A terrorist finds a safe-harbor in Turkey.

Sami Al-Arian, admitted terror sponsor, finds a new home in Turkey. 

Old terrorists do not die, they just move to Turkey.

Announcement of United Arab Emirates and Israel normalizing relations has one repentant terrorist up in arms.

My latest JNS column:

 

Condemnation of Israel and Jews from terrorists and their supporters is not new, it just comes from different directions. One case in point is Sami Al-Arian, who was deported from the United States following a prison sentence for his guilt as a sponsor of the terrorist organization, Islamic Jihad.

Today, the Kuwaiti-born Al-Arian lives in Turkey, the only country that would accept him after his deportation, where he heads the Istanbul-based Center for Islam and Global Affairs. He’s often interviewed and quoted by Arab news outlets—most recently, about the announcement of the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.

To many in the United States, Sami Al-Arian was the victim of a U.S. government conspiring with Israel to punish him for his pro-Palestinian views. To those of us who have suffered the loss of loved ones because of his support—financial and moral—of terror, he is an unrepentant murderer.

America’s attention was first called to Al-Arian in 1994 by Steven Emerson in his documentary, “Jihad in America,” where Al-Arian’s links to Islamic Jihad were outlined. But it was 1995 that would be the terror group’s defining year. It was in that year that Islamic Jihad conducted a series of deadly suicide bomb attacks in Israel, one of the victims being my 20-year-old daughter, Alisa.

Following the October 1995 death of Islamic Jihad leader Fathi Shikaki, an associate of Al-Arian—Ramadan Abdullah Shallah—surfaced in Damascus as new the leader of Islamic Jihad. A month later, Al-Arian’s business records were seized by the FBI in a raid on his home and office at the University of South Florida, where he was working as a computer-science teacher.

Al-Arian used his role at the university to establish two organizations: the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), and the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE). According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, both of these “think tanks” were nothing more than fronts used by Al-Arian to assist terrorists such as Abdullah Shallah to enter the United States.

Like many Americans at the time, the raids on Al-Arian’s home and office surprised me. Although Islamic Jihad had murdered my daughter just a few months earlier, no one in the Israeli or American governments made any assertion at the time that fundraising and moral support was coming from within America.

Despite my own meetings with U.S. Justice Department officials in the Clinton administration urging that something be done, the case against Al-Arian, if there was one, languished.

Al-Arian would continue to have photo ops with prominent politicians, including presidents Clinton

Pres. Bush & Al-Arian

and Bush; receive invitations to the White House and meet with

Justice Department officials; and go about his business defending his 

right to free speech—all the time denying any link to Islamic Jihad or 

terrorism in the Middle East.

Justice Department officials told me that the delays in the prosecution were due to difficulties translating faxes and other documents from Arabic to English, the fact that the Israelis were not providing information, and that they did not have the staff resources to pursue the case. All the while, President Clinton was trying to breathe life into a moribund Middle East peace process. I wondered, could the delay be attributable to a calculation that a prosecution of Al-Arian would embarrass the Palestinian leadership? I do not know.

What I do know is that in the summer of 2001, there was a new administration in the White House and a new attorney general at the Justice Department. In July, my attorney and I met with the FBI and Justice Department team working on the links between Al-Arian and Islamic Jihad in this country. The goal, I was told, was to bring Al-Arian to trial.

Many have subsequently ascribed the indictment of Al-Arian in February 2003 as a test of the Patriot Act. But the time line is clear to me that and the Justice Department was on his trail long before the law came into existence, and while the Patriot Act might have made the gathering of information against Al-Arian easier, it was not the impetus or the reason for his indictment. The fact of the matter remains that Al-Arian was accused of working for Islamic Jihad, which had killed Americans, and the crime could be addressed here.

I welcomed the idea of putting Al-Arian on trial. Let Americans and the world see the lengths that terror’s supporters go in order to murder civilians riding a public bus. But the trial turned out to be a disaster.

Experts arguing over the interpretations of Arabic words used in intercepted fax transmissions to Al-Arian from Islamic jihad headquarters in Gaza and Damascus asking for money and announcing terror attacks confused the jury. The jury acquitted Al-Arian on most charges and deadlocked on several others.

He eventually entered a guilty plea to supporting terrorism, and after serving a short prison sentence, he was to be deported from the United States. Denied access to Egypt, which has its own problems dealing with terror organizations, Turkey welcomed him and provided him with a platform to lambaste anything positive coming out of the Middle East when it involves Israel.

