J Street And Soros And NIAC (Oh My!)

It now seems that there is more to NIAC (National Iranian American Council) than the question of its role as an unregistered lobbyist group.

Following in the wake of Eli Lake's exclusive comes Ben Smith of Politico with further revelations:

According to the documents, George Soros's Open Society Policy Center pays the annual salary of the NIAC staffer who heads the Campaign for a New Policy on Iran, according to an email among NIAC officials. And the minutes of a series of meetings including NIAC and other coalition members offer a glimpse of the strategy and tactics involved in the push for a rapprochement with the Islamic Republic, from an attempt to undermine the appointment of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy to a planned "Send Hillary to Iran" campaign.

The minutes include almost almost no mention of a human rights agenda inside Iran, which has more recently been on NIAC's agenda. Participants in the discussions include NIAC as well as the liberal Jewish group J Street, anti-war groups like Peace Action and the American Friends Service Committee, and the business lobby that opposes Iran sanctions, USA*Engage.

...The memos focus largely on winning congressional action on Iran, but also fret at one point that clumsy Congressional action could get in the way of the administration's engagement policy.

However, "we can't cede Congress to AIPAC entirely," says a late January set of minutes. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

Jennifer Rubin notes several points of interest from what Smith writes, including that:

...we see once again the presence of Morton Halperin. He is both on J Street’s advisory board and a senior adviser to Soros’s Open Society Institute. He was recently fingered as the actual author of a letter by Richard Goldstone defending his infamous report and opposing a congressional resolution condemning the report. He too is part of the cabal to get Dennis Ross. And NIAC sought a White House meeting for Halperin and NIAC officials. Again, all one big happy family.

It seems as though the issue as to whether J Street is “pro-Israel” has been superseded by another. Now we must ask: is it pro-mullah?

Oddly enough, Paul Mirengoff at Powerline, anticipated the J Street-NIAC connection before Smith uncovered it:

Another aspect of this story to keep an eye on is the possible connection between NIAC and J Street. Parsi spoke at J Street's recent convention here in Washington. And J Street, astonishingly for an organization that claims (however laughably) to be pro-Israel, agrees with NIAC that the U.S. should lift its sanctions on Iran.

We've also observed that J Street receives money from as well as from several individuals connected to organizations Palestinian and Iranian issue advocacy. NIAC is one of these organizations.

Perhaps the emails that NIAC has had to produce in its lawsuit will shed some additional light on whether or to what extent these groups are linked.

And so they have.

Technorati Tag: NIAC and J Street and George Soros.

Put Aside The Israel Lobby--What About The MUSLIM Lobby?

In CAIR's Inner Workings Exposed, Daniel Pipes writes about Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America, a book by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, based on the undercover work of Gaubatz's son Chris who in 2008 spent six months as an intern at CAIR's headquarters in Washington, D.C.--during which, he acquired 12,000 pages of documentation and took 300 hours of video.

In his blog, Pipes summarizes some of CAIR's deceptive claims that are revealed in the book:

Claim 1: According to Ibrahim Hooper, the organization's communications director, "CAIR has some 50,000 members." Fact: An internal memo prepared in June 2007 for a staff meeting reports that the organization had precisely 5,133 members, about one-tenth Hooper's exaggerated number.

Claim 2: CAIR is a "grass-roots organization" that depends financially on its members. Fact: According to an internal 2002 board meeting report, the organization received $33,000 in dues and $1,071,000 in donations. In other words, under 3 percent of its income derives from membership dues.

Claim 3: CAIR receives "no support from any overseas group or government." Fact: Gaubatz and Sperry report that 60 percent of CAIR's income derives from two dozen donors, most of whom live outside the United States. Specifically: $978,000 from the ruler of Dubai in 2002 in exchange for controlling interest in its headquarters property on New Jersey Avenue, a $500,000 gift from Saudi prince al-Waleed bin Talal and $112,000 in 2007 from Saudi prince Abdullah bin Mosa'ad, at least $300,000 from the Saudi-based Organization of the Islamic Conference, $250,000 from the Islamic Development Bank, and at least $17,000 from the American office of the Saudi-based International Islamic Relief Organization.

