Saturday, February 3, 2018

Time for Greenblatt to Walk Away - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Will Trump and his chief peace negotiator accept that the "peace process" is dead?

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

On Tuesday in Bethlehem, the Palestinians demonstrated the choice the Americans now face in their dealings with Fatah – the supposedly moderate PLO faction that controls the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. President Donald Trump and his advisers can play by Fatah’s rules or they can walk away.

On Tuesday a delegation of diplomats from the US Consulate in Jerusalem came to Bethlehem to participate in a meeting of the local chamber of commerce. When they arrived in the city, Fatah members attacked them. Their vehicles with diplomatic license plates were pelted with tomatoes and eggs by a mob of protesters calling out anti-American slogans.

After the Americans entered the hall where the meeting was scheduled to take place, some of the rioters barged in. They held placards condemning America and they shouted, “Americans Out!”

Some of the demonstrators cursed the Palestinians present, accusing them of treason for participating in a meeting with Americans. According to the news reports, the scene became tense and violent. The American officials beat a speedy retreat. As they departed the city, the Fatah rioters continued attacking their cars, kicking them and throwing eggs at them, until they were gone.

The attack on Tuesday was a natural progression.

On Saturday, Fatah members in Bethlehem-area UN camps convened to carry out a very public “people’s tribunal.” Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were tried for “racism” and “bias” against the Palestinians.

The “tribunal” found them guilty and sentenced the president and vice president to death by hanging. Their bodies, the “judges” decided, were to be burned.

In the event, the crowd burned effigies of Trump and Pence.

The implication of the “trial” was clear. Americans like Israelis should be killed.

The burning effigies themselves were a natural consequence of PLO and Fatah chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s call last month for Trump’s “house to be destroyed.”

That is, both the assault on the consular officers Tuesday and the riot on Saturday were simply Abbas’s followers carrying out his orders. He put the Americans in his crosshairs. And they are pulling the trigger – for now, with effigies and eggs.

It isn’t hard for Abbas to set his people against the Americans. Palestinians hate Americans.

As a 2014 Pew Survey showed, Palestinians are more anti-American than any people on earth. Seventy-six percent of Palestinians consider the US their enemy. Pakistan came in second place with 64% of respondents saying that the US is their enemy.

Palestinian anti-Americanism is notable given that the US has given more assistance to the Palestinians than any country other than Israel. Americans have spent the last 25 years pressuring Israel to make more and more concessions to the Palestinians.

In large part, anti-Americanism among Palestinians redounds to two things. First, incitement. For 25 years, the US-financed PA has used all the tools at its disposal to indoctrinate the Palestinians to hate America almost as much as they hate Israel.

Second, like the Iranian regime, the Palestinians view the US and Israel as two sides of the same coin. And indeed, their hatred for the US is the mirror image of Israelis’ love for it.

While the Palestinians topped the list of people who view the US as their enemy, Israel topped the list of nations that view the US as their partner. Ninety percent of Israelis view the US as their partner.

All Abbas needed to do was call for Trump’s house to be destroyed and mobs of Fatah members were only too happy to go into the streets and burn the president in effigy.

Trump, for his part, seems more than willing to walk away from the whole business. Over the past week Trump threatened to cut off all US aid to the Palestinians three times. In his appearance with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Davos last week, Trump made clear that he wouldn’t be overly upset if the peace process disappears.

“I can tell you that Israel does want to make peace,” Trump said.

The Palestinians, he continued, are “going to have to want to make peace too, or we’re going to have nothing to do with it any longer.”

When asked about the implications of his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital for prospects for peace, Trump turned to Netanyahu and said, “You [Israel] won one point, and you’ll give up some points later on in the negotiation, if it ever takes place. I don’t know that it ever will take place.”

Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s chief peace negotiator, seems less sanguine at the concept that the peace process is over.

At a meeting in Ramat Gan this week with ambassadors from EU member states, one of the ambassadors asked Greenblatt whether Jerusalem is still a subject for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, or whether, as Trump said in Davos, the issue is settled and is in Trump’s words, “off the table.”

Greenblatt reportedly answered that Trump mischaracterized the situation at Davos. Jerusalem is still a topic for negotiation between the sides, as Trump made clear in his December 6, 2017, declaration recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Greenblatt said.

Greenblatt’s statements over the past several days paint a picture of an administration unclear on what to make of the Palestinian response to Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem. On the one hand, they continue to maintain that peace can only be based on reality and therefore, recognizing Jerusalem was necessary for peace to ever be achieved.

Along these lines, at his meeting with the European ambassadors, Greenblatt also told them that their insistent condemnation of construction in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria as an obstacle to peace is wrong. Construction of housing in the settlements has no impact on prospects for peace, he insisted, rightly.

The last time any US envoy said anything approaching Greenblatt’s reported remarks was 2003.

But then, Greenblatt wouldn’t let go of the hope that the Palestinians are interested in cutting a peace deal.

Speaking in Brussels at a donor conference for the Palestinian Authority, Greenblatt repeated over and over that the US is committed to the peace process.

Then there was his fawning message to PA “Prime Minister” Rami Hamdallah, who participated in the conference.

The sole reason the conference in Brussels was convened was to raise tens of millions of dollars for Hamdallah to shove into bank accounts controlled by Abbas and his kleptocrat underlings. It would have been rather odd if Hamdallah wasn’t there to beg in person.

And yet, Greenblatt didn’t treat Hamdallah’s presence in the meeting room as no big deal. He didn’t call him out publicly for the dangerous assault by Fatah activists against US diplomats in Bethlehem the day before.

Instead Greenblatt gushed, “I am particularly pleased to see you Prime Minister Hamdallah – I hope, as a sign of the Palestinian Authority’s continued commitment to the process which we have undertaken together. Despite our differences, we remain committed to continue working together to use our best efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Given the fact that the day before Fatah members attacked US diplomats in Bethlehem, and four days earlier they burned Trump and Pence in effigy, it would have been reasonable for Greenblatt to publicly excoriate Hamdallah and the PA for their actions.