News of the breakthrough quickly brought Al-Arian’s condemnation. According to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, Al-Arian says the move to normalization “grants Israel the keys to Al-Aqsa [mosque] and Jerusalem,” and “[T]his is betrayal, not only of the trust that has been given to the Muslim world over 1,400 years ago, but also of the Palestinian cause and people.”

“Despite the deal, the Palestinian people will remain defiant and vigilant against such attempts” and “will never give up their secret (sic) right, not only in Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, but across Palestine,” said Al-Arian.

Always eager to burn his bridges, he now claims that the “United Arab Emirates has been involved in every aspect of evil doing across the region” and calls for “another wave of an Arab Spring movement in which the people will have their final say.”

There’s nothing like a call for revolution to make friends and influence people. But Al-Arian is never interested in building bridges, just destroying them. And his Turkish hosts give him the forum to do so.

Stephen M. Flatow is a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, an attorney in New Jersey and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. His book, “A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror,” is now available on Kindle.  He divides his time between Jerusalem and New Jersey.

 

A Review of A Father's Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror written by Stephen M. Flatow

In new memoir, father seeks justice from terrorists who killed his daughter

jpost.com/Magazine/Fighting-back-576170

By Gil TroyJanuary 1, 2019

In April 1995, a Palestinian terrorist murdered Alisa Flatow, a 20-year-old American.

Beyond further illustrating Palestinians’ obsession with killing Jews and not building Palestine, this crime showed that six months before Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, Palestinian terrorists were already sabotaging the Oslo Peace Process.

This tragedy also mobilized Stephen Flatow against the terror infrastructure that murdered his daughter. Flatow’s determination created a new tool against terrorism – lawfare; drained billions from the networks bankrolling terrorism; and pushed back creatively against Iran, the world’s great terror-paymaster.

His battle was one “I’d win, but one which could never compensate me for what I had lost,” Flatow writes in his new book, A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.

That subtle, tear-stained sentence captures the nightmare haunting his life – and both sides of his remarkable memoir. It’s a compelling legal-political thriller, and a searing tribute to a missing daughter.

The first dimension is a real-life Hollywood thriller. A regular guy – a real-estate lawyer from New Jersey – seeking justice, punishes evil, confronts hypocrisy and inspires millions. Flatow wanted to sue the Iranians for financing Alisa’s murderer. He assumed the discovery process would embarrass them, exposing the mullahocracy’s evils. But – surprise! The court quickly awarded his family $250 million.

Then the real drama began.

As Flatow explained to me recently in Jerusalem, the American government “was caught flat-footed by the judgment, too.” Then-president Bill Clinton feared this decision might unleash many Lone American Rangers against foreign governments – making a mess of American foreign policy. Less explicable was Clinton’s softness toward Iran – which Barack Obama mimicked. That’s “what still frustrates me the most,” Flatow says. “I could never quite understand what his goal was.”

Thanks to Flatow’s superhuman persistence – lobbying, cajoling, button-holing, speechifying, op-eding – the Flatows eventually received about one-tenth of the award. Today, the money funds good causes, especially the kind of year-in-Israel programs Alisa was enjoying when she was killed.

Unfortunately, they were double-crossed.

Flatow refused to take “one cent” from the American taxpayer. The Clintonites implied the funds came from $400 million in seized Iranian assets. Only in 2016, when the Obama administration inexplicably paid Iran the $400 million – plus $1.3 billion in interest – did Flatow realize he’d been snookered.

What makes the book most memorable is the emotional journey Flatow shares with the reader as the international intrigue is playing out.

Alisa was a vivacious kid who, like all kids, wasn’t perfect, and wondered why things went wrong when they did. Once, when she broke her foot, Flatow explained to Alisa: “Things happen. We just don’t understand why. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

FLATOW WRITES movingly about his excruciating last-minute flight to Israel, with his daughter on life-support, to authorize ending her life – and sharing her organs with others. It will be a challenge for readers – seeing how he’s shepherded with love along the way – to get through the book without getting misty-eyed.

At the funeral, after calmly recounting the Israeli and American love that enveloped them, Flatow said: “What breaks my heart the most is this. There’s one family mourning the loss of a child. And there’s a family dancing with glee that their son killed himself – and my daughter.”