Claim 4: CAIR is an independent, domestic human rights group "similar to a Muslim NAACP." Fact: In a desperate search for funding, CAIR has offered its services to forward the commercial interests of foreign firms. This came to light in the aftermath of Dubai Ports World's failed effort to purchase six U.S. harbors in 2006 due to security fears. In response, CAIR's chairman traveled to Dubai and suggested to businessmen there: "Do not think about your contributions [to CAIR] as donations. Think about it from the perspective of rate of return. The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for fifty years."

Read the whole thing.

In addition to CAIR, now it appears that there is another Muslim organization that uses some of the same techniques: National Iranian American Council (NIAC), led by Trita Parsi [who himself is not a Muslim].

In his exclusive article, Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules, Eli Lake writes about aspects of NIAC that are reminiscent of CAIR--least of which is its tendency to exaggerate its numbers:

The organization has between 2,500 and 3,000 members, according to Mr. Parsi, but had fewer than 500 responses to a membership survey conducted last summer, internal documents show. Yet NIAC asserts that it is the largest such group and represents the majority of the nearly 1 million Iranian Americans.

Their description of themselves as merely an advocacy group appears to be similarly exaggerated. When Obama became president, Dennis Ross was likely to become adviser on Iranian policy--and Ross was known to advocate a hard line against Iran. Patrick Disney, acting policy director of NIAC embarked on a strategy that described as "Create a media controversy" around Ross.

"Those groups that feel comfortable being more aggressive in opposing Ross publicly (possibly Voters for Peace, [Friends Committee on National Legislation] , Physicians for Social Responsibility, others) will do so," Mr. Disney wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Washington Times, "while others who may have less latitude on the matter will declare their preference for a more agreeable envoy."

Although Ross was appointed anyway and wound up on the National Security Council, NIAC is emerging as a major voice for negotiating with Iran and lifting U.S. sanctions.

In fact, there are indications that NIAC actually is a lobby:

a lawsuit has brought to light numerous documents that raise questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law. If so, a number of prominent Washington figures could come to regret their ties to the group.

...Law enforcement experts who reviewed some of the documents, which were made available to The Times by the defendant in the suit, say e-mails between Mr. Parsi and Iran's ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif - and an internal review of the Lobbying Disclosure Act - offer evidence that the group has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws.

Furthermore, though Parsi has denied the comparison, in 1999:

Mr. Namazi and Mr. Parsi collaborated on a paper that they delivered at a conference in Cyprus. They described their vision for an organization modeled after the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby. The paper, among other things, proposed seminars on lobbying for Iranian Americans, based on AIPAC's youth leadership seminars. One of NIAC's first actions was to sponsor similar events.

Read the whole thing.

Not that anyone expects much of an uproar about a 'Muslim Lobby'--especially in light of the general denial that the Fort Hood massacre had anything to do with the fact that the alleged perpetrator was a radical Muslim.

But lobbying by Muslim is a increasingly visible phenomenon, nonetheless.

Technorati Tag: Muslim Lobby and NIAC and CAIR.

From The First Gulf War--To The Fort Hood Massacre: Time To Face Some Facts (Updated)

It would be inappropriate to malign or even question the loyalty of the hard-working Muslim men and women wearing the uniforms of the United States. But it would be equally irresponsible to ignore the amassing evidence that subversive and combustible elements with radical Islamic persuasion have infiltrated our military, often putting our personnel at bigger risk in their own bases than from their enemies on the battlefield.
Gal Luft

In How the Saudis radicalized U.S. troops, Gal Luft notes that the Fort Hood massacre is the latest of a string of similar attacks:

The major incidents include the March 2003 attack in Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait by an American Muslim soldier, Asan Akbar, who rolled grenades into three tents where officers of the 101st Airborne’s 1st Brigade were sleeping, killing one serviceman and wounding 15; the six Islamic radicals who in May 2007 plotted to storm New Jersey’s Fort Dix Army Base with automatic weapons and execute as many soldiers as possible; and John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper, a Gulf War veteran and convert to Islam who was responsible for 16 shootings and 10 murders and who is scheduled to be executed today.