The fact that Greenblatt failed to call him to account, but rather gushed at Hamdallah’s presence like a teenage girl over a rock star, shows that the Americans are still unclear why the Palestinians have taken a sword to their relations with Washington.

Greenblatt, like his colleagues at the consulate and the State Department, don’t understand what is happening because they think that the peace process is about negotiating. But that’s never been what the peace process has been about. If it were about negotiating then the Palestinians would have been held accountable for their breaches of every commitment they ever made to Israel. But they have never been held to account. Only Israel has been held to account.

Indeed, Israel has been attacked despite the fact that it has upheld all of its commitments.

Meantime, the Palestinians have never honored any of their commitments to Israel – or to the US. They never canceled or amended the PLO Charter that calls for Israel’s annihilation. They never ended their incitement to murder Israelis. They never ended their sponsorship or finance of terrorism. They never extradited terrorists who murdered Americans to the US to stand trial. They certainly never extradited terrorists to stand trial in Israel. Indeed, they have never recognized Israel’s right to exist.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the peace process is a process of unconditional Israeli surrender to all of their terms. The role of the US as the sponsor of the peace process is to coerce Israel to make concessions that together will lead to its unconditional surrender. And for the better part of the past quarter century successive US administrations have played by the Palestinians’ rules.

But then Trump showed up. When Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, he took something away from the Palestinians. That has never happened before. And now, reports that the administration is considering holding the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA to the same definition of “refugee” as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees means another Palestinian high card is in danger. If Trump carries out his threat, then the only Palestinians who will be eligible for refugee status will be the 20,000 Palestinians who left Israel between 1947 and 1949. In one fell swoop, Trump would wipe out the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel through mass immigration of five million foreign-born Arabs to its territory – in the framework of peace.

In an interview with Fox News, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat was asked what the administration can do to placate the Palestinians’ anger and convince them to renew their contacts with Washington. Erekat said the only thing the US can do is cancel its recognition of Jerusalem. Meaning only unconditional American surrender to Palestinian demands will bring America back into the PLO’s good graces.

At the entrance to Jericho a sign is hanging saying that Americans and dogs are not welcome. Signs on shop windows in Ramallah and Jericho inform all US and British visitors thinking of coming inside that they are required to apologize for their governments’ policies.

It’s time for Greenblatt to understand that the peace process is over. And unless Trump intends to humiliate himself and America and sell Israel down the river like his predecessors did, the peace process will not be resuscitated. The longer he and his colleagues pretend away the truth, the more they imperil themselves and empower a people that will be more than happy to move beyond eggs and tomatoes and effigies and banners.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Memo Reveals the Coup against America - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The memo has been released, now it’s time to release everything.

The Democrats and the media spent a week lying to the American people about the “memo.” 

The memo was full of "classified information" and releasing” it would expose “our spying methods." By “our,” they didn’t mean American spying methods. They meant Obama’s spying methods.

A former White House Ethics Lawyer claimed that the Nunes memo would undermine "national security." On MSNBC, Senator Chris Van Hollen threatened that if the memo is released, the FBI and DOJ “will refuse to share information with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees."

Senator Cory Booker howled that releasing the memo was "treasonous" and might be "revealing sources and methods" and even "endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence community."

The memo isn’t treasonous. It reveals a treasonous effort by the Democrats to use our intelligence agencies to rig an election and overturn the will of the voters.

The only two “sources” 20 are Christopher Steele, who was funded by the Clinton campaign, and a Yahoo News article, that were used to obtain a FISA warrant against a Trump associate. That Yahoo story came from Michael Isikoff, the reporter who knew about Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky but suppressed it. It was based on more leaks from Steele which the FBI and DOJ chose to ignore. Steele’s identity was already well known. The only new source revealed is Yahoo News.

No vital intelligence sources were compromised at Yahoo News. And no Yahoo News agents were killed.

The media spent a week lying to Americans about the dangers of the memo because it didn’t want them to find out what was inside. Today, the media and Dems switched from claiming that the memo was full of “classified information” that might get CIA agents killed to insisting that it was a dud and didn’t matter. Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

On Thursday, the narrative was that the memo would devastate our national security and no one should ever be allowed to read it. By Friday, the new narrative was that the memo tells us nothing important and we shouldn’t even bother reading it. The lies change, but suppressing the memo remains the goal.

Rep. Nadler, infamous for securing pardons for Weather Underground bombers, got caught between narratives when he insisted that the memo was “overhyped,” but suggested that it “endangers national security.” "I don't think anybody will be terribly shocked by what's in the memo," he told CNN. 

And requested an emergency meeting of the House Judiciary Committee – a body he will head if Democrats win the mid-term elections. 

Calling emergency meetings is not the response to an “overhyped” and non-shocking memo.
There is no legitimately classified information in the Nunes memo. But it does endanger a number of “Americans” in the “intelligence community” who colluded with the Clinton campaign against America. 

It endangers former FBI Director Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the current FBI General Counsel Dana Boente who had previously served as the Acting Attorney General. These men and women had allegedly signed FISA applications that were at best misleading and at worst badly tainted.

The Clinton campaign had enlisted figures in the FBI and the DOJ to manipulate an election. The coup against America operated as a “state within a state” inside the United States government. 

“The political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,” the memo informs us. But they did not reveal on the FISA application that their core evidence came from the Clinton campaign. Sources were certainly being protected. But they were Clinton sources.

The memo reveals that without the Steele dossier there would have been no eavesdropping on Carter Page, the Trump associate targeted in this particular case. “Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” But the FISA application neglected to mention that its primary source had been paid by the Clinton campaign, was unverified and would continue to be unverified.

FBI Director Comey testified that he had told President Trump that the dossier was "unverified." Yet the "unverified" piece of opposition research was used as the basis for a FISA application.

As Rep. Jim Jordan noted, “FBI takes ‘salacious and unverified’ dossier to secret court to get secret warrant to spy on a fellow American, and FBI doesn't tell the court that the DNC/Clinton campaign paid for that dossier. And they did that FOUR times.”