Later, he recalls being cross-examined by his lawyer, Tom Fay, who asked: “Mr. Flatow, you were the father of Alisa Flatow?”
Flatow responded: “No.”

Fay “looked lost.” Flatow explained: “I’m still her father.”

Fay teared up. The judge swiveled away, trying to hide his emotions. Flatow realized then that he just might win.

Today, Flatow tells Orthodox students: “You must learn how to stand up for yourself as a person and a Jew. History has taught us if we don’t stand up for ourselves no one else will. But we do it in a civil way.” He tells non-religious Jews: “Israel is our home. We can always look toward Israel for our strength and our inspiration.” Then he adds, “Please, understand that people there are under tremendous pressure and they deserve our support.”

Flatow has lived a full life, with a loving wife, four surviving children and 16 grandchildren. He has full days, often waking up at 5 a.m. But, he says, “Eventually, every night, you run out of steam. You never quite recover.” 

This Jewish hero, this American hero, this extraordinary human being, ends his love poem to his daughter, to Judaism, Israel, Zionism and humanity, with the wrenching words: “I can only hope that I will find my right place.”

We hope so, too, while imagining how many lives he – and Alisa by extension – saved by pursuing the terrorists and their enablers, putting them on the defensive for a change.

The writer is the author of the newly-released The Zionist Ideas, an update and expansion of Arthur Hertzberg’s classic anthology,The Zionist Idea, published by the Jewish Publication Society. A distinguished scholar of North American History at McGill University, he is the author of 10 books on American history, including The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s.  

In This Case, I Can't Be Diplomatic; I Lost a Child to Terrorism; Now I'm Losing U.S. Support

