Category Archives: Iran Israel

Iran Deal (JPOA) is Over, U.S. Relations, Broken

Posted on by

Iran Reneges On Nuclear Deal  

“Adoption Day”–the day participants would start the process of implementing their JCPOA commitments – was set for October 18. On that day, therefore, the US and the EU began preparatory measures for lifting the multiple sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy since they were first imposed in 2005. Only three days later, on October 21, Ayatollah Khamenei published a letter of guidelines to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about the JCPOA.

This letter, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported, was posted on Khamenei’s website in Persian, tweeted from his Twitter account, posted on his Facebook page in English, and published in English by the Iran Broadcasting Authority. In this document, clearly the definitive statement of the conditions under which Iran would be willing to execute the JCPOA, Iran’s Supreme Leader sets nine new and unilateral conditions that fundamentally change what was agreed on July 14. In short, he has virtually declared the JCPOA a dead letter.

What are these nine new conditions?

First Khamenei demands that sanctions are lifted fully, not suspended, before Iran takes steps to meet its obligations under the agreement. In addition he asserts that any endorsement by the West of the “snapback” option (the reintroduction of sanctions should Iran fail to meet the terms of the agreement) will be considered “non-compliance with the JCPOA”.

Secondly: Any future sanctions against Iran for whatever reason, including terrorism or human rights violations, will “constitute a violation of the JCPOA,” and a reason for Iran to stop executing the agreement.

Thirdly: Under the JCPOA Iran is obligated to start changing the function of its nuclear reactor at Arak and shipping out most of its stockpile of enriched uranium. In his letter Khamenei declares that Iran will not carry out these actions until after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) closes its dossier on Iran, targeted for December 15. But the IAEA will not be able to report about Iran meeting its obligations regarding the Arak reactor and shipping out its enriched uranium by the target date, because Iran is not going to do so by then. In short, the JCPOA has been thwarted from the very start.

Fourth: Iran will change the purpose of the Arak reactor only after there is a signed agreement on an “alternative plan” and “sufficient guarantee” that it will be implemented. In other words, Iran intends to postpone fulfilling its obligations under the JCPOA regarding the Arak reactor to some unknown future date.

Fifth: Iran intends to postpone indefinitely the date set by the JCPOA for shipping out its enriched uranium to another country in exchange for yellowcake. Moreover Khamenei is demanding that Iran receive in exchange for the enriched uranium not raw uranium as per the JCPOA, but instead uranium that has been enriched, albeit to a lower level than the uranium it ships out.

Sixth: Khamenei instructs President Rouhani, while reducing Iran’s ability to enrich uranium under the JCPOA, immediately to expand Iran’s ability to enrich uranium on a 15-year long-term plan for 190,000 centrifuges. In short, he is nullifying the declared goal of the JCPOA, which is to reduce Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities.

Seventh: The Iranian Atomic Energy Organization must ensure continued nuclear research and development, in its various dimensions, so that in eight years’ time, Iran will not be lacking in enrichment technology.

Eighth: Khamenei declares that Iran must be involved in resolving queries about the JCPOA – a recipe for unending dispute and the ability to paralyze the execution of the agreement.

Ninth: A new committee tasked with monitoring the execution of the agreement is to be established – nominally to obviate any attempt by the US or the West to cheat, but in effect, a mechanism for creating perpetual obstacles to carrying out the agreement.

So far world opinion has turned a blind eye to Khamenei’s virtual rejection of the nuclear agreement. The US and the EU are proceeding enthusiastically with the first stages of dismantling their multiple sanctions regimes. Government officials and businessmen from around the globe are making a beeline for Tehran, eager to share in the vast commercial opportunities they see awaiting.

The nuclear agreement is the basis for Iran’s re-entry into the comity of nations, and Khamenei seems to be setting the stage for a battle of wills between Iran and the West. Will the West’s desire to come to terms with Iran outweigh Iran’s determination to give away less than their president has actually signed up to? Will the West delay the lifting of sanctions? Who will blink first?

Rouhani says U.S.-Iran ties could be restored but U.S. must apologize

ROME (Reuters) – The nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran could lead to better relations between Tehran and Washington if the United States apologized for past behavior, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was quoted as saying on Thursday.

The pragmatist president, who championed the July 14 deal, has pushed for closer engagement with the West since his 2013 landslide election win.

But Iran’s top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has continued to rule out normalizing ties with the “Great Satan”, as he routinely calls the United States.