"There's been no evidence of a corrupt evidence to obtain warrants against people in the Trump campaign," Rep. Adam Schiff insisted. That’s why he tried to block the release of the evidence.

The evidence was unverified opposition research. Its source had been paid by the Clinton campaign. Not only had Steele been indirectly working for the Clinton campaign (when he wasn’t being paid by the FBI), but he made no secret of his own political agenda to stop Trump.

"In September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” the memo informs us.

That’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr whose wife was being paid by an organization hired by the Clinton campaign to investigate Trump. Ohr then passed along his wife's opposition research to the FBI. The evidence couldn’t be any more corrupt than that.

Steele was passionate about Trump “not being president.” So were his handlers who ignored his leaks to the media until he “was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.” His previous meetings, including the one that allegedly generated the Yahoo News article, were ignored.

Tainted investigations are nothing new. Law enforcement is as fallible as any other profession. But the memo reveals a snapshot of just how many top figures colluded in this corrupted and tainted effort.

What drove them to violate professional ethical norms and legal requirements in the FISA applications?

Top DOJ and FBI officials shared Steele’s “passion,” and that of his ultimate employer, Hillary Clinton, to stop Donald Trump at all costs. And they’re still trying to use the Mueller investigation to overturn the election results in a government coup that makes Watergate look like a children’s tea party,

Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is already under investigation. He’s suspected of trying to sit on the Wiener emails until the election was over. This alleged failed cover-up triggered the Comey letter which hurt Hillary worse than a timely revelation would have. McCabe’s wife had financial links to the Clintons.  

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was an Obama holdover who had foolishly tried to use the DOJ to go to war with President Trump. Both Yates and Dana Boente were Obama and Holder choices. During the groundless prosecution of the former Republican governor of Virginia, Boente had declared, “No one is above the law.” We’ll see if that’s true with everyone who signed the FISA applications.

If Boente signed false or misleading FISA applications, he should be removed as FBI General Counsel.

The memo is only the first crack in the wall. But it’s grounds for an investigation that will expose the abuses that led to eavesdropping on Trump officials. And the motives of those who perpetuated them. 

A Washington Post piece suggested that just releasing the memo alone would allow Mueller to charge President Trump with "obstruction of justice." That’s how badly they want to get Trump.

A clear and simple fact emerges from the memo. 

Top figures in the DOJ and the FBI, some loyal to Obama and Hillary, abused the FISA process in the hopes of influencing or reversing the results of an election by targeting their political opponents. The tool that they used for the job came from the Clinton campaign. Using America’s intelligence services to destroy and defeat a political opponent running for president is the worst possible abuse of power and an unprecedented threat to a democratic system of free open elections. 

We have been treated to frequent lectures about the independence of the DOJ and the FBI. But our country isn’t based around government institutions that are independent of oversight by elected officials. When unelected officials have more power than elected officials, that’s tyranny.  

A Justice Department that acts as the Praetorian Guard for a political campaign is committing a coup and engaging in treason. The complex ways that the Steele dossier was laundered from the Clinton campaign to a FISA application is evidence of a conspiracy by both the DOJ and the Clinton campaign. 

It’s time for us to learn about all the FISA abuses, the list of NSA unmasking requests of Trump officials by Obama officials and the eavesdropping on members of Congress. We deserve to know the truth.

The memo has been released. Now it’s time to release everything.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Other Secrets of the FBI - Tadas Klimas

by Tadas Klimas

An FBI insider explains how to understand the strange, unprecedented political doings in the FBI around the Russia probe, and why Hillary Clinton's doings are so very different from Michael Flynn's.

During these last few days, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been the center of attention as perhaps never before. As this is being written, a memo may be released pertaining to the FBI that may prove to be the most scandalous of all time.

This article seeks not to reveal classified or formerly classified material, but to impart a better understanding of recent events relating to the FBI. Some of the topics covered are secrets in the sense that many people who should know better have fixed ideas that are wrong about the FBI. Other topics are simply not known to the general public. In both cases a better understanding of these topics will allow for a better and more-informed general discussion concerning all matters pertaining to that institution.

First, many well-known pundits, including the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and (very recently) Sebastian Gorka (@ 5:03), former deputy assistant to President Trump, have claimed that the FBI failed to place former Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton under oath when they interviewed her, the idea being that because of this she is not subject to prosecution in the same way former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn was.

This is simply incorrect. It is a crime to make even an unsworn false statement to the FBI under 18 USC §1001, the False Statement Act. Oaths are not necessary under this act. Moreover, oaths are not administered by FBI agents. It is doubtful that they even could be. Thus, Mrs. Clinton remains liable under the False Statement Act for any false statements made to the FBI -- and not only to the FBI, inasmuch as the statute actually covers statements made to other agencies as well.

For instance, Mrs. Clinton stated to the Inspector General of the State Department that she turned all her government emails over to the Department of State. Yet the FBI found she did not turn over 17,000 of them.

That is not to say that there is not something bizarre at the very least regarding General Flynn's being prosecuted for violation of the False Statements Act while Mrs. Clinton is not. After all, the underlying activity of Flynn was not only legal, but it was what he should have been doing as the incoming National Security Advisor: he was in contact with a Russian ambassador in order to support U.S. policy -- Obama's policy. Whereas the underlying activity of Mrs. Clinton was 1) her felonious failure to comply with the Federal Records Act, 2) thwart Freedom of Information Act inquiries, and 3) to be at the least grossly negligent regarding the handling of classified material in her possession, also a felony under the Espionage Act. Given recent revelations, this disparity is troubling at best, and at worst -- and it probably is the latter -- is, given recent revelations, evidence of extreme bias if not corruption.

(As a former law professor and dean I cannot resist adding that I completely agree with Stephen R. Morrison of UND law school that the False Statements Act "relies only on prosecutorial forbearance and discretion to prevent its abuse." (p. 111) Moreover, in order to prevent abuse, the Act's purpose should be narrowly construed (and not widely as it was with Flynn). As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated, the Act really was designed to protect agencies of the United States government from becoming "victim[s] of some positive statement which has the tendency and effect of perverting normal and proper governmental activities and functions." (Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398 at 400). Such an interpretation would have protected Flynn but would still have reached Mrs. Clinton.)