According to Luft, as opposed to the record of Muslim loyalty in the armed forces, the issue that needs to be examined is the new phenomenon of Wahhabi-trained and converted Muslims.

During the first Gulf war in 1990-1991, while Saudi Arabia was adamantly opposed to any expression of Christian or Jewish religious practices on their soil--the Saudis saw no reason not to go about imposing their own religion on others.

He quotes General Norman Schwarzkopf’s aide Rick Francona:

Saudi officers appeared to have been directed by their senior military or religious leadership to spot and assess potential converts to Islam among American military members. Once a particular American was ‘targeted,’ […] a few Saudi military officers, including a military imam, would attempt to meet the American in either a purely social setting or at least outside of the work area. These approaches usually included fairly generous gifts and of course, literature about Islam. The gifts included expensive briefcases, pens, books and other personal items. Americans who decided to convert to Islam were rewarded handsomely […] including all expenses paid trips to Mecca, and payments as high as $30,000.

According to Luft, this is confirmed by the Saudis themselves:

The commander of Saudi forces in the Gulf, Prince Khaled bin Sultan bragged in his memoir that more than 2,000 American troops converted to Islam through this campaign. “These Muslim troops are now the messengers of Islam in the U.S. forces,” said Dr. Abu Ameena Bilal Phillips, a Jamaican-born convert to Islam (1972) who worked during the Gulf war under the auspices of the U.S. Air Force while converting U.S. troops to Islam in his spare time. After the war, Phillips moved to the United States to “set up Islamic chapters in the U.S. Defense Department.”

While it is true that nearly 20 years have passed since then, that does not mean the effects of the Saudi Arabian proselytizing campaign have dissipated. To the contrary:

[T]he seeds sown during the Gulf War have germinated, creating scores of radicalized Americans who are a threat to their comrades in uniforms as well as to their civilian communities...it is time to investigate what exactly happened back then in the desert and assess how serious and deep-rooted the damage is.

Maybe we could take one small by stopping the practice of bestowing the term 'moderate' so freely--and let's start with Saudi Arabia.

UPDATE: Apparently, when Muslim countries run into this kind of problem, they take action:

In most Muslim countries, the military would not dither over the issue. In Turkey, for example, the armed forces impose a strictly secular ethos on their personnel. Over the years, scores of stealthy Islamists have been identified and unceremoniously booted out for trying to proselytize fellow soldiers and generally undermine the army's values. In less-forgiving countries like Syria, such offenders tend to disappear without a trace or get funneled clandestinely into terror cells for missions abroad.

[Hat tip: Instapundit]

Technorati Tag: Fort Hood Massacre.

Assad Pulls An Arafat On Peace Prospects With Israel (Updated)

Then again, maybe Bashar learned the trick from his father...

To know if Syria is serious about peace with Israel, all you have to do is check the news.
What could be simpler?

Today, according to Reuters, Syria is ready to roll:

Syria urges firm U.S. plan on Middle East peace

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that U.S. President Barack Obama should come up with a firm plan of action to renew peace talks between Syria and Israel.

In an interview with French daily Le Figaro published on Friday, Assad said the dialogue initiated by Obama's administration had not gone "beyond an exchange of views."

Ditto Israel:

PM tries to jump-start talks with Syria

Opening up hope for some sudden progress on the Syrian front, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sent a verbal message to Syria on Wednesday, when he told French President Nicolas Sarkozy he would be happy to resume peace talks with Syria anytime, anywhere and without preconditions, a government source said.

The two leaders spoke at the Elysée Palace in Paris, the day before Syrian President Bashar Assad is expected to hold his own meeting in Paris with Sarkozy.

