Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Cloud frightens Mecca pilgrims

A low cloud that partially obscured the huge clocks atop the new Abraj al-Bait Tower in Mecca frightened visitors and pilgrims, who feared that the tower was on fire.

Al Arabiya reports that a combination of the thick cloud and the illumination from the clock made Meccans think that there was a huge smoky blaze on top of the new landmark.

By the way, Hezbollah kills bill collectors

Ya Libnan covers Hassan Nasrallah's latest speech last night.

The speech itself was long, as usual, and covered a lot of topics where Nasrallah describes his vision for Lebanon. He said that Lebanon should accept arms from Iran to equip the army, that Lebanon should insist that Israel give up all of the town of Ghajar that is now split in two, that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is illegitimate, and that Israeli spies must be executed.

He also spoke about Lebanese water and electricity shortages. There have been some public protests in Lebanon over these shortages. Nasrallah suggested that Lebanon solve the problem by building a "peaceful" nuclear power plant, which would allow it to become an electricity exporter.

Then, the article prints this tiny, unimportant, parenthetical statement:

(According to observers Hezbollah and Amal neighborhoods refuse to pay for electricity and water. Bill collectors in Hezbollah and Amal strongholds have reportedly been subjected to attacks and many were killed or wounded.)

All of a sudden, Hezbollah's leader doesn't look nearly as civic-minded and responsible as his speech implies, does he? That final sentence shows that Nasrallah's revamping of Hezbollah's image from a violent terror organization to a peaceful political party is a sham, and that his soothing words that are meant to make Hezbollah look like a team player in building up Lebanon is really to turn Hezbollah into a Trojan horse to take over the country.

If Nasrallah wants to solve Lebanon's electricity woes, shouldn't he pay his own electric bills?

If Hezbollah kills those who try to collect them, then why would we think that they have any peaceful motives for a nuclear plant?

Syrian Palestinians admit they don't want to "return"

BBC reporter Lina Sinjab actually asks Palestinian Arabs what they want - and, more amazingly, they answer the question honestly.

The right of return for Palestinian refugees is a major sticking point in the upcoming US-sponsored Middle East peace talks, but some younger Palestinians - having never laid eyes on their ancestral homeland - say they do not actually want to go back.

As a third-generation Palestinian growing up in Syria, Bissan al-Sharif says she feels rooted in Damascus.

"I don't know if I would leave everything and go and live [in my ancestral village] because I don't know the place," says Ms Sharif.

"It is difficult to go somewhere and start everything from scratch," she says in between drama lessons for her nine-year-old students.

Ms Sharif's family has told her about what life was like in their ancestral home, and she still wants to visit a future Palestinian state, but not necessarily to move there.

"It is an absent part of my identity," she says. "I know that I have a village in Palestine and I feel I have the right to know it. But I live here, my friends and my work are here, this is my world.

"The other side is an anonymous place to me. It is unknown."

With generations of Palestinians now having lived in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, they have established deep roots outside their ancestral homeland.

But it is rare for them to publicly admit these views.

"On the record, because it is politically incorrect to say otherwise, all of them would say 'Yes, we would return to Palestine'. But once you sit with them in private, you hear a very different point of view," says political analyst Sami Mubayyed.

"Why would a businessman leave their comfort zone? Home is where the heart and the money is."

Even the staunchest supporters of the right to return admit that they have split loyalties.

"I feel like I have two countries - Syria and Palestine," says Yasser Jamous, the 23-year-old lead singer of the Refugees of Rap.

The group is made up of five young Palestinians who grew up in Yarmouk refugee camp on the outskirts of Damascus.

They rap about a homeland they have never visited.

Although Mr Jamous' neighbourhood is identified as a camp, there are no tents or slums in sight. It is a residential area with beauty salons and internet cafes.

The Palestinians who live here are well integrated into society, some even hold government posts.

On the rooftop of a community centre, young Palestinians in their 20s make round plaques imprinted with a picture of Jerusalem.

They aim to produce 60,000 to give to Palestinian families - aimed at keeping the memories of their homeland alive.