In an interview with Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper, Rouhani suggested that the United States and Iran could open embassies in each other’s capitals after decades of mutual hostility, but said Washington should apologize, without going into further detail.

“One day these embassies will re-open but what counts is behavior and the Americans hold the key to this,” Rouhani told the newspaper ahead of a trip to Italy this weekend, his first to a European capital.

“If they modify their policies, correct errors committed in these 37 years and apologize to the Iranian people, the situation will change and good things can happen.”

Iran and Washington severed ties shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution when radical students seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for over a year.

Relations came under further pressure in the last decade over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Under the nuclear deal reached in July, Iran will curb its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions on its economy. Tehran denied Western suspicions it wanted to develop an atomic bomb.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, gave his conditional approval to the deal with six world powers including the United States, but has warned against allowing any U.S. political or economic influence on Iran.

Rouhani said Washington would have to fulfill its part in the nuclear accord for relations to improve. The United States approved conditional sanctions waivers for Iran, though these will not take effect until Tehran has complied with the nuclear accord.

“The way this agreement is applied can have an impact on the future,” Rouhani said in the interview.

“If it is well applied it can lay the foundation for fewer tensions with the United States, creating the conditions to open a new era. But if the Americans don’t respect their part of the nuclear accord, then surely our relationship will remain as it has been in the past,” he said.

Rouhani is due to see the Italian prime minister and business leaders during his Nov. 14-15 visit to Rome and will also hold talks with Pope Francis.

He will then fly to Paris for talks on Nov. 16-17.

Crackas With Attitude Hit FBI Director

Posted on by

A few days ago, it was the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, now it is the Director of the FBI. The hacking group boasted their success on Twitter, but that account has since been terminated.

CIA email hackers breach FBI-run site, deputy director’s private email

The same hackers who breached the email account of CIA Director John Brennan last month are now believed to be behind another set of intrusions, including accessing a FBI-run law enforcement portal and a private email account of a top bureau official.

The hackers, who call themselves Crackas With Attitude, posted Friday personal data of law enforcement officials that appears to have been stolen from the Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal, CNN reported.

The FBI-run site, also known as LEO.gov, connects local and federal law enforcement officials and allows local, state and federal agencies to share information, including details of ongoing investigations.

Three U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed the breach. Users of the portal received notices that their data may have been compromised.

In addition, a Twitter account that investigators believe is operated by the hackers posted screenshotsThursday that appear to have come from a private email account belonging to FBI Deputy Director Mark Giuliano and his wife.

The same Twitter account also posted data that appeared to come from the LEO.gov site, including names and contact information for law enforcement employees.

The three officials told CNN that the same hackers who accessed Mr. Brennan’s email account are believed to be behind the latest breaches.

An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment on the alleged breaches.

“We have no comment on specific claims of hacktivism, but those who engage in such activities are breaking the law,” FBI spokeswoman Carol Cratty told CNN. “The FBI takes these matters very seriously. We will work with our public and private sector partners to identify and hold accountable those who engage in illegal activities in cyberspace.”

Iran: Death to America, Back ‘Atcha’ Iran

Posted on by

 Iran’s hardliners mark hostage anniversary with ‘infiltration’ warning

Reuters: Thousands of Iranians rallied to celebrate the anniversary of the 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy on Wednesday, as hardliners alleged Western “infiltration” following a landmark nuclear deal with world powers.

President Hassan Rouhani, however, in remarks highlighting division between moderates and hardliners, criticised the arrest of at least two journalists, the latest in a series of detentions also including dissident writers and artists.

“We should not arrest people without reason, making up cases against them and say they are a part of an infiltration network,” Rouhani told a cabinet meeting.

Demonstrators gathered in front of the abandoned U.S. Embassy in Tehran chanting “death to America” and urging Iran’s foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator, Mohammad Javad Zarif, “Don’t trust the Americans.”

The U.S. embassy was sacked by students in the early days of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The ensuing U.S. hostage crisis lasted 444 days and Washington and Tehran have yet to restore diplomatic ties.

Some protesters dragged a coffin marked “Obama” through the street while others carrying long balloons representing Iran’s latest ballistic missile, which was tested in October in defiance of a United Nations ban.

It is about time to terminate the Iran nuclear agreement and to declare a new adversarial front against Iran. The reasons are countless, one reason is above and the other is below.

