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.

Israel's Prisoner Release, my two cents

Much has been written, pro and con, about Israel's release of convicted terrorists from prison.  It's an upsetting event.  The following is from the New York Post-

Will my daughter’s killers go free?

By STEPHEN M. FLATOW

Last Updated: 12:33 AM, July 31, 2013

Posted: 10:15 PM, July 30, 2013

My stomach flipped when I heard the news this week that Israel is releasing more than 100 imprisoned Palestinian terrorists, including many who’ve murdered civilians.
My daughter Alisa was murdered by Palestinian terrorists in 1995. Some of those terrorists or their co-conspirators were killed by Israeli security forces; some were arrested by the Palestinian Authority, then released soon afterward. Two have been in an Israeli prison since 1995, serving life sentences.
Unlike the United States, Israel doesn’t have the death penalty for terrorists, but I thought these guys would be behind bars for, well, life — because Israel, our family was told, wouldn’t use terrorists as political bargaining chips. That was a “red line” that Israel would supposedly never cross.
I’ve always accepted the fact that Israel would have to make hard decisions when it came time to negotiate a solution to 65 years of Arab hostility and warfare against the Jewish state. I understood this when an Israeli prime minister shook hands with arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn in 1993.
And I didn’t complain to the Israeli government when, after Alisa was murdered by Islamic Jihad, some Israeli officials called her a “casualty of the peace” — when she was, in fact, murdered by Palestinian Arabs freely operating with the knowledge of the Palestinian Authority and some of her killers were roaming free under the noses of Arafat and his deputy — now Palestinian president— Mahmoud Abbas.
But then Israel began to breach the red line on releasing terrorists. Small numbers of Palestinian terrorists — although not those directly involved in murders — were set free as “good-will gestures” to either revive a stagnant peace process or because Israel’s hand was forced because of some political or military blunder.
Perhaps one could understand the logic of releasing prisoners to establish good will with the Palestinian public or to strengthen the Palestinian leadership. But it became clear to me, and (according to poll after poll) the Israeli public, that these efforts were not met with any reciprocity from the other side.
Terrorists are idolized by the Palestinian people; their leaders name parks, stadiums and athletic events after mass murderers.
As a result, I thought that by now Israel would have learned the first lesson of negotiating: Never negotiate with yourself.
I appear to be wrong, because, apparently at the behest of Secretary of State John Kerry, over 100 terrorists are going free, including many directly involved in multiple murders — as a good-will measure to “bolster” Abbas and to give Kerry something to say he accomplished after racking up so many frequent-flyer miles traveling to the Middle East.
What will Israel get in return? From all news accounts, it appears the answer is nothing more than the Palestinians returning to the negotiating table.
So I ask Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Will my daughter’s murderers, now in an Israeli prison, be released for the sake of good will? Can you show me anything concrete that will come from this action that will allow my son and his family, citizens of Israel, to sleep safely in their home in Jerusalem?
Show me something that will allow me to go to my eventual rest knowing that my personal efforts to assist in the ongoing development of the state of Israel weren’t a waste of time. Show me something, anything at all, and I will support you.
Unfortunately, I don’t think you can. Your present course of action will only lead to more tragedy.
Stephen M. Flatow lives in New Jersey; his daughter Alisa was murdered in an April 1995 terror attack at Kfar Darom.

Read more: Will my daughter’s killers go free? - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/will_my_daughter_killers_go_free_qC4iBBbZ30MhfK8iLUJZKI#ixzz2abP3lBpj

Just another insult - Islamic Jihad posts video of attack

I previously posted a video distributed by Islamic Jihad commemorating the terror attack that killed Alisa Flatow and 7 others in April 1995 near the settlement of Kfar Darom.

Mike Kelly, writing in New Jersey's Bergen Record, comments on the video.

He writes,

The video seems like an amateurish cartoon. But what it depicts is as real as the grave in a Paramus cemetery where Alisa Flatow's body lies.

You can read the full column here.