Time to move on to the next "secret." This one facilitated the faking of an espionage investigation.

The FBI is a topsy-turvy organization. It may be hard to believe, but the shots are called by the people who would appear to be at the bottom of the organizational chart. That is, cases are assigned to regular, field office, agents: it is the case agent, not some "boss," who decides how to conduct the investigation. This involves the steps taken, the investigative techniques used, and their timing. Thus, investigations are not "driven" from the top down.

Supervisors do have legitimate functions, of course. Primary among them is to assure the investigative techniques used are appropriate, lawful, and authorized. Certain techniques or even simple interviews in some circumstances require approval of officials "higher up" the organizational structure. There is nothing wrong with this: the more sensitive an investigatory technique, the more a dutiful agent would want to have the proposal reviewed.

Therefore, one can say that the investigation of cases in the FBI is decentralized. The FBI is further decentralized because its local offices, called field offices, are all administered as separate units. This is where the case agent is permanently assigned and out of which investigations are conducted.

All of this militates towards an apolitical, unbiased, disposition. The typical FBI field office agent cares little about his "higher ups" at FBIHQ. Such agents have dedicated their careers toward being "witnesses to the truth," and the field office agent knows that those at FBIHQ are not better agents than he is. Indeed, they typically have less experience, since they opted for management at some point in their careers while the case agent remained an active investigator. Another thing to bear in mind is that FBI agents are both competitive and attuned to their surroundings. Any attempt to interfere, in a biased or corrupt way, with an investigation at a field office would be difficult to do quietly.

But if the FBI's field offices are apolitical, its headquarters is the exact opposite. Indeed, FBIHQ can be described as being nothing but political. It has been since day one. Even back in 1993 FBIHQ was described as being extremely attuned to the political winds -- although in that context it was largely legitimate -- to obtain additional funding, to respond to legitimate criticism. (There is a difference between being politically attuned versus being biased.) 

It is clear then, that the field office is where cases are investigated, not at FBIHQ; further, investigations are not top-driven. It is also clear that field offices are largely apolitical whereas FBIHQ is exactly the opposite by nature. This dichotomy of function has made it difficult for political bias to impose itself. To put it more strongly, this framework makes it quite difficult for any group -- or cabal -- to corrupt an FBI investigation.

It therefore remains quite striking, as some have sought to deny, that the Mrs. Clinton servergate espionage investigation was conducted directly from FBIHQ and therefore outside of the aforesaid usual and normal framework

Now, from time to time, some investigations have been so conducted. It may make some sense to have an investigation conducted from FBIHQ; for instance, when an investigation stretches across several field offices (the crash of TWA Flight 800) or if it involves an occurrence outside of the United States (the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen).

But these two investigations -- concerning the Cole and TWA 800 -- were complex investigations. Yet there was nothing complex per se about the Clinton servergate-espionage investigation. It was such an open-shut affair that even given the massaged and extremely fake FBIHQ-run investigation there was such overwhelming evidence of guilt that Comey had to resort to the most fervid tergiversations in order to evade recommending indictment.

Therefore it is not quite correct to say, "The Mrs. Clinton espionage investigation was fake because it was conducted out of FBIHQ." It is, however, not at all incorrect to say, "Because the Mrs. Clinton espionage investigation was conducted out of FBIHQ, it was easier to politicize it, to massage it, and indeed to corrupt it."

The next and last topic involves the investigation of the Trump campaign and administration by a special counsel foisted upon us by that hapless Rod Rosenstein.

Most people do not realize that the FBI's most important function is that of counterintelligence. It is the FBI and not some other agency which must counter -- must fight -- the professional intelligence services of other nations operating in and against the United States.

Theoretically, there are two ways to go about doing this. One is to investigate every American. After all, the foreign intelligence officers need to obtain the nation's secrets or subvert its processes, and it can't do that without the help, witting or unwitting, of Americans.

But that approach would be, to say the least, un-American.

The other approach is to watch the foreign intelligence officers.

The usual rules do not apply in the spooky world. Foreign intelligence officers need not be suspected of a crime to be investigated. Their phones can be "tapped," as it were, pursuant to orders not from a regular court, but from the FISA court. Any activities they engage in to influence anything at all would be monitored and even countered.

Most Americans, one would think, understand, in some inchoate manner, that it is always possible that some foreign spook has or may try to harm America. They are not against the idea that this be looked at. This attitude is not incorrect.

And indeed the Special Counsel's unpredicated investigation is maintained by this attitude. It holds on to its last shreds of legitimacy only by means of it. Yet it rests upon a perversion of the usual FBI counterintelligence mandate. We as a people do not investigate each other just on the odd chance that someone somewhere is guilty of something. That would be a witch hunt.

Tadas Klimas is a former FBI agent, awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIMA).


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians: Arbitrary Arrests, Administrative Detentions and World Silence - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

While administrative detainees in Israel are entitled to see a lawyer, receive family visits and appeal against their incarceration, the Palestinians detained by the PA are denied basic rights. Yet, Israel-obsessed human rights organizations seem uninterested in this fact.

  • While Israel uses "administrative detention" as a tool to thwart terrorism, the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership holds people without trial as a means to silence them and prevent them from voicing any form of criticism against Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders.
  • While administrative detainees in Israel are entitled to see a lawyer, receive family visits and appeal against their incarceration, the Palestinians detained by the PA are denied basic rights. Yet, Israel-obsessed human rights organizations seem uninterested in this fact.
  • Particularly disturbing, however, is not that the PA leadership is acting as a tyrannical regime, but the abiding silence and indifference of the international community and human rights organizations. Those who scream bloody murder about Israel's security measures against terrorism would do the Palestinians a better service by opening their mouths about how human rights are ravaged under the PA.
For many years, Palestinians and their supporters around the world have been condemning Israel for arresting suspected terrorists without trial.

