those stocks of chemical weapons and those deadly rockets and missiles when there is no government in Syria. That's my principal concern.
WALLACE: Well, let me follow up on that because your defense minister, Ehud Barak, said the other day that Israel is prepared to seize control of those weapons if there is chaos in Syria. How will you decide whether it is time for Israel to intervene, cross the border into Syria and seize those weapons?
NETANYAHU: We hope we don't have to and we didn't necessarily consider seizing those weapons. There are other possibilities.
But I think this is a real problem. Can you imagine Hezbollah, the people who are conducting with Iran all these terror attacks around the world -- can you imagine that they would have chemical weapons? It's is like al Qaeda having chemical weapons. It's something that is not acceptable to us and not acceptable to the United States or to any peaceable country in the world.
So, I think that this is -- something will have to act, to stop it if the need arises. And the need might arise if there is a regime collapse, but not a regime change. That is, you go into chaos and all of these sundry sites are left basically unguarded. Hezbollah can come and pick at it or some other terrorist organizations or groups can come and pick at it. And that is something that is a great concern to me, as I'm sure it is to the United States.
WALLACE: Would you prefer that the United States and other Western powers act to secure these weapons? Or do you feel that Israel is going to have to protect itself?
NETANYAHU: I think this is a common concern. We have to see if there is a common action to address that concern. But in any case, we certainly don't want to be exposed to chemical weapons falling in the hands of Hezbollah or other terror groups, because that's something we can't be indifferent to. It's a great threat. We'll have to consider our action.
But do I seek action? No. Do I preclude it? No.
WALLACE: Let's turn, Mr. Prime Minister, to the terrible terror bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists this week. Have you been able to identify the bomber and have you been established clear links between that bomber and Hezbollah and Iran?
NETANYAHU: The answer is yes to all those questions. That is, certainly to Hezbollah - yes. We do know who it is. I mean, the whole world can see who it is.
We do know that it's Hezbollah. We would have known that, you have known, or been able to surmise that. But you know from Cyprus a week ago, a Hezbollah operative was caught preparing exactly the same attack, exactly the same time. You know, going to an airplane to attack, collecting information for an impending attack on Israeli tourists who get off of the plane and are about to board a bus.
So, exactly the same modus operandi was exposed in Cyprus. Fortunately there, the terrorist was caught and he admitted he worked on behalf of Hezbollah, Iran's long terror arm. Now, that you could have surmised intelligently from the proximity of these two events and the identical nature of the planned attack and the executed attack.
Here, I'm not surmising. I am giving you something that I know as the prime minister of Israel, because I know, based on absolutely rock-solid intelligence, this is Hezbollah, and this is something that Iran knows about very, very well.
WALLACE: Do you know -- you say we all know who the bomber was. Yes, we have seen a picture of the bomber, but do you know specifically his identity?
NETANYAHU: Well, that's being pieced together right now. But we know with absolutely certainty, absolutely certainty and not a shred of doubt that this was a Hezbollah operation.
WALLACE: If I may ask -- if I may ask, sir, there is a question on the part of the Obama administration, can you give us any of that evidence, hard evidence?
NETANYAHU: We certainly give it to the appropriate agencies, friendly agencies in the world.
WALLACE: You have called this an Iranian terror attack and said that Israel will respond with force. Will the retaliation be linked to Israel's possible action to stop Iran's nuclear program? Or are those two separate matters, retaliation for the response, the terror attack, and any action that you might take to stop Iran's nuclear program?
NETANYAHU: You just asked me several questions, so let me put them in context and I'll answer each one as best as I can.
The first is the context of the unfolding terror attacks that have taken place over the last two years, led by Iran, very often using Hezbollah, its terror proxy from Lebanon which it arms and funds and equips and so on. And instructs by the way.
So, what they have done over the last two years and increasingly in the last year, and in increasingly in the last few months, is to either carry out attacks -- most of which have been foiled -- or lay the ground, the foundations for future attacks in five continents and about 24 countries that we count, and the numbers actually might be bigger and that's a worldwide terror campaign, directed at us and often including others. For example, there was an Iranian attack, planned attack on the Saudi ambassador to the United States. They have taken out several senators with them. They don't particularly care. It's very brazen.
How could Iran be doing this and getting away with murder literally? It's because nobody names and shames them.
So, the reason I'm on this program is to name and shame, because Iran is using terror the way anybody uses terror. You use it in stealth. You hide behind somebody else, in order not to be given responsibility for the heinous acts. And the same is done with Hezbollah.
Well, we now have five Iranians in custody, we have two Hezbollah operatives, I believe, in custody. Some of them were found with explosives across a myriad of countries. It's them. We know it.
And it's time for all countries to point the finger at the country behind these attacks and the group that helps them and that's Iran, with Iran's proxy Hezbollah. That's the first thing we have to do. Expose those who stand behind the terror.
The second is the question that you asked is exact a price for terror, because terrorism continues as long as terrorism pays. So, you have to make sure that it doesn't pay. Exposing it is the first step to make it not pay.
And the last thing you asked about their nuclear program. I think these acts, these attacks on a busload of tourists, including a pregnant mother, tells you what kind of people we are dealing with. Now, imagine these people who are capable of doing anything, imagine them possessing nuclear weapons. People who gun down innocent people, will send suicide bombers who could block the straits of Iran, who threaten to annihilate Israel, who murdered diplomats, who have taken over your embassy, you want these people to have atomic bombs? I think this is a reminder, this wave of terror attacks, that the world's most dangerous regime must not be allowed to have the world's most dangerous weapons.
WALLACE: But the question is this -- you've got the West, the United States and our allies working with this regime to try to make a deal to stop the nuclear program. If they stop the nuclear program, would you be satisfied with a deal that leaves this regime, that this leaves the mullahs in power? Is that good enough?
NETANYAHU: Yes, if you stop the program. But so far, all these talks, and this round of talks in the last few months follows the previous round of talks that hasn't stopped the regime one bit, not an inch. I mean, since the previous rounds of talks, they have enriched material for five nuclear bombs, five nuclear bombs, that is 70 percent of the enriched material that they need, which is low grade uranium enriched. They are continuing to enrich with one bomb. They're getting very close to the 20 percent. That's the higher enrichment necessary to get 90 percent of the way to the first bomb.
So, they are basically thumbing their nose at the international community, the leading powers that are called P5-plus-1. And they are basically saying: we can talk, we can delay and we can deceive and while we continue to race towards atomic weapons. So, that's effectively what's happening.
WALLACE: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney travels to Israel next week. You have known each other since 1976 when you both work for the Boston consulting group. He says you two almost speak in short hand because you have such a close relationship.
He has promised to do exactly the opposite of President Obama when it comes to security in the Middle East. Do you understand what that means?
NETANYAHU: Well, you are not going to draw me into your politics because I have enough of mine. We can exchange notes about my politics as you want off camera, but I'm not going to get drawn into that.
I will say this, President Obama said Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, he said that containment is not an option, and that Israel must have the capacity to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. Well, these are obviously principles that I agree with and I think that it's in our common interest to make sure that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons.
But the jury is out on all of us, because the real thing, the real question is not stated policy but actual results on the ground.
WALLACE: Briefly, what do you think of Mitt Romney? And what do you think of his trip to Israel?
NETANYAHU: I think that you're far too wise a journalist to think that I'm going to get into your field of American politics. But I will say that I will receive Mitt Romney with the same openness that I received another presidential candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama, when he came almost four years ago, almost the same time in the campaign, to Israel. We -- Israel -- enjoy bipartisan support, both from Democrats and Republicans, and we extend bipartisan hospitality to both Democrats and Republicans.
WALLACE: Israel has always lived in a tough neighborhood. There's no question about that. But at least it was stable. And you knew who Assad was, and his father, and Mubarak.
When you look at the changing landscape in the Middle East now, is the so-called Arab Spring good or bad for Israel?
NETANYAHU: Well, the question is what kind of season is this? Because in fact, what is happening is there have been a tide of -- mostly, not always -- there are some exceptions, for example in Libya, it's a welcome change, welcome exception. But in general, there's been this cascade of Islamic regimes that conduct the first election but you're not sure about the next election and what's in between, because democracy -- real democracy - is something that is not particularly known here and not particularly well-observed.
If we had that, we would have nothing to fear because I think that that would be very good for peace. It would reflect the needs of all the people.
I can't tell you where the Middle East is going. Probably, the years of stability, the decades of stability that we had with Egypt, can't guarantee that they'll continue. I appreciate the fact that the United States demands, or expects, as we do, that the peace treaty will be maintained.
Syria: I know that Iran and Hezbollah, who were supporting Syria, including in the act of killing, really don't want to see a regime change, and who knows what will happen when that happens.
But I can tell you this: The Middle East is unstable because it doesn't have the political philosophy of the liberal democracy that would underpin the Arab Spring. So we may be in for a rougher ride, and we'll have to rough it out and be very strong, very resolute and very, very steady. And I think we'll be all that.
WALLACE: Mr. Prime Minister, I want to thank you so much for talking with us….