From the murderers of Islamic Jihad, a tribute to the April 9, 1995 terror attack that killed Alisa Flatow and 8 others

Even the murderers of Islamic Jihad use the Internet.  A depiction of the April 9, 1995 terror attack near the Jewish community of Kfar Darom that killed Alisa and 8 others has appeared on the Internet.  The story and video appears on Israel National News.

Jeff Jacoby - The war on terror is a war of ideas

In my book, many Americans, indeed many around the world don't understand the underlying premise of Jeff Jacoby's column. That is,

The war on terror, Bush accurately foretold, would be a long struggle fought on many fronts. But ultimately the only way to prevent al-Qaeda and its allies from imposing an "age of terror" was for America to sustain an "age of liberty, here and across the world." While Bush would get plenty of things wrong after 9/11, this ideological insight -- that the root of Islamist terrorism was the lack of freedom in the Middle East -- was one of the big things he got right.

While others claimed terrorism was driven by poverty or lack of education, the "fruit of US arrogance," and the reliable old standby, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In reality, as Princeton economist Alan Krueger demonstrated in a 2007 book, What Makes A Terrorist?, the best predictors of terrorism are "the suppression of civil liberties and political rights, including freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble, and democratic rights."

[Looking at Palestinian terror alone should dissuade anyone that terror is born out of a lack of education; the leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is populated with physicians and PhDs.]

The struggle against terror is not over, but we are, according to Jacoby beginning to engage its purveyors on the right battlefield. Read the full column, The war on terror is a war of ideas. And while you are at it, sign up for Jeff's email distribution list.

Well, that's what I think.

Stephen M. Flatow

alisa flatow israel

Damascus on Trial - support for terror groups in spotlight

Makes you kind of wonder.


Back in 1996 I had a meeting at the State Department with the then head of its terrorism section. We were trying to get information on Islamic Jihad, the group that murdered Alisa and seven others in the April 1995 attack near Kfar Darom. The information we received confirmed what we had heard elsewhere -- Islamic Jihad was headquartered in Syria.

Since that time, Syria has continued to provide a haven and support Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Now, with the world focused on Syria's actions against its own citizens and calls for the fall of the Assad government, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have to be a little concerned.


Middle East Forum writes, Damascus on Trial, read it to get an idea of Syria's role as the home to terrorists.

Open Season on Christians in the Islamic World

Phyllis Chesler writing in the Chesler Chronicles comments on the fate of Christians in Muslim lands.

For centuries, Muslims committed genocide against Hindus in India and what is now Pakistan. Today, in Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Kenya, Turkey, Pakistan, Gaza, and Iran, it’s open season on Christians.

She asks,

When will Westerners truly understand that it is not only the West that has engaged in imperialism, racism, colonialism, and capitalism, but that the so-called East has done so too? African and Arab Muslims had a heavy hand in the African slave trade and, to this day, still keep slaves; Islam is a primarily imperialist venture which has colonized huge tracts of other people’s land. And, how would anyone describe the traffic in oil, drugs, and sex slaves which Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are currently engaged in as anything other than rank capitalism?

Read Open Season on Christians in the Islamic World

The Taliban- Anything to laugh at?

There is humor everywhere you look. Even when dealing with Jihadists. This from the Internet.

YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF....

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon"unclean."
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least two.
10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

'nuf said.

St. Petersburg Times Sacrifices Accuracy - Once Again

Reporter Meg Laughlin has been covering the twisted case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian for many years. Al-Arian first came to the public eye in 1995 when his computers and other records were seized in a November raid in connection with terrorism allegations.

After years of seeming government disinterest, Al-Arian was put on trial. Acquitted of most counts, Al-Arian pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Dedicated Terrorist..." (Read the full Plea Agreement.)

Called to testify before a grand jury in a non-related terrorism case, Al-Arian refused and standing trial for contempt. Among the issues to be resolved is whether his plea agreement exempted him from further cooperation with the government. Demonstrations on behalf of Al-Arian have been frequent. He draws his supporters from the far left fringes of society. Under the guise of protecting Al-Arian's rights, his supporters quickly turn to the Palestinian cause and Israel's "occupation of Palestine." Nonetheless, the trial has begun.