The Washington Post - Washington, D.C.
Date:	Nov 7, 1999
Section:	OUTLOOK
Late in the evening of April 10, 1995, the day we lost our daughter Alisa to a suicide bomb, I received a long-distance telephone call from another father. He expressed his condolences and wondered aloud if he would show the same strength that I was displaying if his own daughter had been killed. Before we hung up, Bill Clinton also told me he would help us obtain justice. That is not how it has turned out. Alisa, a 20-year-old student at Brandeis University on a trip to Israel, was traveling in Gaza when her bus was rammed by a van packed full of explosives. The driver was identified as a member of Islamic Jihad, a militant Palestinian organization funded largely by the government of Iran. Alisa was the only American among the eight dead. President Clinton's apparently heartfelt sympathy--repeated when we met privately in March 1996--was only one of many expressions of support my family and I received from U.S. officials in the aftermath of that horrible crime. And soon, we were given hope for more concrete assistance. Under a law passed a year after Alisa died, American citizens were given for the first time the right to use U.S. civil courts to sue foreign governments that sponsor terrorist attacks. At the signing ceremony, Clinton spoke movingly of our country's commitment to use all tools at its disposal to fight terrorism. This law would be my tool, I thought. I would use the institutions of a just society to seek justice. But when I tried to use the law, I found the U.S. government wasn't really in my corner. In my attempts to demand that the sponsors of terrorism pay for their actions, I have received help only as long as my interests don't conflict with the administration's goals. I did not take lightly the significance of suing a foreign country. In fact, I do not think I would have filed suit at all but for the very clear signals I had received that the Clinton administration would be on our side. There were some cautionary notes. Early on, sympathetic State Department officials had been helpful in providing me with information about Alisa's killers. But when I asked them for assistance in beginning my lawsuit, their roundabout answer indicated that career diplomats might not be enthusiastic about our plans. Nevertheless, Clinton still seemed encouraging at our next meeting- -a few minutes alone during a New York fund-raiser in June 1996. I handed him a letter requesting government assistance in my lawsuit. As he put it in his jacket pocket, the president told me that he was behind me and my family. In February 1997, I went to court. Acting as administrator of Alisa's estate, I filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington against the Islamic Republic of Iran, its president, its supreme spiritual leader and its minister of information. Because we had to pick a figure, we sought $100 million in damages. We served papers on the defendants via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran; the State Department actively assisted in getting the documents to the Swiss and ensuring that they were properly served. Though the Iranian government never responded to our filing, we still had to make our case at trial. We presented 22 witnesses over two days in March 1998. And two weeks later, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found in our favor and awarded $247.5 million in damages. Should we ever receive that money, my family has earmarked it for three causes: sending students to Israel; studying post- traumatic stress syndrome; and offering rewards for the capture of perpetrators of terrorism. To say that I was heartened by events so far would be an understatement. Here I was, an average taxpayer, receiving what seemed to be the full support of the mighty United States of America in my quest to find justice for the death of my daughter and some meaning in its aftermath. All that remained was making the Iranians pay, which we expected to do using standard procedure: locate their assets in the United States, get a U.S. marshal to serve a writ, and obtain an order to have the assets sold. That very afternoon, however, we were stunned by criticism from an unexpected quarter: Asked about our court victory, State Department spokesman James Rubin was quoted as telling reporters that the United States did not believe in judgments against foreign countries, but in negotiations with them. Somehow, my use of a federal law, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, was being characterized as a violation of the foreign policy of the United States. At first, I did not appreciate how serious the opposition was going to be. But things got worse. Because we could not attach those assets protected by diplomatic immunity, we went in search of commercial assets in the United States owned by the government of Iran. But when we asked the Treasury Department for help, the office of the secretary refused. It would be "too burdensome" to help us locate assets, I was told in June 1998. We met with national security adviser Samuel Berger. It was disheartening, to say the least. He professed to know nothing about the lawsuit, and therefore used the time merely to express sympathy. That September we had another setback. A victims' rights law had just been passed, which we believed would give us the ability to seize a wider range of Iranian government assets. But the law also gave the president the right to waive its provisions in the name of national security. And President Clinton--the man who called me the night my daughter died, who said he was behind us in our quest for justice--exercised that option. Even as he denied us the right to seize Iranian properties, however, he promised--in an accompanying press release--that his administration would help "the Flatow family" locate "commercial Iranian assets" in the United States. When cooperation was still not forthcoming, I wrangled another short meeting with the president this past February. I told him we needed answers to questions that we had put to the State Department about whether three banks were owned by the Iranian government. I must have gotten through because a few weeks later I got my answer-- yes. But such help had critical limits. For example, the government identified property owned by a foundation in Maryland that, it said, was controlled by Iran. When I went to Maryland to investigate, the head of the foundation denied any Iranian connection. So I appealed to the State Department to write an affidavit, something I could use in court. It declined. I am stymied. Relations with the administration have reached a low. We've become the odd man out in what I thought would be a partnership. More than a year after obtaining the judgment, I'm still being opposed in my efforts to make the Iranians pay the price prescribed by U.S. law. About 10 days ago, there was a hearing on our case before the Senate Judiciary Committee. To my ears, the administration officials who testified seemed only interested in delaying our efforts. Am I frustrated? Yes. I think back over the time spent on trains from New Jersey to Washington, catching naps at Reagan National, walking the halls of the House and Senate office buildings to garner support for my part in our country's fight against terrorists and their sponsors. I understand that the political realities have changed, that there is a new regime in Iran, one that has the potential to join the community of civilized nations. I understand that the State Department might not want to derail any diplomatic initiatives in that direction. And I would understand if department officials had simply said, "Bear with us during this difficult time and someday we will help you." Instead, they continue to say that carrying out my judgment would endanger the security of the United States. If that's true, I'm the bad guy. Is my cause worth the struggle? Of course it is. The only way we are going to defeat terrorists is by committed pursuit. To do anything less will allow these killers to get away with murder. President Clinton once told me I was brave and courageous. I asked him if there was anything he wouldn't do for his daughter. He said no. "Just because Alisa is not here with us does not mean that we stop doing things for our children," I told him. And that is true-- even if it means we have to challenge our own government to rise above that which is politically expedient. Stephen Flatow is a lawyer in West Orange, N.J.

America overreacting to terrorism? Ted Koppel thinks so

The following appeared in the Wall Street Journal.  It is set out in full because you can't read it on line with out a subscription.

Do I agree with his conclusions?  Yes, I do.  What do you think?