Jewish blood is cheap to the Olympic Committee

From Tablet, 17 July 2012, by Deborah Lipstadt:
For the past few months there has been a concerted effort to get the International Olympic Committee to set aside one minute of silence at the opening ceremony at this year’s games to commemorate the Israeli athletes who were murdered—not killed, murdered—at the Munich games in 1972.


Jacques Rogge president of the International Olympic Committee

FOR WHOM JEWISH BLOOD IS CHEAP



The games, held this year in London, are 17 days long. That’s 24,480 minutes. Despite the fact that petitioners were asking for only one of those minutes, it is now fairly evident that their efforts have failed. Before speculating on why the IOC has been so steadfast in its refusal, it is worthwhile to reflect on what precisely happened in Munich 40 years ago.

When the Olympics returned to Germany in 1972, the German government was intent that nothing about them evoke the memory of the 1936 Berlin games, held under the heavy hand of Nazi militarism. The Germans wanted these to be “the Happy Games.” Security would not be in evidence: Athletes freely climbed over the chain link fence surrounding the Olympic Village when they forgot their identification badges. Everything had to be relaxed. Germany had a new face to show the world.
That all changed on the morning of Sept. 5, when Palestinian terrorists from Fatah’s Black September organization scaled the fence around the Olympic Village. Armed with machine guns and grenades, they immediately killed two Israeli athletes and took nine others hostage. They demanded that Israel release 234 Palestinian prisoners and Germany release the two founding members of the Baader-Meinhof Gang.
When the release did not materialize by the late afternoon, the terrorists demanded a plane to take them to Egypt. German officials agreed but planned an ambush at the airport. The ambush was completely botched: A team of German police assigned to entrap the terrorists walked off the job as the terrorists were on their way to the airport. There were more terrorists than German snipers—and the snipers could not communicate with each other or with the officials in charge. Armored cars, which were ordered for backup, got caught in an hour-long traffic jam around the airport.
A gun battle erupted between the German forces and the terrorists on the tarmac, and the athletes, whom the captors had bound one to another in the helicopters that had brought them to the airport, were caught in the middle. When the terrorists realized that they could not escape, they shot the hostages and then threw a grenade into the helicopters to ensure that they were dead.
Competition at the games had continued until mid-afternoon that Tuesday. Only after a barrage of criticism did IOC President Avery Brundage suspend activities. Brundage, who served as president of American Olympic Committee in the 1930s, had been a great admirer of Hitler and, as late as 1971, had insisted that the Berlin games were one of the best ever. In 1936, when some Americans tried to organize a boycott of the games, Brundage fought the effort vigorously until he decided to use it as a fundraising tool. He assumed that Jews who were embarrassed by the threat of a boycott would give to the AOC and help decrease anti-Semitism in the United States. Brundage’s plan apparently came to naught.
At the Munich memorial service, held on Wednesday, Sept. 6, the day after the massacre, Brundage defiantly declared: “The games must go on.” His cry was met with cheers by the crowd. (Red Smith of the New York Times described it as more pep rally than memorial.) The games did go on, but the Los Angeles Times reporter Jim Murray described it as “like having a dance at Dachau.”
In the years since, the families of the victims have repeatedly told the IOC that all they want is a chance to mark the murder of athletes who had traveled to the games to do precisely what athletes do: compete at their very best. These victims deserved to be remembered by the very organization that had brought them to Munich.
Why the IOC refusal? The Olympic Committee’s official explanation is that the games are apolitical. The families were repeatedly told by long-time IOC President Juan Samaranch that the Olympic movement avoided political issues. He seemed to have forgotten that at the 1996 opening ceremony he spoke about the Bosnian war. Politics were also present at the 2002 games, which opened with a minute of silence for the victims of 9/11.
The families have also been told that a commemoration of this sort was inappropriate at the opening of such a celebratory event. However, the IOC has memorialized other athletes who died “in the line of duty.” At the 2010 winter games, for example, there was a moment of silence to commemorate an athlete who died in a training accident.
The IOC’s explanation is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. The athletes who were murdered were from Israel and were Jews—that is why they aren’t being remembered. The only conclusion one can draw is that Jewish blood is cheap, too cheap to risk upsetting a bloc of Arab nations and other countries that oppose Israel and its policies.
I have long inveighed against the tendency of some Jews to see anti-Semitism behind every action that is critical of Israel or of Jews. In recent years some Jews have been inclined to hurl accusations of anti-Semitism even when they are entirely inappropriate. By repeatedly crying out, they risk making others stop listening—especially when the cry is true.
Here the charge is absolutely accurate. This was the greatest tragedy to ever occur during the Olympic Games. Yet the IOC has made it quite clear that these victims are not worth 60 seconds. Imagine for a moment that these athletes had been from the United States, Canada, Australia, or even Germany. No one would think twice about commemorating them. But these athletes came from a country and a people who somehow deserve to be victims. Their lost lives are apparently not worth a minute.

