A New Age of Middle East Insecurity
Back in 2010, I interviewed Gerard Araud, who is now the French ambassador in Washington, DC, while he was still serving as France’s envoy to the United Nations in New York. We talked at length about Iran, and this was the first thing he told me: “The Iranian nuclear program has no civilian explanation whatsoever. You don’t start a civilian nuclear program by enriching uranium. It’s like if you buy the gas before the car.”Elliott Abrams: 'Messing' with Israel
On April 2, Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) world powers, announced that a framework deal on Iran’s nuclear program has been reached. In the days prior, as I watched the Iran nuclear negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne slide past an agreed deadline of midnight on March 31 into, appropriately, April Fools’ Day, it struck me that nothing had changed since Araud—who remains a trenchant critic of American concessions to Iran—uttered those words five years ago. The Iranian nuclear program was never about the civilian use of nuclear energy. It was, and remains, geared towards the production of a nuclear weapon—hence all the lies and deceit practiced by the Iranian regime over more than a decade, and hence the succession of UN Security Council resolutions and anxious International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports underlining how Iran’s nuclear activities do not comport with those associated with a civilian program.
In fact, the glaring unresolved issues that held up the negotiations in Lausanne reflect this fundamental state of affairs, reinforcing the perception that the Obama administration will concede on almost anything in order to secure a deal. Iran hasn’t disclosed the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of its program, and will have even less incentive to do so if sanctions relief is offered regardless. At the same time, Iran has been told that it can continue operating centrifuges at its underground Fordow facility—a secret installation that was outed with great fanfare in 2009 by the Americans, the British, and the French—thus enabling it to further master the enrichment process. And as for their stockpile of enriched uranium, which the Iranians were supposed to be shipping to their Russian allies for safeguarding, well, apparently they won’t be doing that either.
In his lengthy interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, President Obama makes many statements about Israel's security and how the proposed deal with Iran enhances it.Top Democrat backs bill okaying Congress to sink Iran deal
"It has been personally difficult for me to hear ... expressions that somehow ... this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel's interest -- and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that's not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face."
"Respect the debate?" "Personally difficult?" This is the White House whose high officials called the prime minister of Israel a "chickens---" and a "coward," in interviews meant to be published -- not off the record. And the officials who said those things remain in place; no effort was ever made to identify and discipline them.
But the deeper problem is that the reassurances the president is offering to Israel ... are simply not reassuring. Iran is already, right now, while under sanctions that are badly hurting its economy, spending vast amounts of money and effort to "mess with Israel." This administration's reaction has been to seek a nuclear deal that will give Iran more economic resources to dedicate to its hatred and violence against Israel, but will in no way whatsoever limit Iran's conventional weapons and its support for terrorism.
Several times in this interview the president went out of his way to suggest that he fully understands Israel's security problems, but the full text suggests that he does not -- because he believes that his statements that "if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there" and would "stand by them" actually solve any of those problems. Time alone undermines the value of those statements, because he will not be president in 22 months. The words he used are sufficiently vague to undermine their value as well. It is hard to believe that many Israelis will be reassured by the interview, especially if they read the Iranian press and see what, in their own interviews, Iranian officials are claiming they got out of the new nuclear agreement.
Senior Democratic senator Chuck Schumer indicated Monday he would back legislation allowing Congress to vet and approve a deal with Iran over its nuclear program — a bill strongly opposed by the White House.
Schumer endorsed a bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker (Rep.) and Bob Menendez (NJ) which would give Capitol Hill the authority to reject a White House-brokered accord with Tehran, signalling a potential standoff between President Barack Obama and senior lawmakers in his own Democratic Party over the deal.
“This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur,” Schumer told Politico Monday.
The move will enable other Democrat senators to support the bill and still save face despite vehement opposition from the White House, analysts say, meaning the legislation will garner Congress’s support from both sides of the partisan divide.