What could go wrong?
How about checking out what Assad says to his own people

Mideast radicals fill space left by peace impasse

"It would be wrong to think that peace will come through negotiating. It will come through resistance," Syrian President Bashar Assad said in a speech Wednesday - a sharp shift in tone for a head of state who, just a year ago, was in indirect peace talks with neighboring Israel and who has tried to warm ties with the U.S.

Which version of Syria's readiness for peace will we hear from Obama and Clinton?

UPDATE: Michael Totten notes the difference between Netanyahu and Assad in the search for peace:

There's a difference, though, between what Israel and Syria are up to right now. Unlike Netanyahu, Assad can get himself into trouble by talking about peace with the "Zionist Entity." When it looked like the elder Hafez Assad might sign a peace treaty with Israel in the 1990s, a prominent military officer warned him of the consequences. "What are you doing?" he said, according to an account by Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. "We will be lost if you make peace. We will be accused of treason.'"

So in the very same statement where he announced unconditional peace talks, Assad reassured his regional and domestic audience: "Resistance forms the core of our policy," he said, "both in the past and in the future."

Technorati Tag: Syria and Assad.

Goldstone Refuses To Debate Dershowitz

"I have yet to hear what the flaws of the report are. I'd be happy to respond if I know what they are."
Judge Goldstone

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Report.

Obama Channels Jack Benny

Is anyone else reminded of the old Jack Benny routine when they read this:

'Obama must choose - Israel or Iran'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the US to choose between Israel and Iran on Tuesday night, according to Iranian state media.

Speaking in Istanbul at the 25th Session of the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation (COMCEC) of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Iranian president said that it was up to US President Barack Obama to realize his motto of "change".

"The support of both Israel and Iran can't go hand in hand," he was quoted as saying by IRNA. "No change is made unless great choices are made.

Some might think the choice is obvious, but then again...

Here is the famous Jack Benny routine: "You money or your life" (starts at 1:30)



From the script:

ROBBER: “This is a stick-up.”

BENNY: “Mister, put down that gun.”

ROBBER: “Shut up. I said this is a stick-up. Now, come on. Your money or your life.”

((laughter))

ROBBER: “Look, bud. I said, your money or your life!”

BENNY: “I’m thinking it over.”

((laughter/music))

Of course, waiting actually is a part of Obama's repertoire--as an Instapundit reader points out:

The towers fell in New York on 9/11/01, Kabul fell to American led forces on 11/14/01. That’s 65 days.

President Obama’s hand-picked replacement commander in Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal, delivered his Afghanistan war plans to President Obama on 8/30/09, and President Obama hasn’t acted on his General’s recommendations as of today, 11/11/09. That’s 73 days, and waiting.

He's thinking...

Separated at birth?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama and Jack Benny.

Obama's New Tack On Israel-Palestinian Conflict: Try The Old Tack

Emanuel Rahm stood in today for Obama, explaining that the Obama administration is still committed to Israel:

Speaking to a couple of thousand members of the UJC/Jewish Federations of North America at the Wardman Park Marriott a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the group, Emanuel argued that Obama's commitment to push the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state will advance Israel's long-term national security and values.

"Those who have questioned" whether the Obama administration has been too tough on Israeli settlements and its outreach to the Muslim world and wondered "that this implies diminished support for Israel, that is not the intent," Emanuel said. "It is not the case and it never will be. The truth is the opposite. Only through dialogue will Israel achieve the peace it seeks."

"This is a critical time for all who seek the critical goal of two states that enjoys broad support" in the U.S., Emanuel acknowledged. But he said Obama's commitment to try to advance a negotiated peace between Israel, the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors will not be deterred by recent setbacks.

...Emanuel called — as Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently have as well — for peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians to begin as soon as possible, "without preconditions."

Jennifer Rubin notes a certain degree of disconnect between Rahms speech on the one hand and both past and future US policy on the other:

Well, “those who have questioned” the administration have, in fact, questioned the policy of trying to extract unilateral concessions. That’s not “dialogue”; it’s bullying. And the “setbacks” — well, that’s what comes from insisting that one side give up what it cannot possibly give up and raising the hopes of the other that it will get this very concession.