While reporting on the case today, Ms. Laughlin writes, "in May 2006, Al-Arian pleaded guilty to helping associates of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad with immigration issues." I think the language of the plea agreement disproves that statement.

One of the purposes of this blog is to seek honesty in reporting. It's a never ending challenge. I wish it weren't.

Read Laughlin's report here.

Sami Al-Arian - About to catch a break?

Admitted terror supporter Sami Al-Arian might catch a break next month when a court rules on a motion to dismiss contempt charges. Al-Arian's request is based upon the prosecutor's strengthening of the plea agreement Al-Arian signed in connection with his admitted support of Islamic Jihad, a violent terror group responsible for the murder of many dozens of civilians in Israel.

Of course, Al-Arian's release is hypothetical at this time and is being drummed up by his supporters.

According to the Tampa Bay Tribune report,

Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University, said if he were Al-Arian's attorney, he would have strongly advised him not to testify with the immunity order he was given. The order put Al-Arian at high risk of criminal prosecution, no matter what he did, Rose said.

"This was in no way done for the benefit of the defendant," Rose said.

One reason is that obstruction of justice is not a clearly defined crime, Rose said. Prosecutors have a lot of leeway in deciding when to bring such charges. With obstruction of justice added to the immunity order, the prosecutor could decide Al-Arian was obstructing justice if the prosecutor didn't like Al-Arian's testimony before the grand jury.

The court is expected to rule on Al-Arian's request in mid-January 2009.

The New York Times: Separating the Terror and the Terrorists

The December 14, 2008 column by The New York Times public editor Robert Hoyt, Separating the Terror and the Terrorists, caught my attention because it touched upon an issue of great concern to terror victims and their families-- the general reluctance of the media to call a spade a spade. It was worth a letter to the public editor and off it went. The Times published it as the lead-off letter under Letters To the Public Editor-- Other Voices: When Labels Carry Moral Weight.

The points made by Mr. Hoyt:

"When 10 young men in an inflatable lifeboat came ashore in Mumbai last month and went on a rampage with machine guns and grenades, taking hostages, setting fires and murdering men, women and children, they were initially described in The Times by many labels.

They were “militants,” “gunmen,” “attackers” and “assailants.” Their actions, which left bodies strewn in the city’s largest train station, five-star hotels, a Jewish center, a cafe and a hospital — were described as “coordinated terrorist attacks.” But the men themselves were not called terrorists."

Mr. Hoyt attempts to explain the "reluctance" of the Times and other news sources to call a terrorist a terrorist.

In the newsroom and at overseas bureaus, especially Jerusalem, there has been a lot of soul-searching about the terminology of terrorism. Editors and reporters have asked whether, to avoid the appearance of taking sides, the paper bends itself into a pretzel or risks appearing callous to abhorrent acts. They have wrestled with questions like why those responsible for the 9/11 attacks are called terrorists but the murderers of a little girl in her bed in a Jewish settlement are not. And whether, if the use of the word terrorist can be interpreted as a political act, not using it is one too.

The issue comes up most often in connection with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and to the dismay of supporters of Israel — and sometimes supporters of the other side, denouncing Israeli military actions — The Times is sparing in its use of “terrorist” when reporting on that complex struggle.

He concludes by writing

I do not think it is possible to write a set of hard and fast rules for the T-words, and I think The Times is both thoughtful about them and maybe a bit more conservative in their use than I would be.

My own broad guideline: If it looks as if it was intended to sow terror and it shocks the conscience, whether it is planes flying into the World Trade Center, gunmen shooting up Mumbai, or a political killer in a little girl’s bedroom, I’d call it terrorism — by terrorists.

Now that caught my eye and off a letter went to the public letter. Here's my response as printed:

Re “Separating the Terror and the Terrorists” (Dec. 14):

I write as the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered by Islamic Jihad in April 1995.

While I appreciate your approach to the use of “T-words” for a situation that “shocks the conscience,” it is, because of its subjective nature, nothing more than a small step, albeit in the right direction.