MEMRI: Iranian Regime Continues Its Lies And Fabrications About Supreme Leader Khamenei's Nonexistent Fatwa Banning Nuclear Weapons
In President Obama's announcement of the joint statement following the conclusion of the negotiations in Lausanne, he again mentioned the nonexistent fatwa, stating as fact that Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. This assertion by the president is not true. Such a fatwa has never been issued, and to this day no one has been able to show it, as MEMRI has detailed in five reports so far.Ex-IAEA deputy: Deal puts Iran on nuke threshold for 10 years, then gets worse
The following is the sixth MEMRI report, constituting an update about this nonexistent fatwa.
Introduction
The Iranian regime has persisted in its attempts to deceive the West in the matter of a fatwa that it claims was issued by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons. The deception focuses on both the fatwa's alleged date of issue and on its alleged content. This fatwa has never been presented by Iran and in fact does not exist.
An Iranian international law expert published, on the BBC Persian website, an article stating that no such fatwa was ever issued.
One (Nonexistent) Fatwa – Many Dates
The terms delineated in the framework agreement will leave Iran as “a threshold breakout nuclear state for the next 10 years,” and after that the remaining safeguards against a breakout to the bomb will begin to fall away, former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen warned Monday.Startling admission from Team Obama about the Iran ‘deal’
In a lengthy interview, Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s former top official for monitoring nuclear proliferation, expressed a range of concerns about the deal taking shape, warned of Iran’s history of deception, and also cautioned that the one-year framework for nuclear breakout pushed by the Obama administration might leave insufficient time for an international reaction to violations of the agreement.
Heinonen said that the framework agreement, announced in Lausanne, Switzerland, last Thursday, leaves a number of key concerns unanswered. Although it appears to be more robust than previous nuclear agreements, he said missteps could result in a repeat of the outcome that the non-proliferation regime suffered when North Korea violated the terms of an agreement and rushed toward a nuclear bomb.
Heinonen said the current framework also lacks an emphasis on Iran coming clean about its entire nuclear program heretofore, including the actual number of centrifuges in operation. Such information, Heinonen says, is of central importance to monitors’ ability to enforce and monitor the current nuclear program.
It’s not clear why we would take Team Obama’s word for it that this “deal” has buy-in from Iran, on the basis the State Department has claimed. Not only does no evidence support that claim, but the Obama administration acknowledges it had to withhold information about its intentions from Iran, just to be able to hold a joint photo op as this round of talks ended.15 Questions Tom Friedman Should Have Asked Obama
In case it’s not clear, that gambit by the U.S. administration will allow Iran to take issue with pretty much whatever aspects of the “deal” her negotiators want, when the talks resume heading for the June deadline.
The implication of Obama’s overall argument is that if you oppose this “deal,” you oppose the only alternative to a “war in the Middle East”:
So when you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?
Benjamin Netanyahu speared that straw man between the eyes in his speech to Congress in March, when he pointed out that there is, of course, an alternative this “this deal” or “war.” The alternative is a better deal.
Team Obama apparently wants us to ignore that alternative, and instead believe the fairy tale that everyone except Team Obama either wants war, or doesn’t want to do what’s necessary to prevent it. Therefore, according to this bizarre narrative, the Obama administration has to spend its days in secrecy, crafting lies and omissions, in order to navigate toward “peace” around all the recalcitrant lovers of war laying mines in its path.
Much attention has been paid to the interview that President Obama gave over the weekend to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. What bothers me more than the answers the President gave are the questions Mr. Friedman did not ask. Here are fifteen questions I wish he had asked the President to respond to, and that I hope journalists will ask in the future.'Iran and US irritating each other with conflicting statements on nuclear deal'
1) Mr. President, the US Energy Information Administration has estimated that Iran has 16% of all the natural gas in the world, second in reserves only to Russia. It is further estimated that Iran has roughly 150 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, ranking it third in the world. How do you explain Iran’s obsession with nuclear energy, and if you agree that it could only be for military purposes, why would the West agree that they should be permitted to have any nuclear infrastructure?