Olmert: Count Your Blessings and Retire Graciously

From Isi Leibler, July 16, 2012:
Following the verdict of the Jerusalem District Court, I was very relieved that Ehud Olmert will not be behind bars, unless the “Holyland” trial determines otherwise. It would have reflected adversely on the state of Israel for a former Prime Minister to be incarcerated in addition to our former president.
However, there is a surrealistic tone to Olmert’s triumphalist responses and the arrogant predictions of his acolytes that he is now on the road to regaining the premiership.
Olmert was fortunate that the judgment declared insufficient evidence to show conclusively that he was aware of what transpired and thus unable to determine whether the cash he received was directed towards political campaign funds or for personal benefit.
This in no way makes Olmert a martyr, or provides credence to the wild accusations that he was the object of conspiracies. Olmert himself called for investigations into "right-wing American Jews" who he alleges paid millions of dollars to bring about his downfall.
His supporters are also irresponsibly demanding the resignation of State Attorney Moshe Lador because the prosecution failed to convict him on all charges. His friend, the former editor of Maariv, Amnon Dankner even called on him to "commit suicide".
Olmert should come down to earth. Despite his denials, the judges were highly critical of the fact that he received huge bundles of cash and accumulated piles of money held in the safe of Uriel Messa, which were never reported. However, his personal assistant Shula Zaken was found guilty of criminal charges – fraud and breach of trust – despite the fact that Olmert was the sole beneficiary from her actions. After the trial, Zaken told the media that she had "taken one for the team and jumped on a grenade" in order to protect her former boss.
Olmert and much of the media also trivialized the court findings in which, for the first time, an Israeli Prime Minister was convicted of a breach of trust, a criminal offense. This is hardly inconsequential and may even deny him entry into the United States.
He is being encouraged by a number of disgruntled politicians led by the discredited Chaim Ramon to reenter the political arena. Some of his old cronies in Kadima would also welcome his return. Even some of Olmert’s former bitter political enemies from the far left enthusiastically supported him as displayed by Avram Burg who was seen embracing him in court immediately before the verdict.
Olmert himself proclaimed "I will seek the premiership and take Yair Lapid with me" - obliging Lapid to issue an immediate denial.
Most Israelis are not fools and opinion polls show that the majority reject him as they did well before the Talansky scandal. They have not forgotten that Olmert was the most disastrous Prime Minister to ever rule over Israel.
His record speaks for itself. Being a successful networker with an engaging personality, he was the consummate politician. After mending his fences with Menahem Begin for having initially opposed the peace treaty with Sadat, he built up support within Likud, was a successful Health Minister and was elected Mayor of Jerusalem. He subsequently found it expedient to move to the left and became one of Ariel Sharon’s strongest supporters in implementing the disastrous unilateral disengagement from Gaza. He became Prime Minister in 2006 following Sharon’s stroke.
His political zig-zagging was most evident when the former hawk made the notorious proclamation to the left-leaning US-based Israel Policy Forum in June 2005, that "we are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies".
The 2006 Lebanon War was his undoing. After announcing that “the responsibility for the results of the war is wholly mine”, his own handpicked Winograd commission, produced a scathing condemnation of the conduct of the war. The report stated that it was guilty of a "major and grave missed opportunity" to inflict a major defeat of Hezbollah and restore Israel's shattered deterrence. It referred repeatedly to “failures” and “flaws” in the "decision-making procedures" and "strategic thinking and planning" which prevailed throughout the entire 34 days of the war.
In any normal democratic country, such an adverse report by an independent commission on a Prime Minister’s performance during a time of war would have automatically led to a resignation. Olmert refused and, making a mockery of public accountability, even had the chutzpa to claim that the findings exonerated and "lifted the moral stigma" from him.
However, desperate to regain status, he offered the Palestinians a deal that they could not resist, warning Israelis that if he failed, "the state of Israel is finished".
At the Annapolis conference in October 2007, he groveled to the Palestinians, virtually adopting their narrative, even referring to "terrorism and incitement whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis", implying that both parties were equally culpable
Without Knesset or cabinet approval, he launched into closed-door negotiations with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and - ignoring the need for defensible borders and a security presence along the Jordan River - offered Palestinians 98.1% of the West Bank. Despite public undertakings that he would not negotiate over Jerusalem, he offered to cede sovereignty of the Old City including the Temple Mount to an international trusteeship. He also offered to allow a number of Arab refugees to settle in Israel with no reference to restitution for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries expelled in 1948. Abbas rejected his offer, although it is most unlikely that Israelis would have endorsed these concessions.
Yet, since then the Palestinians insist that the benchmark for future negotiations with Israel be based on Olmert’s unauthorized offers.
When Olmert was indicted on charges of corruption, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni turned against him, and to the relief of most Israelis who had lost confidence in him even before these charges emerged, he was obliged to stand down.
Out of office, he launched into historical revisionism, claiming that had he remained Prime Minister, Israel would have consummated peace with the Palestinians and Syria! He globally campaigned against the government, holding it responsible for the breakdown in negotiations with the Palestinians, encouraging the Obama administration to intensify its pressure against Israel. Olmert aligned himself with far-leftists and even delivered the keynote annual address for J Street, considered an anathema by the majority of American Jews.
There is no precedent of any former Israeli Prime Minister behaving in such an unconscionable and irresponsible manner.
Presumably under legal advisement, after his initial triumphalist outbursts immediately following the court verdict, Olmert subsequently contradicted everything he had said, proclaiming that he had no intention of reentering politics. However, in light of his consistent record of breaching undertakings, little credence should be given to such remarks.
If Olmert had any sense he should thank his lucky stars that he is not going to jail, pray that he overcomes the “Holyland” trial, adhere to his undertaking to keep out of politics and graciously retire.

West-Bank-istan on top of Gaza-stan?