It turns out, however, that the Palestinian Authority (PA) also has a similar policy that permits one of its senior officials to order the arrest of any Palestinian, regardless of the nature of the offense he or she commits.

Israel holds suspected terrorists in "administrative detention" on the basis of laws such as: Israeli Military Order regarding no. 1651 Security Provisions, Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law and Defense (Emergency) Regulations, a law that replaces the emergency laws from the period of the British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948).

It is worth noting that Israeli citizens, and not only Palestinians, have also been held in "administrative detention" over the past few decades. This means that Israel does not distinguish between a Palestinian and an Israeli when it comes to combatting terrorism.

While the campaign against Israel's "administrative detentions" has been going on, the Palestinian Authority has been, according to Palestinian human rights activists and lawyers, conducting unlawful and arbitrary arrests against its own constituents.

Once again, the double standards of the Palestinians and their international supporters have been exposed.

For more than a decade, the PA has been detaining Palestinians without trial for up to six months -- on the basis of an order signed by one of its senior officials, usually a governor appointed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

But while Israel uses "administrative detention" as a tool to thwart terrorism, the Palestinian Authority leadership holds people without trial as a means to silence them and prevent them from voicing any form of criticism against Abbas and other Palestinian leaders.

The PA argues that its "administrative detentions" are being conducted within the framework of the law and as a preemptive measure to safeguard public safety and prevent violence.

While administrative detainees in Israel are entitled to see a lawyer, receive family visits and appeal against their incarceration, the Palestinians detained by the Palestinian Authority are denied basic rights. Yet, Israel-obsessed human rights organizations seem totally uninterested in this fact.

The Palestinian Authority detains people without trial as a means to silence them and prevent them from voicing any form of criticism against President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders. Pictured: PA President Mahmoud Abbas. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

How, then, do the Palestinian Authority's "administrative detentions" work?

According to Palestinian human rights advocates and lawyers, a Palestinian governor or senior official is authorized to issue arrest warrants against any Palestinian for any reason.

Although it remains unclear on what basis PA governors and top officials are entitled to order arrests, some legal experts say they believe the practice is based on a 1954 Jordanian law that is still in effect in the West Bank.

Experts say that although a Jordanian court abrogated the law many years ago, the Palestinian Authority continues to use it against its own people.

Palestinian lawyer and former judge Daoud Dirawi said that the practice of detaining Palestinians on orders of Abbas's governors and top officials was "illegal" and "unconstitutional." He pointed out that the Palestinian High Court of Justice has ruled against the practice.

"Unlawful incarceration is a crime punishable by law," Dirawi explained. "Anyone affected by this practice is entitled to sue for damages. This is one of the most dangerous assaults on public freedoms."

The Palestinian Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession (Musawa), says it has received many complaints from Palestinians about the unlawful detentions by the Palestinian Authority.

Noting that the detentions were "unconstitutional" and constitute a grave violation of human rights, Musawa said that governors and senior officials do not have the power to order the arrest of anyone.

Last year, the Faculty of Law at An-Najah University, the largest Palestinian university in the West Bank, held a seminar dedicated to the Palestinian Authority's "administrative detentions."

Dr. Muayad Hattab, dean of the faculty, said that most Palestinian legal experts agreed that the detentions without trial were in violation of the Palestinian law and constitution. He too pointed out that Palestinian courts had repeatedly ruled against the practice of holding people without trial.

Palestinian lawyer Ala Al-Badarneh, who conducted a study about the Palestinian Authority's "administrative detentions," found that most of the detentions were carried out without the knowledge of the governor or the senior Palestinian official in whose name the detention was carried out.

"Detaining people on orders of the governor sometimes occur without the knowledge of the governor," Al-Badarneh said.
"Even when the governor is made aware of the detention, the detainee is not brought before the governor. The governor often denies knowledge of the detention when asked by the families. Jordanian law stipulates that when someone is detained on orders of the governor, he or she must be brought before the governor. But this is not what is happening with those who are being detained without trial by the Palestinian Authority."
Al-Badarneh also noted that the Palestinian "administrative detainees" were being taken into custody on the basis of assessments by the Palestinian security forces, without referring to the party that purportedly ordered the arrest: a governor or senior official.

In some cases, the Palestinian governors and senior officials, who have turned themselves into law-enforcers, resort to "administrative detentions" to circumvent implementing court orders.

A court, for example, can order the release of a detainee, but he or she can still remain behind bars if a governor or top official signs an arrest warrant.

Take, for instance, the case of Mahmoud Asideh of Nablus, the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank. After 37 days in detention, a number of Palestinian courts ordered Asideh released. To avoid implementing the courts' orders, however, Palestinian Authority security forces served him with an arrest warrant signed by the governor of Nablus. Another detainee, Anas Judallah, also from Nablus, was held in detention on orders of the Nablus governor although a Palestinian court had decided to release him.

In 2016, Palestinian journalist Ragheed Tabasiyeh was detained for 17 days on order of the governor of the West Bank city of Kalkilya. Tabasiyeh said he was interrogated about the nature of his journalistic work and the party he was working for. He was finally released without bail or charges.

In December 2017, Palestinian human rights groups received complaints from seven Palestinians who said they had been detained without trial on the orders of a governor. Two of the detainees have since been released, while the remaining five are still being held without trial.

Palestinians say that the PA is using "administrative detentions" mostly as a tool against its political opponents and to silence critics, and not as a precautionary measure to prevent a crime, as the Palestinian Authority claims.

Khalil Assaf, head of the Independent Palestinians Association in the West Bank, denounced the practice as a crime, saying that it was primarily aimed at silencing the Palestinian Authority's critics. Referring to President Mahmoud Abbas, Assaf wondered:
"How can he who is at the helm of the Palestinian Authority and is breaking the law ask his people to abide by the law? The violation of the law by anyone is unacceptable. Detaining any person on orders of the governor or a senior official is a crime punishable by law."
Thus, we have yet another example of how the Western-funded Palestinian Authority makes a mockery of its judicial system and continues systematically to violate human rights and wage assaults on public freedoms. In a world where any of Abbas's senior officials can sign an arrest warrant against a Palestinian, the Palestinians can only continue to dream of having a country of law and order.