Ted Koppel: America's Chronic Overreaction to Terrorism The country's capacity for self-inflicted damage must have astounded even Osama bin Laden
 By TED KOPPEL
 June 28, 2014, will mark the 100th anniversary of what is arguably the most eventful terrorist attack in history. That was the day that Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb, shot and killed the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
 In one of those mega-oversimplifications that journalists love and historians abhor, the murder of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his pregnant wife, Sophie, led directly and unavoidably to World War I. Between 1914 and 1918, 37 million soldiers and civilians were injured or killed. If there should ever be a terrorists' Hall of Fame, Gavrilo Princip will surely deserve consideration as its most effective practitioner.
 Terrorism, after all, is designed to produce overreaction. It is the means by which the weak induce the powerful to inflict damage upon themselves—and al Qaeda and groups like it are surely counting on that as the centerpiece of their strategy.
 It appears to be working. Right now, 19 American embassies and a number of consulates and smaller diplomatic outposts are closed for the week due to the perceived threat of attacks against U.S. targets. Meantime, the U.S. has launched drone strikes on al Qaeda fighters in Yemen.
 By the standards of World War I, however, the United States has responded to the goading of contemporary terrorism with relative moderation. Indeed, during almost a decade of terrorist provocation, the U.S. government showed the utmost restraint. In February of 1993, before most of us had any real awareness of al Qaeda, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who would later be identified as the principal architect of 9/11, financed an earlier attack on the World Trade Center with car bombs that killed six and injured more than 1,000.
 Five years later, al Qaeda launched synchronized attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 220 and injuring well over 4,000 people. In October 2000, al Qaeda operatives rammed a boat carrying explosives into the USS Cole, which was docked in Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed and 39 were injured.
 Each of these attacks occurred during the presidency of Bill Clinton. In each case, the U.S. responded with caution and restraint. Covert and special operations were launched. The U.S. came close to killing or capturing Osama bin Laden at least twice, but there was a clear awareness among many policy makers that bin Laden might be trying to lure the U.S. into overreacting. Clinton administration counterterrorism policy erred, if at all, on the side of excessive caution.
 Critics may argue that Washington's feckless response during the Clinton years encouraged al Qaeda to launch its most spectacular and devastating attack on Sept. 11, 2001. But President George W. Bush also showed great initial restraint in ordering a response to the 9/11 attacks. Covert American intelligence operatives working with special operations forces coordinated indigenous Afghan opposition forces against the Taliban on the ground, while U.S. air power was directed against the Taliban and al Qaeda as they fled toward Pakistan.
 It was only 18 months later, with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that the U.S. began to inflict upon itself a degree of damage that no external power could have achieved. Even bin Laden must have been astounded. He had, it has been reported, hoped that the U.S. would be drawn into a ground war in Afghanistan, that graveyard to so many foreign armies. But Iraq! In the end, the war left 4,500 American soldiers dead and 32,000 wounded. It cost well in excess of a trillion dollars—every penny of which was borrowed money.
 Saddam was killed, it's true, and the world is a better place for it. What prior U.S. administrations understood, however, was Saddam's value as a regional counterweight to Iran. It is hard to look at Iraq today and find that the U.S. gained much for its sacrifices there. Nor, as we seek to untangle ourselves from Afghanistan, can U.S. achievements there be seen as much of a bargain for the price paid in blood and treasure.
 At home, the U.S. has constructed an antiterrorism enterprise so immense, so costly and so inexorably interwoven with the defense establishment, police and intelligence agencies, communications systems, and with social media, travel networks and their attendant security apparatus, that the idea of downsizing, let alone disbanding such a construct, is an exercise in futility.
 The Sunday TV talk shows this past weekend resonated with the rare sound of partisan agreement: The intercepted "chatter" between al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri and the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was sufficiently ominous that few questions have been raised about the government's decision to close its embassies.
 It may be that an inadequate response to danger signals that resulted in the death of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi last September contributed to an overreaction in the current instance. Clearly, it does not hurt, at a time when the intelligence community is charged with being overly intrusive in its harvesting of intelligence data, that we be presented with dramatic evidence of the program's effectiveness.
 Yet when all is said and done, al Qaeda—by most accounts decimated and battered by more than a decade of the worst damage that the world's most powerful nation can inflict—remains a serious enough threat that Washington ordered 19 of its embassies to pull up their drawbridges and take shelter for fear of what those terrorists still might do.
 Will terrorists kill innocent civilians in the years to come? Of course. They did so more than 100 years ago, when they were called anarchists—and a responsible nation-state must take reasonable measures to protect its citizens. But there is no way to completely eliminate terrorism.
 The challenge that confronts us is how we will live with that threat. We have created an economy of fear, an industry of fear, a national psychology of fear. Al Qaeda could never have achieved that on its own. We have inflicted it on ourselves.
 Over the coming years many more Americans will die in car crashes, of gunshot wounds inflicted by family members and by falling off ladders than from any attack by al Qaeda.
 There is always the nightmare of terrorists acquiring and using a weapon of mass destruction. But nothing would give our terrorist enemies greater satisfaction than that we focus obsessively on that remote possibility, and restrict our lives and liberties accordingly.
 Mr. Koppel is a special correspondent for NBC News and news analyst for NPR.
 A version of this article appeared August 7, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: America's Chronic Overreaction to Terrorism.
 