2) Mr. President, the negotiations with Iran have been very narrowly limited in scope to their nuclear program. Why was the regime given a pass on their massive conventional weapons development including ICBMs that could threaten America, on their global sponsorship of terror including Hezbollah, on their aggression in the region (which accelerated dramatically in Yemen even as talks were ongoing), on their human rights abuses and on their genocidal rhetoric?
Iran and the United States have irritated each other with conflicting statements made about the nuclear framework agreement reached last week in Switzerland, the lead US negotiator said on Tuesday.French fact sheet differs from US on Iran’s centrifuge use, R&D
Wendy Sherman, US undersecretary of state for political affairs, was asked about the different interpretations of the deal intended to curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.
"I think we've each been irritated with each other in some of the things we've said," Sherman told MSNBC in an interview. "Even though we discussed this before we left - we understood that our narratives were likely to be somewhat different - but we pledged to try not to contradict each other."
One sticking point has been when sanctions against Iran would end: Iran has said it expected all to be suspended as soon as the agreement takes effect. The United States said they would be phased out gradually, depending on Tehran's compliance.
A French government fact sheet on the Iran framework deal, which has not been made public by Paris but which has been seen by The Times of Israel, provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years, in contrast to the US official parameters, which make no such specific provision.John Kerry's Messianic Complex
The use of the more advanced IR-2 and IR-4 centrifuges, as permitted according to the French fact sheet, would enable Iran to more rapidly accumulate the highly enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons, accelerating its breakout time to the bomb.
The French fact sheet also specifies that Iran will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, the last of which can enrich uranium at 20-times the speed of Iran’s current IR-1 centrifuges, whereas the American parameters are less specific.
Differences between the texts issued by Paris and Washington also extend to the question of inspection and supervision of Iran’s activities, with the French document indicating that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to visit any suspect site in Iran — so-called “anywhere, anytime” access — whereas the US document is less far-reaching.
Lest we forget, in January 2014, Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s Defense Minister said that only thing that could "save" Israel was for Kerry to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and "leave us alone." Who knew that Kerry’s attempts to be awarded a peace prize and his leaving Israel alone would entail a terrible deal with Iran which endangers America & Israel.Obama defends Iran deal, tells Israelis if anybody messes with you US will be there
Last year, Kerry’s fixation was Israel, and Ya’alon said “the American security plan that was presented to us is not worth the paper it was written on. It contains neither security nor peace. Only our continued presence in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan River will guarantee that Ben Gurion Airport and (the northern city of) Netanya do not become targets for missiles from every direction. Ya’alon noted that, “Secretary of State John Kerry – who came here very determined, and operates based upon an unfathomable obsession and a messianic feeling – cannot teach me anything about the Palestinians.”
On the Iran deal, there is not even a piece of paper as Iran and America have a “deal” which both sides are already interpreting differently – and Kerry’s messianic feeling continues on.
Obama and Kerry shoved this deal down the world’s throat. The American government did the same with the Arab-Israel conflict, as it pressured Israel to do a deal with the Palestinian Arabs which would endanger the Jewish state – but, thankfully, recently re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far stood up to American pressure, refusing to bow to terrorism and capitulate.
America would stand by Israel if it’s attacked by any state, including Iran, US President Barack Obama pledged in an extensive 46-minute interview with The New York Times in which he advocated for the framework deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.Obama admits: Deal will give Iran ‘near zero’ breakout time in 13 years
“What we will be doing, even as we enter this deal, is sending a clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anyone messes with Israel, America will be there,” Obama told Times reporter Thomas Friedman.
His interview with Obama, which was taped on Saturday and published on Sunday, was unusual both in its digital format and length.
It gave Obama an extended forum to defend the framework deal, which was agreed upon last week by Iran and the six world powers, including the US. A binding document is to be finalized only in June.