From JPost, 20 July 2012, by Martin Sherman:

"The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring its actual implementation in practice. The number of agreements the Arabs have violated is no less than number which they have kept." – Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now (1978)
... in redoubling their efforts to reach their preferred mode of resolution of the Palestinian issue, [two-state advocates] seem to have forgotten that the real aim is not an agreement on the establishment of a Palestinian state, but long-term stability and security for Israel.
...[The] continued pursuit [of a two-state solution] will almost inevitably bring about a situation that directly negate the values invoked for its adoption, and precipitate consequences which are the antitheses of those its advocates intended.
The insistence ...regarding the desirability and feasibility of the two-state paradigm has arguably done more than anything else to nourish the ongoing delegitimzation of the Jewish state and the Zionist enterprise.
....Dershowitz suggested that the West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas:
• Those that are relatively certain to remain part of Israel.
• Those that are relatively certain to become part of a Palestinian state.
• Those reasonably in dispute (which may well remain part of Israel, but subject to negotiated land swaps).
He proposes that “there would be no Israeli building in those areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state” and “no limit on Israeli building within areas likely to remain part of Israel,” but says nothing about constraining Arab building in these areas – assuming of course any relevant Palestinian negotiator would agree a priori that there are any such areas – itself a giant leap of optimistic faith.
His attitude to the “disputed” areas is especially revealing. He states the “freeze [on Israeli construction] would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and which part of the new Palestinian state.”
Yet he seems to prejudge the outcome of the “dispute,” by refraining from placing a similar freeze on the Palestinians.
And to eliminate any lingering doubt about how Dershowitz really intends the fate of the these “disputed” areas – in which he includes “some of the large settlement blocs such as Ariel” – to be determined, he declares: “An absolute building freeze would be a painful but necessary compromise. It might also encourage residents of the West Bank to move to areas that will remain part of Israel, especially if the freeze were accompanied by financial inducements to relocate.”
Clearly, if the Palestinians are permitted to build in these areas where Jews are not only barred from doing so, but “induced” to evacuate, deeming them “disputed” is little more than a ruse.
For if Palestinian development is allowed, while Jewish development is stifled, the obvious intention is for the area to eventually be transferred to the Palestinians.

Prejudicial
The issue of financial inducements for residents of Judea and Samaria to relocate is of particular importance, for it is a proposal that has been raised with increasing frequency by a number of prominent twostaters, both Israeli and non-Israeli.
Apart from Dershowitz, it has been suggested by former president of the Union for Reform Judaism Eric Yoffie, United Jewish Israel Appeal head Mick Davis, former US diplomat Dennis Ross, US pundit Peter Beinart, former adviser to Ehud Barak Gilead Sher and former Shin Bet head and Labor politician Ami Ayalon, to name a few.
Yet although two-staters appear to have no ethical inhibitions regarding the principle of providing economic incentives to induce people to move, when it comes to its practical application, their preferences seem wildly prejudicial....
While they see nothing wrong with funding relocation of Jews to facilitate the establishment of what in all probability will be a failed micro-mini-state providing a haven for radical Islamist terror groups, they recoil in horror at the idea of funding relocation of Palestinians to prevent its establishment....
After all, the only way the putative Palestinian state will not become a haven for Arab terror organizations is for the Palestinians to behave in a manner diametrically opposed to the manner in which they have behaved for seven decades – arguably even longer.
...unless we are prepared to embrace the bizarre formula, recently proposed by Shimon Peres, that peace should be pursued with “our eyes closed,” deleting any record of the past from our memories; unless we are prepared to totally dismiss the lessons of experience, clearly continued support for two-statism is fraught with risk and bereft of rationality.
...Two-statism is fatally flawed in its morality because its proponents insist on the implementation of measures that will expose millions of Israelis (and eventually Palestinians) to dire dangers that have regularly resulted from previous attempts to implement similar measures. The only formula they furnish for contending with these dangers is to hope they won’t occur, without providing any compelling explanation for that.

...And Plan B is?
... over the past two decades, during which the goal of two-states has been vigorously pursued, with huge international endorsement and massive financial backing, all the warnings of the dangers by its opponents have proved true...
...what if – as in the past – any territory ceded to [the Arabs] is used to mount attacks on Israel? What is the two-staters’ Plan B?
These issues are becoming ever-more pressing and pertinent, especially since all the post-Arab Spring developments across the region make the prospects for two-stater success even more remote, and failure more perilous than ever.

A mega Cast Lead?
But even if we suppose, despite the odds and the evidence, that two-staters are right, and it is possible to locate some mythical moderate Palestinian who is prepared to sign an agreement with Israel in good faith and who genuinely intends to honor it, how is implementation to be ensured? After all as Peres, in a more lucid era, pointed out: “The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring its actual implementation in practice.”
What if for reasons of political – or physical – survival, that moderate Palestinian was forced to renege on the agreement? What if he was unable/unwilling to rein in renegade radicals backed by rejectionist regimes or organizations? What if he was removed from power – either by the ballot or the bullet – and replaced by successors whose raison d’etre was repudiation of the recognition of Israel? After all, as Peres once observed: “The number of agreements the Arabs have violated is no less than the number which they have kept.”
What if, after it is established, it turns out that the Palestinians really meant what they said – that the founding of a Palestinian state is (merely) a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel? What if they really believe their National Charter, that “the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel, are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time?” What if they act to promote this belief? What if the residents of the Coastal Plain are subjected to anything even remotely approaching what the residents of Sderot have been subjected to for years? This is not an implausible prospect and twostaters have moral duty to provide a plausible contingency plan to respond to it.
Would they demand that Palestinian sovereignty be revoked and the Palestinian state be annulled, because it was established under false pretenses? Would they endorse a massive military campaign in the “West Bank” to quell the violence that made the maintenance of socioeconomic routine in the Tel Aviv area impossible? On a scale and intensity far greater than the IDF’s 2008/9 Operation Cast Lead in Gaza? Along a front much longer (about 400-km. long as opposed to 50 km.)? In topographical terrain far more disadvantageous? ...

Israeli Tourist bus bombed in Bulgaria

From JPost, 19 July 2012, by HERB KEINON, YAAKOV KATZ:

Netanyahu blames Iran for bombing near Burgas airport, vows to act "forcefully" against Tehran-backed terror on targets abroad.

Photo: Zaka

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu blamed Iran on Wednesday for the bomb attack that killed at least seven people and wounded dozens more on a bus carrying Israelis just outside the airport in Burgas on the Black Sea coast.

Netanyahu, who said “all signs lead to Iran,” warned that Israel would respond forcefully against Iranian terrorism.

The blast on the bus occurred soon after a charter plane, Air Bulgaria flight 392 from Ben-Gurion Airport, landed at 4:45 p.m. The bus was the second of four carrying Israeli tourists from the airport to hotels in the city.

The explosion also damaged two of the other buses.

The explosion is believed to have been caused by a bomb placed either underneath the bus or in its luggage compartment.

Eyewitnesses said people jumped out of the windows to extricate themselves from the carnage.

One eyewitness, Shoshi Ayaler, told Channel 2 that the Israelis had just gone through passport control and were directed to the buses.

“We placed our bags in the luggage compartment and after a couple of minutes the bus burst into flames,” she said.

Her son Guy said that “people who survived the blast escaped through the windows so as not to walk over corpses.” He said the injured were evacuated to the hospital and the rest were returned to the terminal.