Nevertheless, it looks like the critics were right because Emanuel tells us that he agrees with Bibi: Talks should start as soon as possible with no preconditions. Hmm. That’s not what the Obami have been preaching and practicing for months now, is it? [emphasis added]

Now all that Obama needs to do is convince Abbas--who assumed he could sit on the sidelines while Obama forced concessions for him--that the Fatah leader will have to...negotiate.

For that reason alone, Abbas may follow through on his threat to quit.

Technorati Tag: Emanuel Rahm and Obama and Abbas.

How Has The US Policy Messed Up The Israeli-Palestinian Situation? Let's Count The Ways

Actually, Elliotl Abrams is nice enough to do it for us. In Dazed and Confused:
The Israelis can’t figure out U.S. policy. For that matter, who can? he writes:

First came an instant attitude of hostility on the part of the Obama administration toward Israel’s new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, even before he had taken office on March 31 and despite his efforts to create a centrist coalition. Second came its obsession with a “settlement freeze,” which in fact was a demand for something that no Israeli prime minister of any party could possibly agree to — a complete and immediate freeze on construction not only in every settlement (including those Israel will obviously keep in any final-status agreement) but also in Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. Third came the demand that Arab states reach out to Israel, a demand that the president himself delivered to the king of Saudi Arabia in a visit there in June and that, predictably, was rejected immediately.

Fourth came the administration’s handling of the Palestinian leadership, which it pulled out onto the “settlement freeze” limb — for how could any Palestinian leader be less insistent on a total freeze than the Americans were? This meant that when the Obama team faced reality and dropped the freeze demand in favor of a call for “restraint,” the Palestinians out on that limb were simply sawed off. Later, when American diplomats prevailed upon the Palestinian leadership not to ask the U.N. Human Rights Council to approve the Goldstone Report on Israeli conduct during the Gaza War, they added insult to injury. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas seems to have accepted U.S. demands and instructed his delegation at the Human Rights Council in Geneva to cool it, a move that won him unprecedented unpopularity at home. He should have said no and simply told the U.S. to veto anything that arose in the Security Council, but the U.S. should not have pushed him.

...The net result of the administration’s approach is a massive policy failure. The Obama administration has weakened the Palestinian leadership it meant to strengthen, weakened the alliance with Israel by its hostility to Israel’s government, weakened its own reputation in Arab capitals for strength and reliability, and painted itself into a policy corner. For where does it go now?

Read the whole thing.

Well, how about doing what Obama claimed he would do in Iraq? Withdraw from that area of the Middle East, claim that the foundation has been set for future talks--and proclaim victory!

Heaven knows the Obama administration needs one.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

A Lesson On The Difference Between Israel And The Palestinians That Speaks Volumes

Israel has arrested an alleged terrorist--who is Jewish:

The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Israel Police have arrested an American-born Jewish settler who is allegedly behind an unprecedented series of deadly terror shootings and bombings spanning over a decade, in which two Palestinians were killed and Israel Prize Laureate Prof. Ze'ev Sternhell was injured. According to the Shin Bet, he also planted a bomb at the entrance to house of a messianic family in Ariel, seriously wounding their son, then-15-year-old Ami Ortiz.

But that is where the similarity to Palestinian terrorists end, because the difference in the way that Israel will treat the suspect speaks volumes on the difference between Israel and the Palestinian Arab leaders

Dr. Aaron Lerner writes:

Yaakov Teitel will have his day in Israeli court and, if convicted, spend a
good part of the remainder of his life behind bars.

Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't asking for Jewish terrorist Yaakov Teitel to
be freed.

There are no Israeli security forces planning to capture Palestinians to
trade for Yaakov Teitel's release.

The Israeli school system isn't teaching that Yaakov Teitel is a hero.

No summer camp sponsored by a leading Israeli political party is going to be
named after Yaakov Teitel.

Yaakov Teitel's family isn't going to get a monthly stipend from the
Government of Israel as a sign of thanks for his actions.