Before 1948, Palestinian Arab nationalism was weak to nonexistent. Some intellectuals pushed for the idea of a Palestinian Arab state but the vast majority of actual residents of Palestine did not think of themselves as "Palestinian." The entire concept of nationalism was a new idea, especially for those whose self-identity had been tied for centuries to their families, extended clans, and villages as well as their basic identity as Arabs. In their communal memory, they had never had any independence; rather they had always been under the rule of outsiders. As long as no one bothered their communities, they didn't see any advantage in taking on a new role of being "Palestinian."

Palestinian nationalism itself was an even newer idea; most (but not all) Palestinian Arab nationalists wanted to be part of an independent Syria rather than "Palestine" until 1920 or so, after France and Britain separated Palestine from Syria. Even the Mufti of Jerusalem pushed for Palestine to be considered "southern Syria" until it became apparent that this would never happen.

The Arabs of Palestine did not internalize that there was any difference between them and any other Arabs. Many had only arrived after Zionism took root and when the economy of Palestine improved; conversely, during the 1936-9 riots, a large number of Arabs fled Palestine and went to neighboring countries. To them, the Western-defined borders had little meaning - they were Arabs, not "Palestinian" or "Lebanese" or "Transjordanian." They expected to be able to travel to any other Arab area the way their ancestors traveled throughout the region, based on economic factors far more than any perceived ties to a specific area.

In 1948, they had the exact same expectation. They fled because they didn't think that going to a neighboring area was a big deal and because, historically, Arabs would welcome other Arabs.

That time, however, their Arab brothers started to treat them differently. There were two major reasons for this: one was because of the undeniable hardship that integrating them would cause for the already struggling new Arab states, and the other because they reminded them of the humiliation that the Arab world suffered at being decisively beaten by the despised, dhimmi Jews.

This was the real start of Palestinian Arab nationalism. It had little to do with those who wrote about the theory in the early part of the century - it was an artificial construct imposed from without by Arabs who wanted to use these hundreds of thousands of refugees as political pawns. Their misery was a weapon against Israel. As a UN representative said in 1954, "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. they want to keep it an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die."

Palestinian Arab nationalism was always a negative movement in the sense that it was more oriented towards the destruction of a state rather than the building of one. It was an artificial construct, where the only commonality that Palestinian Arabs have with each other is their second-class "refugee" status rather than any specific cultural ties. Before 1967, the movement was not interested in "liberating" the West Bank or Gaza from Arab rule - their entire focus was on Israel, as it remains today. The Arab media and Arab leadership played their roles in creating a "people" that, prior to 1948, effectively didn't exist as such.

Since the roots of Palestinian Arab nationalism are so shallow and artificial, especially compared to their very real self-identification as Arabs, it is no wonder that Arabs of Palestinian descent would happily become citizens of their host countries given the choice. Yet their "leaders" have their own self-interest in keeping them as pawns, so this fact is all but unreported. Up until now, consistently, we have only seen credulous Western reporters accept at face value the demonstratively false idea that Palestinian Arabs adamantly refuse to become citizens.

This is what makes this BBC report so amazing and important. Let's hope that this inspires more reporters to ask the real questions of Palestinian Arabs stuck in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere; let's hope that a reputable polling firm makes a survey of the real attitudes of Palestinian Arabs. The question is simple: If you were offered the chance to become an equal citizen of any Arab country, would you take it?

There can be no real solution as long as the truth is suppressed. And, sadly, many parties have colluded to suppress the truth for sixty-two years.

(h/t Media Backspin)

Report: Hamas humiliates pan-Arab delegation

Firas Press quotes PalVoice, a Fatah newspaper, saying that Hamas humiliated a pan-Arab delegation to Gaza.

According to the article, parliamentary representatives from Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Qatar, Somalia and Djibouti arrived at the Rafah crossing on the second day of Ramadan in order to bring aid into Gaza, including medical supplies for the Palestinian Red Crescent.

The delegation had the idea of inviting both Hamas and Fatah representatives to eat the Iftar meal at the fancy Roots restaurant, presumably as a way to try to bring the two rivals into contact in an atmosphere of goodwill. They made reservations at the restaurant for a hundred people.