“Over the last few months alone we have seen Iranian attempts to attack Israelis in Thailand, India, Georgia, Kenya, Cyprus and other places,” the prime minister said in a statement.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu raised the threat of Iranianbacked terrorist attacks on Israeli targets, during a meeting with Hungarian President Janos Ader. He also mentioned this threat at Sunday’s cabinet meeting, when he pointed a finger at Iran for trying to carry out a thwarted attack in Cyprus earlier this month.

Security officials said a similar plot – the bombing of an Israeli tourist bus in Bulgaria – was foiled earlier this year.

Wednesday’s attack came on the 18th anniversary of the bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people and wounded more than 300.

Referring to that attack, which an Argentinean court blamed squarely on Iran, Netanyahu said that nearly two decades later, “deadly Iranian terrorism continues to strike at innocent people.

This is a global Iranian terror onslaught and Israel will react forcefully to it.”

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the attack was part of a “long battle” that Israel was waging against attempts by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israeli targets overseas. He urged Israelis to continue traveling abroad and vowed that the defense establishment would use all its force to “get its hands on the perpetrators and the plotters.”

Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev, Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov and the country’s interior minister all rushed to the scene of the bombing. Israel and Bulgaria have close ties and the Bulgarian resorts on the Black Sea coast are popular vacation destinations for Israelis, especially for youth.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman was in contact with Mladenov, who said that six people were killed at the scene, and a seventh died in the hospital.

Thirty other people were wounded, including two in critical condition.

The Foreign Ministry’s situation room immediately went into operation after the blast, and received scores of calls from worried relatives. Deputy director- general Gideon Meir said the ministry efforts were focused on three areas: providing help to the injured, providing logistical assistance for other Israeli tourists in the area and identifying the bodies.

Meir said that two Israeli planes were expected to land in Burgas after midnight with two Israeli doctors, seven paramedics, a psychologist and three Foreign Ministry workers to supplement the staff from the embassy in Sofia who went to Burgas.

Liberman, in a conversation with Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU, said that in addition to dealing with the dead and wounded, Israel would work on all levels to ensure directly or indirectly that all those involved in the attack “pay the price.”

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Nitzan Nuriel, the former head of the Counterterrorism Bureau, said Hezbollah and Iran could have recruited operatives.

“Hezbollah has a presence in Bulgaria and there have been attempts that were thwarted there before,” said Nuriel, who stepped down from his post earlier this year. “They could have relied on the local Muslim community or [their terrorists could have] crossed into Bulgaria from Turkey. It is quite easy.”

...Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called for European countries to include Hezbollah in their list of terrorist organizations.

Israel had asked Bulgaria to increase its security over Israeli tour groups in the capital city of Sofia. According to Sofia News Agency, a Hezbollah plot was earlier uncovered by local security agencies, which warned Israel. There was no travel advisory in effect for Bulgaria on Wednesday.

Just a few hours before the attack, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement marking 18 years since the Buenos Aires bombing.

“The pain and sorrow we feel is added to the difficult feeling we have that those responsible for this attack were not yet brought to justice,” the statement said.

“Israel condemns Iran for standing behind terror attacks around the world by funding training and arming terrorist organizations.”

Deconstructing Discriminatory Dershowitz

From JPost, 12 July 2012, by Martin Sherman:



Martin Sherman



Alan Dershowitz

...I feel a certain discomfort in ...[contradicting] such a staunch supporter of Israel as Dershowitz. But his good intentions are no guarantee of the quality – or the consequences – of his political prescriptions, and given his significant public influence and considerable media access, his well-meaning but ill-advised proposals cannot go unchallenged.
This is particularly true of his recent offering in The Wall Street Journal, “A Settlement Freeze Can Advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” ...
Dershowitz correctly observes: “Israel accepted a 10-month freeze in 2009, but the Palestinian Authority didn’t come to the bargaining table until weeks before the freeze expired. Its negotiators demanded that the freeze be extended indefinitely. When Israel refused, they walked away from the table.”
He then cautions that if the government imposed a similar freeze now: “There is every reason to believe that... they would continue such game-playing especially in light of current efforts by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to form their own unity government, which would likely include elements opposed to any negotiation with the Jewish state.”
But what conclusion does Dershowitz draw from his recognition of proven bad faith in the past, and of probable increased rejectionism in the future? Rather than following the logic that his own analysis seems to dictate, i.e. either that negotiations are futile, or that more generous offers be made, he advocates neither.
Instead, he makes the astounding suggestion that the Palestinians be coaxed back to the negotiating table by offering them... less than what they have already rejected. Go figure.

The Time is Ripe for “bold peace offers”?
According to Dershowitz, given the giant-sized ruling coalition in Israel, “the time is ripe for that government to make a bold peace offer to the Palestinian Authority”..
The problem with making “bold peace offers” is not that they endanger the ruling coalition, but that they have proved totally unproductive – indeed counter-productive – resulting in nothing but Palestinian demands for yet further concessions.
At some stage, repeating increasingly risky offers ceases to be “bold” and become just “bonkers.” ...apart from the unrequited unilateral 10-month freeze on construction in the “settlements,” Israel has, among other things:
• Withdrawn from major populations centers in Judea and Samaria;
• Unilaterally evacuated the Gaza Strip, erasing every vestige of Jewish presence;
• Unearthed its dead from graveyards;
• Demolished settlements in northern Samaria; and
• Allowed armed militias to deploy adjacent to its capital, within mortar range of its parliament.
The Palestinians have responded with vitriolic Judeophobic incitement and vicious Judeocidal terror, even from within – especially from within – areas transferred to their control. (Imagine the storm of international outrage that would erupt if the mainstream Israeli media dared to depict the Palestinians as the mainstream Palestinian media depicts the Israelis. Ah! The soft racism of low expectations.)

Misguided moral equivalence
Despite the accumulation of unequivocal evidence, [Dershwitz] still appears loath to recognize the recurring bad faith on the part of the Palestinians and to acknowledge the continual and concrete good faith shown by Israel.
In a breathtaking display of misplaced moral equivalence, he has the temerity to suggest that his proposal will not only provide “a good test of the bona fides of the Palestinian side [but].. would also test the bona fides of the Israeli government.”
...[But] Israel has made the Palestinians offers more farreaching than Dershowitz’s proposal, which were all rejected.
... it is entirely unclear why his proposal should have any chance of acceptance by the Palestinians – or how it could contribute to any further clarification of the two sides’ bone fides.