In a calm and measured voice Obama explained that this deal is the best diplomatic option to halt Iran’s nuclear threat.
It would, he said, provide an almost foolproof monitoring system to ensure that Tehran will not produce any nuclear weapons for at least 20 years.
Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack Obama said Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer period could shrink to almost nothing after 13 or more years.President’s Comments Raise Questions About Effectiveness of Iranian Nuke Inspections
Obama, whose top priority at the moment is to sell the framework deal to critics, was pushing back on the charge that the deal fails to eliminate the risk because it allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. He told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.
Despite President Barack assurances last week that the world will “know” if Iran cheats on the nuclear deal being negotiated with the P5+1, in an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times Saturday, the president’s response supported one of the key objections to the known terms of the deal.US energy secretary: Iran nuke deal a ‘forever agreement’
When asked by Friedman if the terms of the deal would mean that inspectors could check anywhere in Iran if there were suspicions that Iran was cheating the president responded.
“That we suspect,” the president answered. “Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, that’s the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, ‘No, you can’t come here.’ So over all, what we’re seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, we’re going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.”
US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz called the emerging nuclear with Iran a “forever agreement” that would block all pathways to a nuclear weapon and set up tough international inspections with no end date.Top Obama adviser dismisses idea that better Iran deal is possible
Moniz, a nuclear physicist, spoke at the White House on Monday as the Obama administration ramped up its campaign for a framework deal with Iran that has drawn criticism from congressional Republicans, the Israeli government and skeptical Arab allies of the US.
Under the agreement, Moniz said, all plutonium created as a byproduct of Iran’s nuclear power production would be sent out of the country so it couldn’t be used to make weapons. And international inspectors would watch over all stages of Iran’s nuclear program to ensure Tehran sticks to the agreement.
Hours after Israel listed demands for improvements to the deal with Iran that would render it more acceptable, a top adviser to President Barack Obama made clear that the final agreement would not be markedly more stringent than the framework agreed in Lausanne, Switzerland, last week.Across Spectrum Israeli Politicians Question Understandings Reached On Iran’s Nuke Program
Speaking to Israel’s Channel 2 news, Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, dismissed the notion — relentlessly asserted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — that a better deal was attainable.
The deal as it now stands meets the US’s “core objectives,” he said to Channel 2.
“We believe that this is the best deal that can emerge from these negotiations,” he echoed, in a second interview, to Channel 10. (h/t Elder of Lobby)
Prominent Israeli politicians across the spectrum have questioned the understandings reached last week by the P5+1 nations and Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear program.'Final deal must halt nuclear research in Iran'
Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni the leaders of the Zionist Union, the bloc likely to lead the opposition in the new Knesset, released a statement saying:
“We need to work closely with the powers, and in particular with the United States, over the coming days in order to roll back Iran’s nuclear program and prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.”
The Jerusalem Post reports that the Zionist Union’s faction chairman was more explicit in his criticism of the deal expressed on his Facebook page:
“I refuse to join those applauding the agreement with Iran, because the truth is it keeps me awake at night,” Cabel wrote. “President Obama promises that if the Iranians cheat, the world will know, but isn’t that exactly what the Americans promised after the agreement with North Korea?” He said that when it comes to Iran, there is no Left or Right or coalition or opposition in Israel, only Israelis.
International Relations, Intelligence and Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said Monday that the final nuclear deal between world powers and Iran must include the full suspension of activities at all of Iran's nuclear facilities.Presidential hopeful Perry says he wouldn’t keep Iran nuke deal
In a meeting with foreign journalists in Jerusalem, Steinitz further introduced a list of Israeli demands for amendments to the framework deal that, if applied, would make the deal "much more reasonable."
Israel believes the framework deal leaves too much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure intact and could still allow it to develop the means to produce a nuclear weapon.
Steinitz told reporters the Israeli government would spend the coming months lobbying the world powers negotiating with Iran to toughen the language of the deal, so to ensure Iran's compliance.