Particularly disturbing, however, is not that the PA leadership is acting as a tyrannical regime (this is absolutely expected by those familiar with the inner workings of Abbas and his loyalists), but the abiding silence and indifference of the international community and human rights organizations. Those who scream bloody murder about Israel's security measures against terrorism would do the Palestinians a better service by opening their mouths about how human rights are ravaged under the Palestinian Authority.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

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


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump Effect: Islamic Republic Ceases Naval Provocations in Arabian Gulf - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

“Baffling” change of Iranian attitude is really not that mysterious.

Yesterday’s State of the Union address issued by Donald Trump represented a refreshing break from the eight years of pusillanimous foreign policies pursued by past administration. Nowhere was this more evident than in the manner in which Trump described Iran’s repressive regime and attempts by the Iranian people to overthrow it through peaceful protest.

When it comes to Iran’s governing authorities, the Trump administration is under no illusions about the nefarious nature of this fascist theocracy. “We are restoring clarity about our adversaries,” Trump stated in a not too subtle jibe at his predecessor who seemed to be in a perpetual state of confusion about who his friends and enemies were. Trump also referenced the recent widespread Iranian protests, crushed with extreme ruthlessness by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij auxiliary militia. “When the people of Iran rose up against the crimes of a corrupt dictatorship,” he stated, “I did not stay silent. America stands with the people of Iran in their courageous struggle for freedom.”

By contrast, Barack Obama and his obsequious acolytes were besotted by the prospect of forging détente with the despotic mullahs of the Islamic Republic. His administration remained largely silent when Iranians took to the streets in 2009 to protest a rigged election. Some have speculated that his administration missed out on a prime opportunity for regime change. It was only downhill from there.

In a misguided effort to secure Iran’s willingness to sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Obama sold everything including the kitchen sink. He tried selling the American people on the naïve notion that there were moderate elements of import in the Iranian government, ignoring the obvious fact that all authority in Iran is vested with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and his IRGC henchmen. The tried and true concept of peace through strength gave way to fecklessness through appeasement.  

Ransom payments to the tune of $1.7 billion were transferred to Iran. Promising criminal investigations targeting Iran’s chief terror proxy, Hezbollah, were shut down. Targeted liquidation operations by our Israeli allies against Iranian Quds Force leaders were foiled after Obama tipped off Tehran on Israel’s intentions. Iranian material breaches of the JCPOA were all but ignored while Iran’s ballistic missile program was allowed to proceed at full speed despite being in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231.

Obama’s near messianic zealotry in his interactions with the mullahs severely compromised America’s national security and weakened its image on the international stage. Worse, it emboldened the mullahs (appeasement tends to do that) who seemed to revel in Obama’s groveling.

Iran’s mischief-making extends far and wide but it is in the Arabian Gulf where friction between the IRGC and the United States Navy remains constant. Iran regards the Arabian Gulf as its domain and but for the presence of the U.S. 5th Fleet, would have full reign over its waters, which include the strategic Strait of Hormuz. In addition to securing the Gulf, the 5th Fleet serves as a constant reminder to the Iranians of their impotence. 

But the deterrent effect of the Navy’s 5th Fleet, and for that matter America’s military might, is only as effective as the political leadership that commands it, and Barack Obama as Commander in Chief of the armed forces did little to instill fear or project deterrence. On the contrary, the Iranians correctly viewed him as weak, indecisive and ineffectual. On his watch, American warships patrolling the Gulf were harried by armed IRGC speed boats and larger navy frigates with near impunity. At times Iranian naval vessels closed to within 600 to 150 yards of American warships. The navy termed these near ritualistic, belligerent encounters, “unsafe and unprofessional.”

Iranian arrogance and impudence reached its zenith with the January 12th 2016 seizure of two American riverine command boats and their crews near Farsi Island. The RCBs and crews manning them were returned some 16 hours later but not before the Iranians stole two satellite phone sim cards, likely containing classified information, as well as thousands of pages of information downloaded from laptops, GPS devices and maps used by the sailors. Ironically, the seizure occurred on the very day that Obama was to give his State of the Union address but predictably, he didn’t think that the seizure of Americans was important enough to note.

But according to the Navy, the past five months have witnessed markedly less belligerent conduct from the Iranians, leaving Navy officials baffled by the sudden positive change in attitude. In fact, Iran’s attitude adjustment in the Arabian Gulf is no mystery and stems from the Trump administration’s implementation of a new robust foreign policy vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic.

Soon after taking office, Trump noted that “Iran [was] playing with fire” and added that he wouldn’t be as “kind” to the mullahs as Obama was. This wasn’t empty rhetoric. It was backed up by tangible action. Additional sanctions were imposed against Iran for acting in defiance of UNSCR 2231. Sanctions were also imposed against the IRGC for supporting terrorism. Trump’s DOJ revived and breathed new life into Project Cassandra, a promising anti-Hezbollah/IRGC law enforcement initiative shelved by Obama. Most importantly, Trump failed to certify the JCPOA noting material Iranian breaches, and has threatened to abrogate the deal in its entirety unless modifications are implemented. Those modifications would include an end to absurd sunset clauses in the JCPOA and tough restrictions on ballistic missile testing. 

The mullahs have become cognizant of the fact that there’s a new sheriff in town, one that backs up tough talk with action and doesn’t ask “how high” when they say “jump.” Clearly, the IRGC’s new docile posture in the Arabian Gulf is a direct consequence of this realization.

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Things Your Professor Didn’t Tell You About Climate Change - John Kudla

by John Kudla

If you look at climate change predictions, almost all of them are bad.

Davos 2018 is gone, but not forgotten. This year’s World Economic Forum provided yet another opportunity for those who believe in apocalyptic climate change to harangue us about the evils of greenhouse gases amid warnings the world will end in 2050 or 2100 or one of these days when it gets warm enough. Most striking is the annual spectacle of the world’s wealthy and privileged disembarking from their fuel-gulping private jets and limousines or emerging from luxury hotel suites, to proclaim the world must cut back on the use of fossil fuels, or to question why the world’s common people do not feel as deeply or passionately about climate change as they do.