Why Should Less of What Failed Before Now Succeed?
...the Palestinians spurned the construction freeze, [and]... they are likely to do so again.
Moreover, ...the future Palestinian government may well include elements opposed to any negotiations. Yet despite all this, [Dershowitz] suggests that negotiations be commenced with an Israeli offer of a “conditional freeze,” to commence “as soon as the Palestinian Authority sits down at the bargaining table, and... continue as long as the talks continue in good faith.”
This, of course, leaves us to puzzle over two things:
(a) If the implementation of the previous unconditional freeze did not induce the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table, why on earth should the mere promise of a conditional one do so?
(b) Even assuming that it did, given the past acrimony, reproach and disagreement between the sides, what would be the criteria for determining – and who would be the arbiter to determine – whether the talks were in fact “continuing in good faith”? Obama? The State Department? The EU? Egypt? The Arab League?
I am sure that, on reflection, Dershowitz might admit that this could be a touch problematic, with Israel risking being locked into a perpetual construction freeze by a biased adjudicator of Palestinian “good faith.”
Or would Israel be able to decide this unilaterally and revoke the freeze at will whenever disagreement arose? If so, why would the Palestinians agree to an arrangement which give Israel the power to judge their good faith?

Is Borders the "First Issue"?
Dershowitz asserts: “The first issue on the table should be the rough borders of a Palestinian state.” Oh really! ...
...he prescribes: “Setting those [rough borders] would require recognizing that the West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas: Those that are relatively certain to remain part of Israel, such as Ma’aleh Adumim, Gilo and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem [presumably Gush Etzion with a population of about 70,000 Israelis – M.S.].
“Those that are relatively certain to become part of a Palestinian state, such as the vast majority of the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank beyond Israel’s security barrier.
“Those reasonably in dispute, including some of the large settlement blocs several miles from Jerusalem such as Ariel (which may well remain part of Israel, but subject to negotiated land swaps).”
...Does [Dershowitz] seriously imagine that there is any relevant Palestinian negotiating partner who would agree – a priori – that the areas he designates as “relatively certain to remain part of Israel” are indeed relatively certain to remain part of Israel? Does he know of any Palestinian who would agree that the areas that include “the large settlement blocs such as Ariel” are “reasonably in dispute”?
Although Dershowitz continues that “this rough division is based on prior negotiations and positions already articulated by each side,” it is not at all clear to what – or to whom – he is referring, certainly not with regard to the Palestinians.
For to launch Dershowitz’s initiative, some mealy-mouthed, ambiguous – and deniable – inference, surreptitiously whispered in some covert meeting in some discrete location, scrupulously shielded from the public eye – and hence totally devoid of any binding political commitment – will not suffice.
What is needed is for it to be declared, overtly and officially, as the Palestinians’ publicly proclaimed position for the commencement of negotiations. Good luck with that.
Can any Palestinian afford to be seen to be less Palestinian than Barack Obama, who stipulated the pre-1967 lines as the starting point for delineating the “rough borders of the Palestinian state,” especially, as we have seen, Dershowitz himself notes the PA is striving to set up a unity government with Hamas, which opposes any negotiations with Israel.

Durability...
Given the winds blowing throughout the Arab world, the durability and credibility of Palestinian “good faith” becomes crucial, not only because of the grave consequences of territorial concessions for Israel’s security. It is equally crucial for the application of the core element of Dershowitz’s proposal – “conditional freeze” of settlement construction – which if anything is even more problematic than his geographical division of the “West Bank.”
For he is completely mistaken when he claims: “If there can be agreement concerning this preliminary division – even tentative or conditional – then the settlement-building dispute would quickly disappear.”
Nothing could be further from the truth, or more conducive to potential friction – especially the part about the agreement being “tentative or conditioned.”

Discrimination...
[Dershowitz] stipulates that “there would be no Israeli building in those areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state” but refrains from precluding Palestinian building “within areas likely to remain part of Israel” – which fair and balanced impartiality would seem to call for. Wouldn’t it?
His attitude to the “disputed areas” is even more discriminatory.
He states: “The conditional freeze would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and which will become part of the new Palestinian state.... An absolute building freeze would be... a painful but necessary compromise.”
But would the Palestinians be prevented from building in these disputed areas “until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and which will become part of the new Palestinian state”? You know, so as not to prejudge the outcome? And if not, why not?
Significantly, he adds: “It might also encourage residents of settlements to move to areas that will remain part of Israel, especially if accompanied by financial inducements to relocate.” Really! Financial inducements for relocation of Jews in “disputed areas”– but not for Arabs? ...

Syria moves chemical weapons

From Israel Hayom, 14 July 2012:
WASHINGTON — U.S. officials said that Syria has started to move part of its chemical weapons arsenal out of storage facilities...
The country's undeclared stockpiles of sarin nerve agent, mustard gas and cyanide ...[are] believed to be the world's largest stockpile.
...Some fear Assad may want to use the weapons against rebels or civilians, while others said perhaps he is trying to safeguard them from his opponents...
"This could set the precedent of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] being used under our watch," one official told the [Wall Street] Journal. "This is incredibly dangerous to our national security."
... administration officials have already begun to hold classified meetings about the new intelligence. The officials are especially concerned over Syria's stockpile of sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent. The officials wouldn't comment on where the weapons have been moved...
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland...said Friday, "We repeatedly made it clear that the Syrian government has a responsibility to safeguard its stockpiles of chemical weapons."
She added that "the international community will hold accountable any Syrian officials who fail to meet that obligation."
Syria is one of eight states — along with Israel and nearby Egypt — that have not joined the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, which means the world's chemical weapons watchdog has no jurisdiction to intervene there....

Syrian Regime massacres 200 civilians in rebel village of Tremseh

From Israel Hayom, 14 July 2012:
... more than 200 Syrians, mostly civilians, were massacred on Thursday in a village in the rebellious Hama region when it was bombarded by helicopter gunships and tanks and then stormed by militiamen who carried out execution-style killings, opposition activists said.
If confirmed, it would be the worst single incident of violence in 16 months of conflict in which rebels are fighting to topple Assad and diplomacy to halt the bloodshed has been stymied by jostling between world powers.
Activists said it took place on Thursday, while the U.N. Security Council negotiated a new resolution on Syria. Washington and its allies said it showed the need for tough action, but Russia ruled out accepting their latest draft.
The Revolution Leadership Council of Hama told Reuters the Sunni Muslim village of Tremseh was subjected on Thursday to a barrage of heavy weapons fire before pro-government Alawite militiamen swept in and killed victims one by one. Some civilians were killed while trying to flee.
Opposition reports suggested that rebels from the Free Syrian Army, fighting to overthrow Assad, were stationed in the village.
"More than 220 people fell today in Tremseh. They died from bombardment by tanks and helicopters, artillery shelling and summary executions," the regional opposition group said in a statement on Thursday evening.
Syrian state television said three security personnel had been killed in fighting in Tremseh and accused "armed terrorist groups" of committing a massacre there.
Fadi Sameh, an opposition activist from Tremseh, said he had left the town before the reported killing spree but was in touch with residents. "It appears that Alawite militiamen from surrounding villages descended on Tremseh after its rebel defenders pulled out, and started killing the people. Whole houses have been destroyed and burned from the shelling.
"Every family in the town seems to have members killed. We have names of men, women and children from countless families," he said, adding many of the bodies were taken to a local mosque.
Ahmed, another local activist, told Reuters: "So far, we have 20 victims recorded with names and 60 bodies at a mosque. There are more bodies in the fields, bodies in the rivers and in houses ... People were trying to flee from the time the shelling started and whole families were killed trying to escape."
Footage of the aftermath of the reported massacre had yet to appear on activists' websites and the reports could not be independently confirmed. Syrian authorities severely limit access for independent journalists.
A detailed account by activists before news of the massacre emerged said at 6:00 a.m. on Thursday (0300GMT), a convoy of 25 vehicles carrying army and security forces, 3 armoured vehicles and five trucks mounted with artillery passed West through the town of Muharda and headed toward the village of Tremseh.
"They blockaded the village from all four sides and began violently and randomly firing on houses as a helicopter flew overhead. As the attack happened the electricity and telephone lines were cut. Residents gathered in the streets in a state of fear and panic. They were unable to flee because of the blockade from every side," the report posted on activist Web sites said.
"After that, fierce clashes erupted between the heroic Free Syrian Army and Assad's army. Assad's gangs attacked the village school and completely destroyed it. Many people were injured."
A tweet from U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said: "Reports of Traymseh massacre are nightmarish - dramatically illustrate the need for binding UNSC measures on Syria."