While stressing that Israel prefers a diplomatic solution, Steinitz said the "military option" still exists.
Prospective Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said Monday that he would tear up the recently drafted nuclear deal with Iran should he be elected, and would instead up the pressure on Tehran — through tough economic measures and covert programs — to support local dissidents who oppose the regime.Ben-Dror Yemini: Is Obama worse than Chamberlain?
During a speech to the Republican Society at South Carolina’s Citadel military college, Perry, who hasn’t formally thrown his hat into the ring, told cadets that the framework, which seeks to curb Iran’s ability to produce nukes, was more of a danger than a safeguard.
“Should I run for president, and be so fortunate to be elected, one of my first actions in office would be to invalidate the president’s Iran agreement, which jeopardizes the safety and security of the free world,” the Texas governor said of the deal that was unveiled earlier this month.
Speaking to reporters before the address, Perry explained that he would replace the deal with further sanctions to punish Iran’s economy and, if required, would resort to a military strike against Iranian nuclear strikes.
When Jan Masaryk, the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia at the time, heard first-hand the English Parliament greet Neville Chamberlain's announcement about a summit meeting with Adolf Hitler with raucous applause, he was rather confused.J Street applauds Obama for Iran nuke deal
After all, the threatening German leader was demanding appeasement in the form of a piece of Masaryk's own country. The summit took place two days later. Representatives of Czechoslovakia weren't even invited. They were simply notified. The rest is history.
The comparison between Lausanne 2015 and Munich 1938 lets Iran off lightly. Because Germany at the time, despite being a dark country, wasn't calling for "Death to England" or "Death to the Jews." It wasn't in control at that stage of four European countries. The Iran of today, however, has been singing its genocidal mantra for years. It preaches and strives for the destruction of the State of Israel. And many, too many, simply don't want to listen.
J Street on Tuesday lent its support for the recent framework nuclear agreement between world powers and Iran, saying it was “historic” and praising US President Barack Obama for averting a “disastrous war.”Is This The World's Most Passive Aggressive Statement On Iran?
The left-wing Israel advocacy group put out a joint statement with the Arab American Institute and the National Iranian American Council saying the deal could reduce tensions across the conflict-ridden Middle East.
“We congratulate President Obama, Secretary [John] Kerry, and the US negotiating team for successfully reaching an historic agreement that provides a framework for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and averts a disastrous war,” the statement said, while conceding that “there is much work to be done to address our remaining concerns regarding Iran’s objectionable policies.”
Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers, a top government body chaired by King Salman, announced tentative support Monday for the U.S.-led draft nuclear agreement with Iran.Independent repeats false charge that Mossad contradicted Bibi on Iran nukes
In its statement, as carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency, the council “expressed hope that a final, binding and definitive agreement would be reached leading to the strengthening of security and stability in the region and the world.”
It also reasserted “the right of states of region in the peaceful use of nuclear energy… in line with the Arab League’s decision aimed at making the Middle East and the Arab Gulf region free of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.”
The oil-rich Arab Sunni kingdom views Persian-speaking Shiite Iran as its chief rival for hegemony in the Middle East. In the past few weeks, top Saudi officials have suggested it would attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon if a potential agreement paves the way to a nuclear-armed Iran
Early in March we posted about an extremely misleading Guardian editorial charging that Binyamin Netanyahu’s claim regarding Iran’s progress towards producing a nuclear bomb was contradicted by the Mossad.Tehran to showcase '839' Holocaust cartoons in order to highlight Western hypocrisy
We demonstrated that, based on a fuller reading of the same leaked cables cited by the Guardian in their editorial, the Mossad was in general agreement with the prime minister’s assessment “that Iran is in pursuit of a bomb and is …closing in on that objective”.
On April 3, The Independent repeated this misleading Guardian narrative, in an article by Lamiat Sabin titled ‘Benjamin Netanyahu ‘strongly opposes’ Iran nuclear deal and demands recognition of Israel‘.