Once Hamas caught wind of the idea, however, it abruptly canceled the meeting, with Hamas official Ahmed Youssef relaying Ismail Haniyeh's "apologies" as they waited at the Rafah crossing.

Hamas then refused to accept the delegation's aid, and forced them to wait at the Rafah crossing for over an hour after sunset. The delegation was forced to eat their Iftar meal while waiting.

An angry Egyptian representative said, "Remember that I am Egyptian and we opened the border that you are now closing."

Finally, Hamas allowed the delegation through, but by that point they were fuming. They now are saying that future aid will be transferred from Egyptian Red Crescent to the Palestinian Red Crescent, bypassing Hamas.

(h/t Ali for translation help)

Cancer patient Ahmed Abu Fuad needs chemotherapy to survive. Muhammad Subeh needs an eye-transplant while paramedic Alaa Sarhan desperately needs surgery to remove shrapnel from his body. But these Gazans are unable to leave the area to seek the required medical treatment elsewhere, and it is not because of the Israeli siege.

Hundreds of Gazans have fallen victim to the infighting between the Hamas and Fatah — who govern in Gaza and the West Bank respectively — as passports have become the latest weapon in their political conflict.

...

Following the overthrow of the PA in Gaza, the passport registry office was moved to Ramallah. But before passports are issued, the intelligence services of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas vet applications for 'security' purposes, which is a euphemism for political affiliation.

...

Even when Gazans have managed to overcome all the red tape and emerged with a passport, many have had their documents confiscated by Hamas officials at the border crossings into Egypt and Israel.

'The Hamas authorities have prevented dozens of Fatah activists from leaving Gaza by confiscating their passports. In a few cases the passports were returned after we intervened, but most weren’t,' Mahmoud Abu Rahma from the Gaza-based human rights organisation Al Mezan told IPS.

Other Fatah members have mistakenly been associated with Hamas by the interior ministry. It was only after they found contacts in the PA who convinced the intelligence services of their political affiliation, were the passports issued.

...

'This behaviour is clearly politically motivated. While both Palestinian factions argue that security is the main factor behind passports being denied or confiscated, it is obvious that both Hamas and Fatah are using passports as a political weapon against the other side and that ordinary Palestinians are once again paying the price,' Abu Rahma said.

It was easy for Lauren Booth to get a "Palestinian VIP passport". Although I wonder if the PA would accept this Gaza-issued one as an official one.

Marc Lynch Unveiled (Zach Novetsky)

A guest post by Zachary Novetsky:

I've been following Marc Lynch’s Twitter feed pretty closely ever since I came across the following ‘tweet’ of his on July 28, 2010:

“Bibi: continuing settlement freeze will topple my governnment [sic] http://bit.ly/bQcVV1 and the problem is...?”

Despite commenting on a whole range of topics related to the Middle East, it’s not often (if ever) that Lynch speaks endearingly about the prospect of a government’s collapse (let alone, that of our closest ally). But as Elliot Abrams recently observed, Lynch has a problem: a blame-Israel-for-everything problem. Yet, Lynch has a far more dangerous problem, one that threatens the very foundations of Western Liberalism and the cores of Democracy. I am referring to his tactless embrace of Islamism, exemplified in his recent essay (Veiled Truths) for Foreign Affairs Magazine. On August 18^th, Lynch tweeted that his essay was ‘holding up pretty well,’ that is, until now…

Lynch asks, Is ‘Moderate Islam’ an Oxymoron, or so the title of his article suggests. To deal with this question, Lynch treats Paul Berman’s new book, The Flight of the Intellectuals, as an example of how not to address the question because it “poorly serves those concerned about the rise of political Islam.” According to Lynch, Berman is guilty of conflating all Islamist groups under a single flag that obscures, for example, “the fierce war between the Salafi purists who call for a literalistic Islam insulated from modernity and the modernizing pragmatists who seek to adapt Islam to the modern world.” On this, Lynch may be right, but his review ultimately reveals more about his personal wishes for the future face of Islam than his critiques of Berman's book or the timely question that the title of his article poses.