U.S. Officials: Iranian Cyber-Attacks, Arrest of Americans May Be Linked

by TheTower.org Staff |

U.S. officials believe that the increasing number of hacking attacks carried out this past month by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) against American government personnel may be linked to the arrests of American-Iranian citizens by the regime, The Wall Street Journal reported (Google link) Thursday.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, has routinely conducted cyberwarfare against American government agencies for years. But the U.S. officials said there has been a surge in such attacks coinciding with the arrest last month of Siamak Namazi, an energy industry executive and business consultant who has pushed for stronger U.S.-Iranian economic and diplomatic ties.

Obama administration personnel are among a larger group of people who have had their computer systems hacked in recent weeks, including journalists and academics, the officials said. Those attacked in the administration included officials working at the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs and its Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

“U.S. officials were among many who were targeted by recent cyberattacks,” said an administration official, adding that the U.S. is still investigating possible links to the Namazi case. “U.S. officials believe some of the more recent attacks may be linked to reports of detained dual citizens and others.”

At the time of his arrest, the IRGC seized Namazi’s computer.

According to the Journal, friends and associates of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian were similarly targeted following his arrest last year.

Associates of Namazi say that the IRGC, which is believed to be responsible for his arrest and which reports directly to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is using the cyber-attacks to help “build a false espionage case” against him.

Last month, the Journal reported that a cyber-security company, Dell Secureworks, had identified a scheme where Iranian hackers had set up false LinkedIn accounts in order to learn sensitive information from the defense and telecommunications sectors. In August, it was reported that Iran was targeting political dissidents living abroad with cyber-attacks.

Earlier this year, The New York Times revealed that the United States had enlisted the help of its allies, including Britain and Israel, to confront the escalating Iranian cyber-attacks.

A report released in 2014 by cyber-security firm Cylance highlighted Iran’s growing cyber-terror capabilities, including “bone-chilling evidence” that its hackers had taken control of gates and security systems at airports in South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Iran’s cyber-attacks are not just directed at other countries and individuals abroad, but also its own citizens. Massive attacks on Iranian Google accounts were detected prior to the presidential election two years ago as part of a broader crackdown on dissent.

In Iran Has Built an Army of Cyber-Proxies, published in the August 2015 issue of The Tower Magazine, Jordan Brunner examined how Iran became one of the world’s leading forces in cyber-warfare:

Iran is adept at building terrorist and other illicit networks around the world. Its cyber-capabilities are no different. It uses the inexpensive method of training and collaborating with proxies in the art of cyber-war. It may also have collaborated with North Korea, which infamously attacked Sony in response to the film The Interview. It is possible that Iran assisted North Korea in developing the cyber-capability necessary to carry out the Sony hack. While acknowledging that there is no definite proof of this, Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies raised the question in The Tower earlier this year.

More importantly, Iran is sponsoring the cyber-capabilities of terrorist organizations in Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria. The first indication of this was from Hezbollah. The group’s cyber-activity came to the attention of the U.S. in early 2008, and it has only become more powerful in cyberspace since then. An attack that had “all the markings” of a campaign orchestrated by Hezbollah was carried out against Israeli businesses in 2012.

Lebanon’s neighbor, Syria, is home to the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), which employs cyber-warfare in support of the Assad regime. There are rumors that indicate it is trained and financed by Iran. The SEA’s mission is to embarrass media organizations in the West that publicize the atrocities of the Assad regime, as well as track down and monitor the activities of Syrian rebels. It has been very successful at both. The SEA has attacked media outlets such as The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Financial Times, Forbes, and others. It has also hacked the software of companies like Dell, Microsoft, Ferrari, and even the humanitarian program UNICEF.

The group has carried out its most devastating cyber-attacks against the Syrian opposition, often using the anonymity of online platforms to its advantage. For example, its hackers pose as girls in order to lure opposition fighters into giving up seemingly harmless information that can lead to lethal crackdowns. The SEA’s sophisticated use of cyberspace developed in a very short time, and it is reasonable to infer that this was due to Iranian training. Iran has long supported the ruling Assad regime in Syria and would be happy to support those who support him.

In recent months, a group called the Yemen Cyber Army (YCA) has arisen, hacking into systems that belong to Saudi Arabia. The YCA supports the Houthi militia, which is fighting the Yemenite government and the Saudis; the Houthis are, in turn, supported by Iran. Thus far, the YCA has attacked Saudi Arabia’s Foreign, Interior, and Defense Ministries. They have also hacked the website of the Saudi-owned newspaper Al-Hayat. Messages from the group indicate that they are sponsored by Iran, and might even be entirely composed of Iranians.