Other than a propensity for believing everything they are told, why are these people so agitated?

If you look at climate change predictions, almost all of them are bad. Critics refer to these views collectively as climate alarmism. Alarmists believe the Earth’s climate is warming because greenhouse gases are being added to the atmosphere through human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. They claim unless the buildup of greenhouse gases is stopped, global temperatures will begin to rise exponentially, which will have terrible consequences, such as major flora and fauna extinctions, coastal inundation caused by melting ice caps, heatwaves, drought, famine, economic collapse, war, and the potential for human extinction.

The basis for many of these predictions are the reports issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One of the functions of the IPCC is to model the Earth’s climate to predict changes in global temperature. Although the Earth is warming a bit, their models always seem to be more enthusiastic about warming than the Earth appears to be. In fact, a recent study from the UK suggests climate models factor in too much warming.

In science, if a hypothesis is proposed and predictions based on that hypothesis happen as predicted, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If not, the hypothesis is rejected. Not so with global warming. When global temperatures fail to meet the IPCC’s model predictions, they simply move the prediction date out into the future, all the while making it clear the global warming apocalypse is still coming.

Speaking of ominous, in 2006 former vice-president and climate change activist Al Gore claimed:
Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases in the next ten years, the world will reach a point of no return.
I doubt that point was reached a few weeks ago when I shoveled a surprise blanket of frozen climate change off my driveway. Fortunately, this and many of Gore’s other ominous climate predictions, have not come true.

So, what do we really know?

First, we know the percentage of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Carbon dioxide levels are approximately 45% higher now than they were 150 years ago, likely caused by the burning of fossil fuels during the twentieth century and recent industrialization in Asia.

Even though the present warming trend may be linked to rising amounts of CO2, this is an unproven hypothesis, not settled science. Scientists are still arguing over surface temperature data, including the way it is collected, adjusted, and interpreted; whether CO2 is affecting global temperatures as much as believed; and if water vapor, which humans have no control over, really dominates the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Incidentally, the news about carbon dioxide is not all bad. An international study found plant life thriving worldwide thanks to higher CO2 levels.

We know the Sun has a larger effect on the Earth’s climate than anything else. Small changes in solar insolation due to variations in the Sun’s energy output or cyclical variations in the Earth’s orbit, known as the Milankovitch Cycles, can make a big difference in the surface temperature. Yes, greenhouse gasses, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, and many other things can affect the climate, but the Sun is still the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

We live in an ice age. Over the last 450,000 years the ‘normal’ average global temperature has been approximately 5 degrees Centigrade cooler than it is today. During that time our climate cycled between long cool periods, known as glacials, which can last 50,000-100,000 years, and shorter warm periods called interglacials, which usually last between 10,000-20,000 years. During glacial periods glaciers and continental ice sheets develop and grow. During interglacial periods, like the one we are experiencing now, the Earth warms and sea level rises as most of the ice melts.

We know, due to the above-mentioned factors and other natural climate oscillations, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the 11-year Sunspot Cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and perhaps the De Vries Solar Cycle, the world’s climate continually changes. This means the present warming trend could be a natural climate oscillation unrelated to CO2 or possibly a combination of both.

One of those oscillations occurred between 1940 and 1977 as the Earth went through a minor cooling trend, possibly linked to the PDO. This prompted a global cooling scare as scientists feared we were sliding into another glacial period.

We are fairly certain the Earth has been warmer in the past than it is today, perhaps as recently as 950 -1250 AD during the Medieval Warm Period, or 5000-8000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, or during the Eemian Interglacial Period around 130,000-125,000 years ago.

We are also certain sea level was higher in the past than it is today. In their 2014 Climate Report the IPCC claims:
Maximum global mean sea level during the last interglacial period (129,000 to 116,000 years ago) was, for several thousand years, at least 5 m higher than present.
So, if the Earth was naturally warmer in the past and sea level was higher, both without extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, doesn’t this cast doubt on the CO2 apocalypse?

One item of concern is sea level, which has risen a bit over eight inches since 1880. Alarmists point out roughly ten percent of the world’s population live near the ocean at elevations of ten meters or less, and they present this information as if sea level rise is an imminent threat.

The present accepted rate of sea-level rise is about the thickness of two pennies stacked one on top of the other, around 3 millimeters per year. At this rate, sea level would rise barely 9 inches by 2100, meaning New York City, average elevation 10 meters, would be flooded in a little over 3,000 years. The point is this is a slow-motion process and something we can deal with.

To sum up, there are plenty of reasons to doubt human activities are the sole cause of climate change. If you are feeling anxious or guilty because of alarmist predictions, relax. The climate will continue to warm and cool and it is a good bet Mother Nature will be the one in the driver’s seat. If you still want to be an eco-warrior, recycle, plant a tree, and try to be energy efficient. It is good for the planet.

John Kudla


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama’s anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism reigned at the IRS from 2010- 2017 - Dr. Phyllis Chesler

by Dr. Phyllis Chesler

How one courageous proactive journalist took on the IRS over this issue - and won.

After a “long, lonely and expensive seven year struggle,” one that she alone, on behalf of Z STREET bore, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, the founder of Z STREET has just won a significant legal victory which grants her organization tax-exempt status and definitively exposes Obama’s IRS as obsessively anti-Israel.

Ironically, Marcus founded Z STREET in 2009 in order to “educate Americans about the Middle East and Israel’s defense against terror.”

The Z Street application was at first delayed, then frozen, because the IRS claimed as a defense, that Israel was viewed as a “terrorist entity,” and a country “with terrorism.”

Many of us suspected that Obama’s administration had politicized Homeland Security, the DOJ, the FBI, and the American relationship to the United Nations in ways that favored Islamism, Islamic terrorism, Palestine, Iran, and that demonized Zionism and Israel’s attempts at self-defense.