Genocidal Sudan to Win Seat on U.N.’s top human rights body

From UN Watch, 12 July 2012:
GENEVA, July 12 - The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch urged United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to urgently speak out against the African-backed bid by Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir, indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court, for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir, indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court

Last week, the U.S. failed to get the council to pass a condemnation of what it said was a Syrian candidacy for 2014.
The NGO UN Watch also called on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU's Catherine Ashton to denounce and fight against Sudan's candidacy.
"Electing Sudan to the U.N. body mandated to promote and protect human rights worldwide is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of a women's shelter," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.
UN Watch already heads an international campaign of MPs and human rights groups opposing the candidacies of Venezuela and Pakistan.
The U.N.'s African group of states agreed behind closed doors to endorse the candidacies of Ethiopia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Sudan. Because Africa has arranged for five countries to run for the same amount of allotted seats, Sudan's election is virtually assured.
"Technically," said Neuer, "Sudan must still receive an absolute majority of 97 affirmative country votes in the U.N. General Assembly's November election for new human rights council members. However, in the history of these ballots, names presented on a closed slate have never been rejected. It's just the way U.N. ambassadors work. And the fact is that Sudan has been chosen to head various U.N. groupings, so its election to the UNHRC, however outrageous, is a real possibility."
Neuer said that UN rights chief Navi Pillay, who hails from South Africa, could make a big difference by speaking out. "We need her to be the moral voice here, to urge other African countries to put their names forward, and to call for unequivocal opposition to Sudan's scandalous bid. Her role is crucial."
"Just a year after the human rights council sought to exorcise the ghosts of its past by suspending Col. Muammar Qaddafi's Libya -- which infamously chaired the body in 2003, and was reelected a member in 2010 -- it is now set to replace him with a tyrant wanted for genocide by the International Criminal Court. For how long must we have the inmates running the asylum?"
"The U.N. and the cause of human rights will be severely damaged if Al-Bashir's Sudanese regime wins a seat," said Neuer.
UN Watch also called on the U.S. and the EU to lead a vigorous campaign to defeat Sudan's candidacy, and to ensure there will be competition on the African slate of candidates.
"Last year, the democracies fought a successful campaign to defeat Syria, by persuading other countries to compete. Yet they said and did absolutely nothing in 2010 on Libya -- perhaps due to lucrative oil and business deals -- and Qaddafi won by a landslide. It's vital this year that the US and the EU announce early that they are opposed to having the oppressive Sudanese regime of Al-Bashir Assad judging the world on human rights," said Neuer.
Neuer said that Sudan clearly failed to meet the criteria of UNGA Resolution 60/251, which established the UN Human Rights Council in 2006. General Assembly members are obliged to elect states to the Council by "tak[ing] into account the candidates’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto." The resolution also provides that consideration ought to be given to whether the candidate can meet the obligations of Council membership, which include (a) to "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" and (b) to "fully cooperate with the Council."

Lifestyles of Rich, Palestinian Cronies

From the Washington Free Beacon, July 11, 2012, by Adam Kredo:

Palestinian Authority president stealing millions in aid, Middle East experts say

Mahmoud Abbas / AP

 

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has allegedly deposited nearly $13 million in U.S. taxpayer aid into a secret bank account, and routinely uses his political connections to profit from the stagnant peace process, according to testimony presented to Congress Tuesday by several Middle East experts.
Abbas has enriched himself during his seven years in office through secret land deals, and helped his two sons earn millions of dollars through their stakes in companies that profit from U.S. assistance, the experts said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing entitled “Corruption within the Palestinian Political Establishment.
Abbas’ sons—Yasser and Tareq—have used their government ties to secure plum contracts and special treatment for business partners, according to Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
The corruption just scratches the surface of the Palestinian first family’s shady dealings, experts warned.
Abbas has “used his position of power to line his pockets,” declared Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. “Our policy must aim to empower those who seek to serve the Palestinian people instead of themselves.”
Though Abbas and the PA are considered to be a safer, more moderate alternative to the terror group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, the corrupt Abbas regime has poisoned peace talks as it seeks to secure power, experts and lawmakers said.

“The consistent choice of Palestinian President Abbas is a path that has kept him in office...
As a major political donor to the Palestinians, we need to be extremely concerned that our aid will be construed as support for a corrupt regime...
It is the failure of the Palestinians to say ‘Yes’ that has prevented them from having a state of their own—not the [security] fence, not the settlements … not the [Israeli Defense Forces], not [Israeli] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu or anyone else...” [Rep. Gary] Ackerman said.