Hillary and Sid Vicious (Blumenthal)

Posted on by

Hillary Clinton’s Rogue Agenda: Why Sid Blumenthal Matters

NOVEMBER 04, 2015, Judicial Watch

After the media inexplicably dubbed Hillary Rodham Clinton the “winner” of the Benghazi hearings, her apologists dismissed a line of questioning into her unofficial adviser, Sidney Blumenthal.

So he was sending her e-mail offering advice on Libya and other matters of state. In the immortal words of Clinton at an earlier Benghazi hearing, “What difference does it make?”

It matters because Clinton flouted President Obama’s authority, secretly employing a man the administration had banned — then Clinton and Blumenthal pursued a rogue agenda often motivated by political favors and payoffs for friends.

Blumenthal was an aide to President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 and one of his most reliable hatchet men. Luca Brasi without the charm, Blumenthal had smeared Monica Lewinsky, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Republicans — and, when the time came, presidential candidate Barack Obama himself. His nickname: “Sid Vicious.”

E-mails show Hillary Clinton wanted him hired at State. But still smarting from Blumenthal’s attacks during the campaign, the administration nixed the appointment.

Clinton was undeterred. Despite telling the Benghazi committee that Blumenthal was “not my adviser, official or unofficial,” records show the Clinton political machine paid him at least $320,000 a year.

Just after his rejection by the State Department, and through March 2015, the Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10,000 a month. Blumenthal’s job, according to Politico, was “highlighting the legacy” of President Bill Clinton.

From the summer of 2009 to the present day, according to Fox News, Blumenthal was paid $200,000 a year by Media Matters, an aggressive pro-Clinton information outlet led by David Brock. Blumenthal provides “high-level strategy and messaging advice” to Brock and others.

Little exists in the public record showing work by Blumenthal for the Clinton Foundation or Media Matters, and both organizations did not respond to requests for clarification.

But there is plenty on Blumenthal’s labors for Clinton — hundreds of private e-mails.

Blumenthal’s unusual work arrangement was a triple play fraught with potential conflicts of interest: He simultaneously advised the secretary of state and possible future president; promoted the interests of her husband as the former president scoured the globe seeking millions of dollars in speech fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation; and provided advice to an organization devoted to destroying their enemies.

Blumenthal cast a wide net as a de facto Clinton ambassador, promoting dubious business deals and political schemes.

The e-mails reveal at least three examples:

A LIBYAN CONTRACT

In Libya, Blumenthal promoted a deal sought by US defense contractor Osprey Global Solutions. According to its Web site, Osprey offers a wide variety of services — including “security, training, armament” — as well as the sale of assault rifles.

In an Oct. 7 letter to Benghazi committee ranking minority member Elijah Cummings, the panel’s chair, Trey Gowdy, noted Blumenthal “acknowledged a personal stake in Osprey.”

In hundreds of pages of e-mails, Gowdy noted, Blumenthal served as Secretary Clinton’s “primary adviser on Libya” and pushed her hard “to intervene” as Khadafy was going down.

But Blumenthal’s real motivation, Gowdy claims, was “money.”

Specifically, a deal to bring Osprey together with the fledgling transitional government in Libya.

Gowdy wrote that “at the same time Blumenthal was pushing Secretary Clinton to war in Libya, he was privately pushing” the Osprey deal in Libya.

Blumenthal lobbied for more aggressive military action. In a March 2011 e-mail, he urged “another round or two of ferocious bombing” of Khadafy’s army. He also advised Clinton to take credit for Khadafy’s eventual fall.

“You must go on camera,” he e-mailed her in August 2011, two months before the dictator’s gruesome death. “You must establish yourself in the historical record.”

Meanwhile, in a July 14, 2011, e-mail cited in the Gowdy letter, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that “Osprey will provide medical help, military training, organize supplies and logistics” to the post-Khadafy government.

He and his colleagues, Blumenthal wrote, “acted as honest brokers, putting this arrangement together through a series of connections, linking the Libyans to Osprey and keeping it moving.”

“Got it,” Clinton wrote Blumenthal. “Will follow up tomorrow. Anything else to convey?” Clinton forwarded the Blumenthal e-mail to a top aide, Jake Sullivan.

AN AFRICAN DEAL

In June 2009, Blumenthal began promoting Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who rose to fame challenging intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium “yellowcake” in Niger. Wilson was a fierce Bush administration critic and longtime Clinton supporter who had criticized candidate Barack Obama for “timid” views.