Stephen M. Flatow

Frida Ghitis - "Middle East peace requires courage"

Frida Ghitis writing in the Miami Herald - "Middle East peace requires courage"

One of the most extraordinary moments in recent Middle East history came in 1993, when the world discovered that Israeli and Palestinian teams had held secret peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, formerly sworn enemies, came together on the White House lawn, formalizing their commitment to peace. The decision, and that memorably awkward hand-shake, prodded along by President Bill Clinton, required uncommon courage. They called it the Peace of the Brave. [Ed. - Yes, they did and it gave rise to a new vocabulary, such as, a Sacrifice for the Peace, to describe the murders of innocent civilians such as Alisa Flatow.]

The term deserves dusting off because it highlights one of the key requirements for peace, and one whose absence could prove the undoing of the new effort unfolding under U.S. sponsorship. Bravery, courage, are indispensable because no matter how comforting the idea of peace, reaching an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is a frighteningly dangerous process.

To reach a deal, the leaders -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas -- must make compromises that will break the hearts of millions of their followers. They will have to accept terms that will anger some enough that they will kill. And they will have to sign on to borders that could make their land -- especially in Israel's case -- vulnerable to unthinkable risks.

The euphoric events of 1993 gave way to disappointment, but they also helped draw the blueprint guiding the new quest for peace.

No one claims the new effort suffers from unrealistic expectations. Skepticism about its chances for success prevails. I call it skepticism and not pessimism, because many who claim peace is impossible in fact hope for failure. By their standards, they are optimistic.

When the leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah say the process will fail they remind us of their plan. Their solution is the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a fundamentalist Muslim regime; an alternative, backed by weapons, militias and money, that looms over the peace talks like a thick dark shadow, but also provides some of the impetus to persevere.

Ironically, the negotiating sides already agree on the solution's rough outlines. With the possible exception of the future of Jerusalem, everyone knows what is required for peace.

Even more frustrating is that the subject of closest agreement has become the most contentious. Partly because of missteps by the Obama administration, the issue of settlements has moved front and center and could provide a timid Mahmoud Abbas a way out of the talks. Abbas says without a settlement freeze he will pull out. Netanyahu says that, like all other differences, this should be resolved "through direct continuous talks.''

Already in the Clinton days that problem was essentially solved. Settlements take up about 4 percent of the disputed land. Most settlers live on a few large blocs, which in an agreement would be swapped for equal amounts of land within Israel proper.

To be sure, tough disagreements remain. But a basic obstacle to peace today is that Abbas, the Palestinian representative, appears to lack the power, the legitimacy and, yes, the courage, to close a deal.

Abbas, who rules only over the West Bank, asked for permission not just from Palestinians but from the Arab League, to start negotiations. When talks started in Washington, Hamas, which controls Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians, signaled its rejection by murdering more Israelis. The London-based Arab newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi editorialized that Abbas "negotiates without being granted the authorization to do so by his people.''

Adding irony to this sad situation, majorities of Palestinians and Israelis desperately want a peace deal. Contrary to what an ill-informed article in Time recently argued, Israelis are eager for peace. For years a vast majority of Israelis has expressed strong support for a two-state solution. A recent War and Peace Index poll found 80 percent support negotiations, easily outnumbering opponents of compromise.

A majority of Palestinians also back negotiations. But in the Arab world, public opinion carries less weight. Writing in the influential Arab daily Ashar al-Awsat, Mamoun Fandy wrote, ``The Palestinian division is not simply an internal one, as some may think, but is first an Arab division, and secondly a regional one.'' Even if Abbas achieved an agreement, he argued, he would find much of the Arab world pressuring Palestinians to reject it.

That's why Abbas announced shortly after leaving Washington that, "I can't allow myself to make even one concession.'' If he meant that, the new peace process is already over. Clearly, these are not the words from a man with the courage to make the peace of the brave. But then, Arafat ultimately lost his nerve. Maybe Abbas can find his.

Read the column on-line.