This is in contrast to the Palestinian leadership--not just Hamas, but also the supposed 'moderate' head of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas. From an article from this past May:

The PA chose to name its latest computer center "after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," who led the most deadly terror attack in the country's history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children, including American photographer Gail Rubin. The new center is funded by Abbas's office, which is bolstered by Western aid money. (Al-Ayyam, May 5).

...Last summer the PA sponsored "the Dalal Mughrabi football championship" for kids, and a "summer camp named for martyr Dalal Mughrabi... out of honor and admiration for the martyr." It also held a party to honor exemplary students, also named "for the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," under the auspices of Abbas and at which Abbas's representative "reviewed the heroic life of the martyr [Mughrabi] (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 23, 24 and August 8, 2008). All these PA-funded activities were to teach kids that a killer of women and children is a role model.

TWO MONTHS AGO, 31 years to the day after the Mughrabi murders, PA TV broadcast a special program celebrating the terror attack, calling the killing of 37 civilians "one of the most important and most prominent special operations... carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi" (PA TV March 11). And its not just Mughrabi who is a Palestinian hero. Despite professions in English by Abbas and other PA leaders that they reject terror, the PA has a long and odious history in Arabic of celebrating terrorists as role models and heroes, often involving US money.

USAID spent $400,000 in 2004 to build the Salakh Khalaf soccer field. After Palestinian Media Watch reported that Khalaf was the head of the Palestinian terror group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and two American diplomats in Sudan, USAID publicly apologized and said it would demand that the PA change the name. The name was never changed.

In 2002, US money funded renovations of the "Dalal Mughrabi school for girls." After PMW alerted the US State Department to Mughrabi's terrorist past, the funding was cancelled. Within 24 hours, the PA said the name would be changed, and the American money was reinstated. Once the work was completed, however, the school was renamed for the terrorist. It bears Mughrabi's name to this day.

Explain again, please, why the rush to give these people--who have never had their own country-- a state?

Technorati Tag: Yaakov Teitel and Abbas and Terrorism.

Just How Many Times Has Abbas Threatened To Quit?

According to the New York Times, Future of Palestinian Authority Is in Question, but let's face it: John Podhoretz is much closer to the truth--The Times Indulges a Palestinian Temper Tantrum.

Seriously, it's not as if this is the first time Abbas has threatened to quit.

Or the second.

Or the third.

Or even the fourth.

Let's review...

March 18, 2008
Exclusive: Abbas threatens to quit peace talks, revive Fatah terror
(OK, Abbas is not threatening to resign--but we're just getting warmed up...)

Jan 17, 2008
Abbas threatens to quit if 'escalation' continues

June 12, 2007
Fatah movement threatens to quit Hamas-led unity gov't

February 26, 2006
Abbas threatens to quit over Hamas
(Feb 28, 2006 Abbas: I did not threaten to quit)

30 January 2006
Abbas to resign if Hamas fails to work with foreign powers

January 25, 2006
Palestinians Vote in First Legislative Elections in a Decade
Abbas is "a touchy man of dark moods, who often threatens to quit, as he quit as prime minister after four months in 2003 when Mr. Arafat did not allow him enough power."

Jan 17, 2006
PA head Abbas threatens to quit

December 16, 2005
Palestinian Chief Threatens to Quit Over Rival Fatah Slate

March 30, 2005
Palestinian Abbas threatens to quit unless Fatah groups cooperate.

Wed 09 Sep 2003
Abbas threatens to quit unless he gets more authority

Thursday, September 4, 2003
Abbas threatens to quit over leadership

Aug. 21, 2003
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas threatens to resign unless Yasser Arafat approves a crackdown on Hamas

July 9, 2003
U.S. Supports Abbas After Palestinian Leader Threatens to Quit

April 08, 2003
Moderate Palestinian PM threatens to quit as Arafat hinders change.

So now the New York Times is panicking that Abbas is threatening to resign again?

Just let him quit, already.

Technorati Tag: Abbas.