The general refusal of The New York Times and its writers and editors to recognize that people who intentionally target and murder civilians, whether on a bus in Gaza or in a hotel in Mumbai, are attempting to alter a political situation (the classic definition of terrorism) and are therefore terrorists defies logic.

STEPHEN M. FLATOW West Orange, N.J., Dec. 15, 2008

Dirty Money to an American University - What is George Mason University Thinking?

The Washington Times reports today that "George Mason University is expanding its Islamic studies program with a $1.5 million grant from a Northern Virginia-based think thank still operating under the cloud of a six-year federal terrorism investigation." The donor is the International Institute for Islamic Thought.

The IIIT's Northern Virginia center was among 14 homes and offices raided by federal agencies in March 2002 in an attempt to disrupt domestic financing for global terrorism. The raids - known as Operation Green Quest - resulted in 21 search warrants, 12 arrests, four indictments and the seizure of about $10.3 million smuggled into the United States, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

What gives with GMU? Temple University received the same offer earlier in 2008 and saw the sense in distancing itself from the IIIT which is suspected of supporting admitted terror sponsor Sami Al-Arian's efforts with World and Islam Studies Institute at the University of South Florida to support Islamic Jihad's activities in the Middle East, especially targeting Israeli civilians.

Wake up GMU. When you lie down with.....

What's the Story with Jihadists in Florida

Must be something in the Florida air or water that takes nice boys and turns them into potential killers. Just so the Florida people are clear on this, I am not talking about all Florida boys, just some misguided, impressionable youth at the University of South Florida. You remember the University of South Florida, don't you? It was the home of Sami Al-Arian and his so-called "think tanks" that were nothing more than fronts for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the virulent terrorist group. Notwithstanding his acquittal in 2005 of serious terrorism charges leveled against him, Al-Arian pleaded guilty to providing support for PIJ and received what amounted to an 18 month sentence and future deportation.
Now we add to the wall of shame at USF the name of Ahmed Mohamed. Mohamed was caught with a traveling buddy with explosives in his car as he drove in North Carolina. While he denied, denied and denied, common sense dictated that a plea bargain with a possible 15 year term is far better than life in prison.
His defenders at CAIR and other organizations have to do a bit of eating crow because of the turn of events.
I would like to know what led Mr. Mohamed to develop the outline of a terror plan that would involve blowing up vehicles remotely so that the bomber could terrorize again.
I would like to know what his religious leaders and advisers taught him as a youngster.
I would like to know where his parents were during his life.
I would like to know why someone plans murder.

Sami Al-Arian -- The Lies Continue

The supporters of Palestinian terror sponsor Sami Al-Arian have had a busy winter and spring. These friends of Sami are promoting two aspects of Al-Arian’s life, first, his incarceration in Federal prison, and, second, a film about his trial, “USA vs. Al-Arian.”

Al-Arian remains in prison today because of his refusal to testify in other terrorism cases which led to his being held in contempt of court. (His supporters fail to mention that Al-Arian admitted and pleaded guilty to supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a vicious terror organization.) But you wouldn’t know that if you relied solely on the press releases and “news stories” put out by his friends and the film. Instead of admitting that Al-Arian has been found to be in contempt of court, his friends claim he was subpoenaed “to testify before a grand jury in Virginia, even though as part of his plea bargain, Al-Arian had said he would not testify against anyone else. Al-Arian was then found in contempt of the grand jury so that he could be held up to 18 months before he could resume serving his original sentence. This is a ploy that can be used repeatedly Charles Reese

I’ll need someone to point out to me where in the Al-Arian Plea Agreement you find the government agreeing that Al-Arian is not required to testify in other cases.

As for USA vs. Al-Arian, it follows the same twisted thinking as other articles and stories about Al-Arian.

Al-Arian’s biggest crime is the one of chutzpa, you can look it up. It reminds me of the story of the man who kills his parents and then asks the judge for leniency because he’s an orphan.

In my book, the sooner Al-Arian finishes his contempt sentence and is deported from the United States of America, the better off we’ll all be.