In his introduction, Lynch points out that Berman’s book is “based on a 28,000-word essay published three years ago in The New Republic,” which uses Tariq Ramadan as a foil for addressing the much more serious concern of ‘moderate Islamism.’ Rather than thinking that violent Islamists pose the greatest danger to Western ideals, Berman instead asserts that it is “their so-called moderate cousins, who are able to draw well-meaning liberals into a poisonous embrace” that are most dangerous. Since Ramadan is Berman’s ‘lodestar,’ Lynch hopes to undermine the foundation of Berman’s argument by saying that Ramadan is actually a modernizing force of good, whose real enemies are “not liberals in the West but rather literalistic Salafists whose ideas are ascendant in Muslims communities from Egypt and the Persian Gulf to Western Europe.” As a book review, Lynch’s strategy perhaps works, but in addressing the larger question that Lynch poses, it is not only unsatisfactory but dangerous.

When Lynch extrapolates from the persona of Ramadan to the generalized movement that he represents (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood), we are told that “the Muslim Brotherhood has encouraged women to wear the veil, but only so that they can demonstrate virtue while in universities and the workplace [Emphasis Added].” We are asked to empathize with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood because they perform social services and offer “meaning to those who are confined to gloomy urban ghettos,” effectively dismissing the recent Supreme Court decision in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project and legitimizing groups like Hezbollah and Hamas (which Lynch implicitly calls moderate). “True liberals,” we are told, should choose Ramadan (and so the Muslim Brotherhood), because they “offer a model for Muslims of integration as full citizens at a time when powerful forces are instead pushing for isolation and literalism.” But in so doing, Lynch has left the reader with a false dichotomy, a perversion of the word ‘Liberalism,’ and, by implication, a misunderstanding of Berman’s intentions.

For Lynch, we must choose between the less violent Muslim Brotherhood and the literalistic Salafists. But why should we have to choose either? Berman wants neither and true Liberals should not be satisfied between choosing the lesser of two evils, but should strive toward a better alternative. For Berman, this ideological ideal is personified by Ayan Hirsi Ali, whom Lynch is dismissive of because she “represents only a small slice of Muslim societies.” Lynch thus proves that he is neither a moralist nor a Liberal, but instead a political realist who oddly couches his argument in moral terms. Demonstrative of this worldview is Lynch’s conclusion that “real moral courage does not come from penning angry polemics without regard for real world consequences.” In Lynch’s view, morality is synonymous with pragmatism – an odd and incongruous definition of morality indeed.

When not creating self-serving definitions, Lynch assumes the role of religious scholar and opines that “puritanical versions of Islam that have taken root in many Muslim communities” should be considered “the great theft,” a term he borrows from Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at UCLA. But even Lynch’s own argument undercuts this premise—if large swaths of the Muslim community have chosen such piousness, why should this be considered “the great theft”?

In his cursory analysis of Berman’s treatment of ‘Islamic fascism,’ Lynch is dismissive. According to Lynch, using the phrase is a “profound insult to [the faith and identity of virtually all Muslims],” so we must either discard the ominous link between Haj Amin al-Husseini and Hitler or we must speculate that this alliance was only “couched in Islamic terms in an effort to win over mass support” – the same sort of speculation that Lynch abhors in Berman’s opinions of Ramadan.

Although Lynch concedes that the Islamist position “may be troubling,” he comforts us by adding that “it defines the mainstream Muslim position.” Even as he admits that Ramadan alters his positions by “anticipating Arab and Muslim views,” Lynch does not take this unsettling reality to its necessary conclusion. What happens if mainstream Muslim opinion goes the way of the Salafist literalists that Lynch fears?

Perhaps most unsettling is Lynch’s unwillingness to entertain the possibility that Ramadan or the Muslim Brotherhood are only using democratic procedures in order to undermine Western foundations from within, despite a plethora of evidence affirming these intentions. For example, Muhammed Akram Adlouni, “a key player within the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.,” wrote An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, with section four stating:

“The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house...so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

In Lynch’s opinion though, we are told that democracy is meaningless if we do not allow Muslims to peacefully pursue their interests and advance their ideas. While it’s true that we must ensure that Muslims are able to partake in the democratic process, we must also be wary that this fundamental right is not abused by Islamists seeking to undermine the foundations of democracy from within. It is this very real possibility – this most dastardly subterfuge – that would render democracy meaningless.