I know that Netanyahu has made previous decisions that did not rest well with sectors of his political support, but he made them anyway. Abbas, considered a terrorist by Yitzhak Rabin, does not, in my opinion, have either the willingness or the guts to make similar decisions. Will we back to base one again? The next days and weeks will tell.

What do you think?

Caroline Glick on "Israel's Arab Cheerleaders"

It is a strange situation when Egypt and Jordan feel it necessary to defend Israel against American criticism. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves today.

That's Caroline Glick's take on developments in the Middle East, especially with regard to American posturing on Iran's development of nuclear weapons. (You don't really believe they're going to provide nuclear generated electricity to Tehran, do you?)

Let's look at some recent happenings.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that Arab support for Israel's bid to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is contingent on its agreeing to support the rapid establishment of a Palestinian state. In her words, "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts." As far as Clinton is concerned, the two, "go hand-in-hand."

Yet,

But just around the time that Clinton was making this statement, Jordan's King Abdullah II was telling The Washington Post that he is satisfied with the Netanyahu government's position on the Palestinians. In his words, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has "sent a message that he's committed to peace with the Arabs. All the words I heard were the right words."

As for Egypt, in spite of the Israeli media's hysterical reports that Egypt won't deal with the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration's warning that Israel can only expect Egypt to support its position that Iran must be denied nuclear weapons if it gives Jerusalem to the PLO, last week's visit by Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman clearly demonstrated that Egypt wishes to work with the government on a whole host of issues. Coming as it did on the heels of Egypt's revelation that Iranian-controlled Hizbullah agents were arrested for planning strategic attacks against it, Suleiman's visit was a clear sign that Egypt is as keen as Israel to neutralize Iranian power in the region by preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

What's going on here? Frankly, those closest to Iran understand and appreciate the threat posed by an out of control Iran to American allies in the Middle East and, by extension, to Europe.

As one American who recently met with Persian Gulf leaders explained last week, "As far as the Gulf leaders are concerned, Israel cannot attack Iran fast enough. They understand what the stakes are."

The threat of a nuclear weapon armed Iran is global. The reality could be catastrophic. President Obama's belief that all will be well if Israel would just pull its citizens out of the disputed territories and turn Jerusalem over to the PLO is not only naive, it's dangerous, too.

Read the full article Israel's Arab cheerleaders.

Gaza Rebuilding is Center Stage at Sharm e-Sheikh

U.S. Secretary of State joined other representatives in the opening day of discussions at Sharm e-Sheikh designed to bring aid and comfort to Gazans. According to the AP, Clinton declared ‘the Obama administration committed to pushing intensively to find a way for Israelis and Palestinians to exist peacefully in separate states.

The conference came about to halt, in the words of others, the “cycle of violence” between Israel and Hamas beginning with Hamas launching rockets and mortars into Israel.

"We cannot afford more setbacks or delays — or regrets about what might have been, had different decisions been made," she said in apparent reference to the failure of previous peace initiatives, including those pushed vigorously by her husband's administration.”

With almost $900 million US dollars on the table for Palestinians, the AP reports that Clinton said, "We have worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure our funding is only used where and for whom it is intended and does not end up in the wrong hands," Clinton told the conference. She did not explicitly mention Hamas but alluded to extremist elements.”

“Before Clinton spoke, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the conference he was encouraged by the Obama administration's approach to the Mideast. He singled out Obama's decision to appoint Mitchell a special Mideast peace envoy.” Unfortunately, Mr. Ban’s remarks as reported by the United Nations are less than satisfactory.

A UN press release dated March 2, 2009 reporting on Mr. Ban’s attendance at the conference states,

"When building a house, we begin with the foundation," he noted. "So too with our work today. When it comes to rebuilding Gaza, this foundation must be a durable ceasefire.

"And that, in turn, requires us to face a number of political realities -- and to deal with them squarely," he stated.

“The Secretary-General stressed that the first priority must be to ensure open crossings, which are vital for aid delivery and to implement social and economic programme -- the starting point of reconstruction.”

Unfortunately, nowhere in his remarks does Mr. Ban make mention of the reason for Israel’s launching of Operation Cast Lead, rockets and mortars fired by Hamas into Israel, nor does he mention Hamas’s captivity of Israeli soldier Galid Schalit.Israel, once again, is given the blame for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Shame on you Mr. Ban for not recognizing that humanitarian gestures run both ways.

What do you think?

Read the full reports: Clinton Calls for Action; United Nations Press Release