Z STREET”s successful lawsuit exposes how the Obama administration, through its power to grant or withhold tax-exempt status to groups, politicized and corrupted a policy of even-handedness, transparency, and accountability at the IRS.

Like the Western media, professoriate, international organizations, and very much like an Islamic world view, the American IRS viewed Israel, especially Israelis who lived “across the Green Line—the nonborder that delineates pre-1967 Israel from the territories it acquired in the Six Day War” as related to “terrorism” or as “terrorists.”

According to Marcus, "Our own investigation disclosed that between 2009 and 2016, while Z STREET’s application was stalled, the IRS needed no special scrutiny to grant numerous applications for tax-exempt status that explicitly proclaimed donations would be spent in Gaza—a territory formally under the jurisdiction of Hamas, which the U.S. State Department designates as a terror organization."

According to Marcus, in a personal interview, the following is merely a sampling of not-for-profits, which she obtained via Guidestar; the IRS had okayed these “charities” during the period that Z STREET’s application remained pending.
  • American Charities for Palestine
  • Institute for Palestine Studies USA Inc
  • Teach for Palestine
  • Palestine Foundation Inc.
  • The Israel Palestine Project
  • Opportunity Palestine
  • Palestine Advocacy Project
  • Physicians for Palestine Inc.
  • Coloradans for Justice in Palestine
  • Embrace the Children of Palestine Inc.
  • Just Peace for Israel Palestine
  • Justice for Palestine-Israel Inc.
  • Opportunity Palestine
  • Palestine in America inc. NFP
  • Joining Hands for Justine [sic] in Palestine Israel Inc.
  • Land of Canaan Foundation Inc.
  • Peace of Palos Hills
  • PAL Craftaid
  • United Muslim Relief UMR
  • Karamausa Inc.
  • AJP Educational Foundation Inc.
  • Friends of Al-Rowwad USA Inc.
  • Holy Land Missions
  • Project Unified Assistance
  • Gaza's Hope
  • Project Unified Assistance
  • Palestinian American Medical Association
Now we have further documentation of Obama’s official anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism and its reign at the IRS between 2010 and 2017.

The mainstream or leftstream and liberal media barely covered this lawsuit. The Wall Street Journal and FOX did. 

One 2010 article in Politico found the right kind of Jew, former IRS Commissioner, Sheldon Cohen who said, "he was skeptical of Z Street's motives in its high-profile lawsuit, rather than pursuing its concerns in tax court. 'They were hardly into the process when they screamed rape – nobody lifted the dress yet,' he said, noting that 501(c)3 groups can't advocate for political positions. 

Seven years is a long time to be unable to raise funding for educational purposes; it is also a long time in which to launch and maintain a self-defensive lawsuit, one which was immediately punished by the IRS which then froze the Z STREET application. Seven years is a long time to experience the absence of Jewish-American organizational support; the turned backs of Jewish philanthropists is another kind of sorrow and challenge.

Marcus is a hero.Her website is here. Her summary of the Consent Order is here.

After I called Lori to congratulate her, she agreed to an interview. Here it is.

Q: Who, if anyone, helped you during your seven year battle?

A: We never could have afforded the seven-plus years of litigation, but luckily my husband and I are lawyers and did the vast bulk of the work. Two law firms graciously helped out as local counsel in Washington, D.C. There were a few in the non-mainstream media who paid attention to our case, and that was extremely helpful. Some smaller pro-Israel organizations such as EMET and AFSI, were very supportive. Most helpful of all, the Wall Street Journal wrote editorial after editorial as it followed our case, and Fox News also covered it at various points.

Q: Who, besides the IRS, opposed, ostracized, or threatened you? 

A: Nobody threatened us, but some organizations - including some Jewish ones and even pro-Israel ones which we expected to be supportive - were either silent or distinctly unhelpful. For some reason no one in Congress, not even ostensibly pro-Israel folks on either side of the aisle, were helpful. We were just too small to matter to them, I think.

Q: What have you lost in this battle?

A: A great deal of emotional energy, personally. For the thousands of ardently pro-Israel individuals around the world who rallied 'round when we launched, a strong voice of ardent but accurate Zionism was lost.

Q: How do you feel now that you’ve won this battle for transparency, truth, and justice? Do you believe that this will set a precedent for other conservative or pro-Israel organizations who have been fighting for not-for-profit status?

A: I believe that had we not fought this battle many more pro-Israel organizations would have been hindered by the IRS. There was a repeated effort during the Obama administration to bar organizations that support Judea and Samaria from being eligible for tax-exempt status. There was a reason the IRS fought so hard for so long and with so many resources to keep us quiet. I have heard from other pro-Israel organizations in recent years that they believed their applications were treated swiftly and fairly because we made things difficult for the IRS and because we refused to fold. I am sure that had we not fought back through our lawsuit, the effort in the State Department and the IRS would have become a full-fledged policy.

Q: Have you heard from anyone in the new administration? If so, who and what did they say if anything?

A: I believe our case was finally settled, and the Department of Justice lawyers agreed to the admissions it did, because of the fairly recent entry of new lawyers at the administrative level with oversight for the IRS. I very much doubt ours and the Tea Party cases would have settled had this new administration not been in office.

Q: What are you planning or at least hoping to do now?

A: I'm hoping Z STREET will again be a voice for ardent and accurate Zionism. There is so much to do, and comparatively so few voices unabashedly raised in support of Israel. I hope people will come to our new website, ZSTREET.ORG - we had to shut down the one we had because of lack of funding - and share their views and amplify ours.

Q: What else might you want to say?

A: The legal process is an unwieldy, awkward tool for correcting injustice, but sometimes, if you stick to it long enough, it actually works!

Lowenthal-Marcus' recent article on the lawsuit appeared in the Wall Street Journal

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum and recipient of the 2013 National Jewish Book Award, is the author of sixteen books, including Women and Madness, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, and The New Anti-Semitism. She has written four studies about honor killing, Her latest books are An American Bride in Kabul, (Palgrave Macmillan) and Living History: On The Front Lines for Israel and the Jews.Professor Chesler may be reached at her website


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.