So we are indeed faced with a decision: Lynch is Pangloss, while Berman is Candide. Let us choose the latter, lest we are content with legitimizing the dangerous and oxymoronic label, “moderate Islamism.”

Jewish woman victim of Ramadan attack in France

Le Point (French) reports on a young Jewish woman who filed a complaint after being assaulted in a supermarket in Toulouse. The victim said she was harassed by two teenagers who accused her of buying food during the day of the Ramadan fast. The woman told them that she was allowed to buy food because she wasn't Muslim as they assumed, but Jewish.

Big mistake.

This new fact caused the "youths" to become more angry. After they called her a "dirty Jewess", they hit her on the head, knocking her down to the floor.

A security guard watched the scene without intervening. When questioned by investigators about the reasons for his indifference, the man explained that he respected Ramadan and also he was hungry and anxious to leave in order to eat at sunset.

In an earlier incident, a Senegalese man who was eating during the daytime in a restaurant in Lyons was attacked, hit in the head with both a glass bottle and with a chair. His skull was fractured and he underwent surgery.

UN tribunal: Hezbollah's evidence in Hariri case "incomplete"

While "squabbles" erupted in the streets of Beirut in Lebanon, the UN tribunal says that Hezbollah's evidence in the Hariri case is far from complete.

As you might remember Nasrallah accused Israel of being behind the Hariri assassination. During a press conference he showed several clips of aerial views of various areas in Lebanon that he alleged were intercepted from unmanned Israeli surveillance drones. The clips included footage of several sites in Lebanon that also show the area where Hariri was assassinated, but were not from the same year.

In response to the request of the Office of the Prosecutor, on 17 August 2010, Hezbollah officials hand-delivered to the Prosecutor General of Lebanon an envelope containing six DVDs. This material was handed over to the Office of the Prosecutor on the same day.

But now it appears that the evidence presented by Hezbollah in the case of the 2005 assassination of Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri is incomplete, since the material that was handed over is limited to the material shown during the 9 August 2010 press conference and does not contain “the rest of the evidence” that Nasrallah referred to in his press conference.

In a press statement the Office of the Prosecutor of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon requests additional information and evidence held by Nasrallah:

The information received will be thoroughly assessed. This can properly be done only if it is based on a complete record. This is why the Office of the Prosecutor has requested the Lebanese authorities to provide the remaining material to which the Secretary General of Hezbollah referred to in his press conference of 9 August 2010 without delay.

Hezbollah in firefight with a "charity." Charity winning. (Plus: Floating cows!)

From Naharnet:

Three people were killed in fierce armed clashes between members of Hizbullah and partisans of the Association of Islamic Charitable Projects (Al-Ahbash) in the Beirut area of Burj Abi Haidar on Tuesday evening.

Police told Agence France Presse the fighters were using shoulder-launched rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns in the fighting, in which several other people were wounded.

The state-run National News Agency said Hizbullah's official Mohammed Fawwaz and his bodyguard Ali Mohammed Jawad were killed in the fighting.

Media reports said an Ahbash official was also killed in the clashes.

Hizbullah, Lebanon's most powerful political and military force, is backed by Syria and Iran.

Al-Ahbash is also pro-Syrian and describes itself as a charitable organization promoting Islamic culture.

It first came to light in 1983 and gathered strength during the Syrian military presence in Lebanon.

The fighting took place as Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addressed an all-women iftar banquet.

The peaceful Islamic charity managed to kill 2 Hizballah men, while only losing one.

Apparently, it is not unusual for charities in Lebanon to walk around with RPGs and machine guns.

In other Lebanese news, a seventh dead cow has been found floating off the coast.

I'm not sure which story is weirder.

Report: Lebanese Internet routed through Israel from 2006-2009

Now! Lebanon has an article about how Lebanon busted an alleged Israeli spy ring of some 150 people. The article starts with this fascinating story:

In 2006, a ship cut silently through the Mediterranean on a moonless night before docking at a small Lebanese port. On board were a microwave dish and a Fiber Airport produced by Ceragon, an Israeli company specializing in wireless telecom and the delivery of voice and data services. One month later, a technician traveling under a fake name installed the equipment on top of the Barouk Mountain, one of Lebanon’s highest peaks.