The Obama administration is not providing proper oversight for the $600 million in U.S. foreign aid to the P.A., Schanzer noted.
“Washington should simply acknowledge that there is a problem,” he said. “The staff at the U.S. Consulate General in East Jerusalem reportedly knows that Palestinians believe their ruling elites are corrupt. But for reasons that are not entirely clear, the State Department has yet to issue a clear statement to address the issue, or what it intends to do about it.”
Elliott Abrams, a former national security adviser for George W. Bush, recounted the behind-the-scenes talks he had with Arab leaders who refused to support the P.A.’s corrupt institutions.
“I can tell you from my own experience, as an American official seeking financial assistance for the P.A. from Gulf Arab governments, that I was often told, ‘Why should we give them money when their officials will just steal it?” said Abrams, who noted that 82 percent of Palestinians believe their government is unethical. “Corruption is an insidious destroyer not only of Palestinian public finances but of faith in the entire political system.”
The extent of Abbas’ shady dealings has come to light in recent months, Schanzer revealed in his testimony.
The Palestinian president is alleged by a former official to have stashed away $39 million in a secret bank account in Jordan, according to reports in the Arab press and elsewhere. Only Abbas and two of his closest confidants have access to the account, which is said to contain $13 million in U.S. funds.
Opposition websites in the West Bank have further alleged that Abbas earned $160 million from the sale of Palestine Liberation Organization-owned property in Lebanon, and that he owns “lavish properties worth more than $20 million in Gaza, Jordan, Qatar, Ramallah, Tunisia and the [United Arab Emirates],” according to Schanzer’s research.
Abbas’ sons have also sought to profit from their father’s political position, Schanzer said.
Yasser Abbas “served in an official capacity for the P.A., including as a special envoy to Canada in 2007,” and “regularly accompanies his father on official travel,” Schanzer said.
Yasser manages a construction company that routinely “does public works projects … on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.” He also reportedly owns a corporation that received $1.89 million from USAID “to build a sewage system in the West Bank town of Hebron,” Schanzer’s report states.
Additionally, the P.A. “granted diplomatic passports in 2009 to two business partners of the Abbas brothers,” Schanzer revealed, based on conversations with current and former intelligence officials in the U.S. and elsewhere.
“The passports, according to these officials, ‘entitle [the business associates] to travel internationally with immunity’ normally afforded to Palestinian diplomats,” Schanzer said.
Yasser Abbas has also attempted to engage in oil-related business in Sudan via the Caratube International Oil Company, a transaction that was facilitated by “Palestinian Authority ambassador to Sudan” Sayed al-Masri, the report states.
Since Schanzer and various news outlets first revealed some of these business ties, some of the websites and online sources affiliated with the Abbas brothers have been removed in an apparent attempt to hide their involvement.
“Washington’s foreign policy elites are largely unaware of the problem, or have chosen to ignore it,” Schanzer told the committee. “If the problem goes unsolved and Palestinian frustration [with the corruption] festers, it could threaten regional stability.”
Abrams noted in his testimony that President Abbas has insulated himself against legal inquiries into his business practices.
“He has been particularly allergic to such inquiries, and his reaction to allegations has often been swift—and illegal,” Abrams said.
Both Abrams and Schanzer also outlined their concerns with the Palestine Investment Fund, an independent investment company established to bolster Palestinian institutions. The organization has faced scrutiny for being a tool of Abbas and his cronies.
“My most serious lingering concerns stem from indications that the fund is not as transparent or independent as it was first intended to be,” Schanzer said. “Abbas has reportedly installed his own allies as board members.”
Abrams urged the government and U.S. aid organizations such as the Middle East Partnership Initiative and USAID to pay closer attention to issues of corruption in the P.A.
“We have not one program dedicated to fighting corruption and to assisting those Palestinians who are doing so,” Abrams said. “Why do we not make it a stated and central goal of our aid?”

Syria Running for the UN Human Rights Council...really!

From UN Watch, 4 July 2012, by Hillel Neuer:



This murderous dictator may become a "UN Human-Rights champion" ...even he finds this funny

GENEVA - In the past decade, the U.N. Human Rights Council

• elected Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya as chair,
• hailed Sri Lanka’s “promotion and protection of all human rights” after its army had killed thousands of civilians, and
• convened an emergency session to lament the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of the Hamas terrorist organization.

Even so, historians will now have to decide whether the U.N.’s flagship human rights body is about to sink to a new low...the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad is a declared candidate for a seat on the 47-nation U.N. body, in elections to be held next year at the 193-member General Assembly.
As part of the U.N.’s 53-nation Asian group, Syria’s candidacy would be virtually assured of victory due to the prevalent system of fixed slates, whereby regional groups orchestrate uncontested elections, naming only as many candidates as allotted seats.
That’s how non-democracies like China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia won their current seats, and how Pakistan and Venezuela are about to do the same.
Fears that Syria will indeed win—in a 2013 election for a position starting the following year—appear to have mobilized the U.S. and the European Union into taking the unprecedented action of asking the council to declare in advance that a candidate country, in this case Syria, be declared inherently disqualified to join its ranks.
In a strongly-worded resolution condemning the Syrian government for committing atrocities, slated for a Friday vote, paragraph 14 “stresses that the current Syrian government’s announced candidacy for the Human Rights Council in 2014 fails to meet the standards for Council membership” as set forth in its founding charter. That Syria is a contender came as a major revelation.
Shockingly, the perfectly reasonable attempt to keep Syria away from the world’s highest human rights body was met with strong resistance.
In today’s discussions, Cuba declared itself “totally opposed,” and demanded the paragraph’s deletion, a position quickly echoed by China. It was for the General Assembly to decide whom to elect, insisted Havana.
“We don’t like to speak to country candidacies,” added Egypt. Brazil argued that the reference to council membership was “outside the scope of the resolution.”
Russia insisted that no action be taken until Assad’s candidacy was formally submitted. Likewise, India believed the subject was “premature.”
However, as noted by the Americans, the public record shows otherwise. Syria actually had declared its official candidacy in early 2011, around the time the killings began.
It was only after UN Watch revealed Assad’s bid and organized an international coalition of human rights groups to fight it that Western democracies rallied to the cause, applying heavy pressure on the Asian states. At the last minute, on May 11th last year, a deal was announced: Kuwait would replace Syria.
Assad’s U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari made clear, however, that his country had agreed only “to reschedule the timing of our candidacy,” saying they would run instead in the 2013 elections, for a three-year term.
His Kuwaiti counterpart corroborated the pact. “We agreed to exchange terms,” said Ambassador Mansour Ayyad Alotaibi. “Syria is not withdrawing,” he told reporters.
But once Kuwait’s entry ended the controversy, no one—until now—had paid any attention to the fact that Syria would actually run again soon.
Though it’s truly difficult to imagine how the Asians could, in face of all the horrors taking place, allow Syria to be one its candidates, the reality is that they did so just last year, changing their minds only after massive lobbying.
What is more, this past November Syria won unanimous election to two human rights committees of UNESCO, the U.N.’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Despite the suspension of Assad’s regime from the Arab League, the very same nations’ UNESCO ambassadors in Paris refused to allow objections to a country’s human rights record to interfere with their backroom rotation deals—lest one day the precedent be used against them. They nominated Syria, and it was duly elected.
After UN Watch campaigned against this obscenity, too, the U.S. and Britain attempted remedial action. Yet despite their best efforts, the old boys’ club could not be convinced to expel one of their own. Syria remains a full member of UNESCO’s committee to judge human rights complaints, and of its committee dealing with human rights organizations.
And unless America’s laudable effort succeeds, Syria may soon win a seat on the world’s highest human rights body as well.