Individuals from fifty countries are scheduled to participate in the Second International Holocaust Cartoon Contest to be held in Iran in early May, according to multiple Iranian media outlets.Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians attempting to fast track war crimes suits against Israel at ICC
On Monday, the Islamic Republic's FARS news agency reported that some 839 pieces of "artwork" making light of the Holocaust had been sent to contest officials, many of which will be displayed in the 12 day exhibition held in the Iranian capital beginning on May 9.
A total of 312 "artists" will be involved in the event, most of whom hail from Iran itself, but many will also come from France, Indonesia and Turkey, Iran's state IRNA news service reported.
Asked about the purpose of the contest, Shojayee Tabatabayee, the contest's secretariat, did not deny the event's provocative goals which he said are to highlight the West's alleged double standard concerning freedom of expression in which disrespect for Islam is allowed and tolerated while other subjects, such as the Holocaust, are made taboo.
In January of 2015 Islamist gunmen attacked the Paris offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine, killing 11, including editors cartoonists and a police officer who responded to the scene.
Al-Malki said in a TV interview that the PA leadership was in touch with the office of the prosecutor of the court to inquire about documents and information that would accelerate investigations into Israeli “war crimes.”Palestinians want UN timetable for statehood
He said that a preliminary investigation launched in mid-January by the ICC “could take some time.”
Al-Malki said that the ICC prosecutor was looking into all events that took place in the Palestinian territories as of June 13, 2014.
“The court won’t focus only on the last Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, but would look into all what it considers as a war crime or a crime against humanity,” he added.
Al-Malki said that the “State of Palestine” was committed to the ICC laws and regulations and would therefore cooperate with it.
The UN Security Council is the only party authorized to suspend or delay any investigations launched by the ICC, the PA minister said. He added that in order to avoid a US veto at the Security Council, the Palestinians have begun talking to other permanent members such as Russia and China.
The Palestinians are "ready and willing" to see if the U.N. Security Council has "the political will" to adopt a resolution with a deadline for establishing a Palestinian state, the Palestinian U.N. ambassador said Monday.Erekat Calls for Forced, Full Withdrawals from Judea-Samaria
Ambassador Riyad Mansour told reporters that adoption of a resolution with a timetable would be "one of the most effective measures to combat extremism in our region, because extremists receive their fuel from the injustice of the Palestinian people."
"If there is a just solution to this conflict ... in a short period of time, then you'll take away from them the main source of recruitment and mobilization," he said, adding that it would also contribute to resolving perhaps 70 percent of the "burning issues in the Middle East."
Mansour said the United States holds the key.
Saeb Erekat, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee and head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) negotiating team, called on the US and European countries to recognize the "State of Palestine" within 1949 Armistice lines on Monday, with Jerusalem as its capital.Hamas: No Palestinian State Without Gaza
Erekat's statements were made alongside diplomats from China, France and Italy, and in response to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements during the election campaigning not to establish a Palestinian state.
Erekat also demanded to convene an international peace conference with the participation of the member states of the UN Security Council, and for the PA, Israel and the Arab states to set a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Judea-Samaria under international supervision.
Hamas's deputy politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh, who previously was prime minister of Hamas's government, slammed how Gaza has been marginalized from the peace process after his terrorist group violently seized control of Gaza in 2007 after overwhelmingly winning in elections.'Arab League to submit timetable for an end to Israel's occupation'
Speaking in a telephone speech for a Hamas student rally at Al-Najah National University in Shechem (Nablus) on Sunday, Haniyeh said "the struggle in all its aspects is a strategic choice of the Hamas movement. The struggle has political, military, security, media, legal and public expressions."
"There won't be a (Palestinian) state and there won't be any sort of state without Gaza, and there is no existence to a Palestinian state without Al-Quds," said Haniyeh, referencing the Arabic name for Jerusalem.