For three years, the dish emitted radio frequencies connecting Lebanese internet users to Israel. Most users of this particular network were oblivious as to who to thank for their excellent internet connection. Rumor has it that the Lebanese presidential palace and Ministry of Defense, as well as the personal houses of the head of the army and other top-ranking military officials, were connected unknowingly to Israel, with which Lebanon is still technically at war. According to telecom experts speaking to NOW Lebanon on condition of anonymity, the breach was due in part to the reliance of Lebanese national agencies on rudimentary firewall systems.

While talk of the Barouk scandal was quickly hushed due to the seeming unwitting involvement of top politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, it was, nonetheless, a major event in Lebanon’s intelligence war against Israel.

While this sounds very possible, I am a bit more skeptical about the arrests of the alleged spies. For example, the story is illustrated with this photo and caption:

A masked Lebanese secret service officer shows on May 11, 2009 a wireless internet router found with arrested Lebanese nationals accused of spying for Israel. (AFP photo/Joseph Barrak)

In my house I have that exact same kind of spy equipment!

The Dhimmi Song

Someone on a mailing list I read asked if anyone could help write a song parody about dhimmis, and one of his ideas was to use "Tommy Can You Hear Me?" from The Who.

Well, that song does not give too much flexibility, but on the same album is a song called "Christmas" which would do the job nicely, slightly modified to include "Tommy Can You Hear Me?" as well.

So here it is:

Did you hear about the Christians protesting so much for Palestinians?
They have malls and hotels yet demand more money from the West by billions,
They pretend that Muslims protect the Christians still living in Bethlehem
They can't see that Islam is working overtime to just get rid of them,

But Dhimmis don't notice the Christians fleeing there,
They don't believe what their own eyes are seeing there,
They will surely lose,
When all they blame are Jews.

Christian population in the West Bank has gone down about 50%,
Protestant Churches cannot be bothered to find out exactly why they went,
Bombs are thrown in churches, fires, threats, injuries and sometimes even Christian deaths,
While Christians flee the West Bank plenty are safe in Israel's Nazareth.

But Dhimmis don't notice the Christians fleeing there,
They don't believe what their own eyes are seeing there,
They will surely lose,
When all they blame are Jews.

* Dhimmi can you hear me?
* Why do you blame the Jews?
* Dhimmi why can't you see?
* Soon they'll come after you!
Oh, Dhimmi, dhimmi, dhimmi, dhimmi,
They'll come after you!

Did you hear about the Christians protesting so much for Palestinians?
They have malls and hotels yet demand more money from the West by billions,
They pretend that Muslims protect the Christians still living in Bethlehem
They can't see that Islam is working overtime to just get rid of them,

But Dhimmis don't notice the Christians fleeing there,
They don't believe what their own eyes are seeing there,
They will surely lose,
When all they blame are Jews.

Links

Evelyn Gordon at Commentary:

Everyone knows Israel has yet to satisfy Palestinian demands; the Palestinians proclaim this nonstop. But few people even know what Israel’s demands are, let alone that the Palestinians have rejected every single one.

And unless Israel starts telling them, they never will.

Meryl Yourish:

Oh, wait—the Gazans aren’t starving anymore? There’s not a humanitarian crisis? They’re simply—unhappy? Wait, wait—how come the Gazans can’t leave? Did the AP cover the history of exactly why Gazans are unable to enter Israel and Egypt freely?

Khaled Abu Toameh at Hudson NY:

A president whose term in office expired a long time ago, and a prime minister who won about 2% of the vote when he ran in an election, have now been invited by the US Administration to hold direct peace talks with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

The 18-member PLO Executive Committee, which met in Ramallah last week to approve the Palestinians' participation in the direct talks with Israel, is dominated by unelected veteran officials.

Only nine PLO officials attended the meeting. The PLO constitution requires a minimum of 12 members for a quorum. This means that, contrary to reports in the Palestinian and international media, Abbas and Fayyad do not have the support of the PLO committee to negotiate directly with Israel.

Also, Happy Birthday CiF Watch!