Egypt’s foreign minister, Sameh Shoukry, said on Monday that a special committee of Arab League ministers will publish a detailed timetable “for an end to Israel’s occupation.”Prominent Israeli Hackers: ‘There is Nothing to Fear From Anonymous’ Attack Tomorrow’
The committee’s formation is in line with a decision taken by the Arab League during its recent summit in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh.
According to Shoukry, Arab governments will soon submit a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council that contains detailed provisions for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.
Israeli hackers have shrugged off a threat from the hacker collective Anonymous to attack and seize control of Israeli websites and shut them down on Tuesday, as well as to hack into Facebook and e-mail accounts.Annual cyber-attack on Israel targets MK’s website
Anonymous, which is comprised of many Arab hackers, has previously uploaded videos on multiple occasions with messages threatening to punish Israel for its activities in the Palestinian territories.
While many site owners have taken the threats seriously, they have elicited no excitement at all among Israel’s hackers.
One of Israel’s most prominent hackers, known as FTS, told Israel’s 0404 News that, “It’s always good to be cautious, but there’s no need to fear more than is necessary. We’re talking about amateurs, that love to threaten, but can’t carry out the work. They work mainly with robots on SQL, but they won’t succeed in attacking like they’re planning. Just like with every one of their attacks they’ll succeed in hacking a few sites with easy security, which can by done by any amateur.”
Anti-Israel hackers defaced dozens of Israeli websites on Tuesday as part of a promised “electronic Holocaust” on the Jewish state by the Anonymous collective of hackers. Among the websites targeted by the group were those of MK Yossi Yona, Israeli singer Shalom Hanoch, and a girls’ high school.IDF to develop new phone-based alert system for civilians
The annual attack, known as OpIsrael, targeted dozens of websites and Facebook accounts, as well as thousands of email addresses, Anonymous claimed.
Yona, a member of the Zionist Union party, had his personal website defaced and replaced with text explaining that the hack was on behalf of the Palestinians.
The IDF has decided to invest some 100 million shekels ($25.4 million) in developing a cellular phone-based alert system for civilians that will help guide people to safe areas during a missile attack. The system will be developed for use by the Home Front Command and is expected to improve the army's ability to direct the public in times of emergency and wartime.PMW: Why Palestinian mothers make joyful cries for their martyred sons
The goal of the new system, which has already entered the developmental stage, is to allow the Home Front Command to alert people in a specific area under attack, so as not to "paralyze" an entire city or population unnecessarily.
An IDF official said development of the system and improving the army's overall alert apparatus were an essential necessity, born from the lessons learned during Operation Protective Edge, and because it is believed Israel will come under a more massive missile attack in future wars.
Palestinian women are often shown ululating - sounding cries of joy - over their "martyred" relatives. Mothers in particular are often shown expressing joy over their sons' Martyrdom-deaths. Palestinian Media Watch reported on the mother of one of the two terrorists who brutally murdered 5 in a synagogue in Jerusalem last year. The mother was shown reciting a poem honoring the dead killers while receiving guests in her mourning tent. During her recital, ululations were heard.
During the PA terror campaign (the Intifada, 2000-2005), official Palestinian Authority TV ran numerous video clips hundreds of times encouraging children to become "Martyrs" and their mothers to celebrate their deaths. The following is just one example:
"How sweet is Martyrdom (Shahada),
when I am embraced by you, my land!
My beloved, my mother, most dear to me,
be joyous over my blood, don't cry for me."
[Official PA TV, broadcast hundreds of times from 2001-2004]
Recently, PA TV broadcast an interview with the mother of a Martyr who gave a more nuanced explanation for the joyous reactions to the martyrdom-death of a child. This mother stated that she misses her dead son "every day" and that Palestinian women do "feel agony and pain." She explained that Palestinian mothers love their children "but also the homeland." The ululations, she clarified, are "because our child is going to Heaven to marry the Dark-Eyed Virgins":