Now Wilson was in business as an Africa consultant and deal-maker.

“You’re addressing a group on Africa on Thursday,” Blumenthal e-mailed Clinton in September 2009. “Joe Wilson will be there and . . . wants to say hello. Please look out for him.”

“Pls be sure I see Joe,” Clinton e-mailed aides Huma Abedin and Lona Valmoro a minute later, copying Blumenthal.

“Will do,” Valmoro replied.

“Blumenthal cast a wide net as a de facto Clinton ambassador, promoting dubious business deals and political schemes.”

Wilson wanted to do more than just say hello. He was looking for business.

Blumenthal became the go-between for Clinton and Wilson. In an e-mail passed to Clinton by Blumenthal a week later, Wilson pitched his new client, Symbion Power.

Symbion was seeking millions of dollars in contracts from an obscure government agency chaired by the secretary of state, the Millennium Challenge Corp. (MCC).

Symbion, an electrical-power developer, had been “hugely successful” in Iraq and Afghanistan, Wilson wrote Clinton. Symbion was now setting up shop in Tanzania, Wilson noted, “where we will be bidding on all of the upcoming MCC-financed power generation and distribution projects. I have asked Sid to pass a memory stick with a four-minute video that explains what Symbion does and how it does it.”

More e-mails followed, including one the State Department later classified as containing “confidential” information. The November 2009 e-mail was sent by Wilson to Blumenthal, who passed it on to Clinton. Most of Clinton’s reply to Blumenthal is redacted as classified.

In the e-mail, Wilson noted Symbion’s “competitive advantage,” saying he was “very enthusiastic” about the company. Wilson wrote that he was a “director of Symbion Power” and that he “may soon assume direct responsibility for all of Africa as Symbion expands there — claims the company later disputed when its relationship with Wilson fell apart in contentious litigation.

In September 2010, MCC awarded Symbion $47 million in US taxpayer money for power projects in Tanzania.

AN EU ELECTION

In October 2009, Blumenthal promoted a scheme to make former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair president of the European Council, an influential arm of the European Union.

The Clintons were intrigued. “I’m copying Doug [Band] and Justin [Cooper] who are traveling” with Bill Clinton “and may have some ideas,” Secretary Clinton e-mailed Blumenthal on Oct. 28. She added, “If I have any other ideas I will let you know.”

Band and Cooper at the time were key members of Bill Clinton’s personal office and the Clinton Foundation.

The White House was staying out of the EU election. No one in the Blumenthal scheme appears to have given any thought to the shoddy ethics of having the secretary of state secretly lobbying for a result in a foreign election.

In the end, Blair was passed over for a center-right candidate.

Within two years, however, Blair would receive another plum post. Blair — along with Band, Cooper, Bill Clinton himself and many outgoing senior State Department officials — were put on the payroll of another Clinton-affiliated entity, Teneo Holdings.

STAY TUNED

The Blumenthal saga is not over.

On Friday, the State Department released more than 7,000 pages of Hillary Clinton e-mails under a court order. Among them were dozens of e-mails to and from Blumenthal. And there is more to come from the State Department, the Benghazi committee and lawsuits from watchdog groups such as Judicial Watch.

More troubling for the Clinton presidential campaign: The FBI is investigating security issues related to Clinton’s e-mail server.

Whether any crimes were committed remains to be seen. But despite the dismissal of the e-mail scandal in liberal circles, the recovered messages have already established a clear record of Clinton’s underhanded and unethical actions in office.

On Jan. 9, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a letter pledging to stay out of Clinton Foundation business. In a document first disclosed by Judicial Watch, Clinton had promised State Department officials that she would keep to the “highest standards of ethical conduct” and “not participate” in foundation matters.

Yet she went behind the president’s back to keep a friend in the fold, then mixed the nation’s business with the interests of Blumenthal and her private foundation, giving government contracts to people like Joseph Wilson and pushing behind the scenes for EU elections.

Hillary Clinton violated her own pledge and the government’s rules. “What difference does it make?” A big difference.

Profile of Palestinian Terrorists Who Carried Out Attacks in Israel

Posted on by

Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

The contagious effect of stabbing attacks: a notice posted to the Palestinian social networks, some of them affiliated with Hamas, reading “If you don’t stand up for Jerusalem, who will?” It features recent postings written by terrorist operatives Muhannad Shafiq and Fadi Aloun, who were killed carrying out stabbing attacks in Jerusalem and became role models for terrorists who followed in their footsteps.

Overview

1.   The wave of Palestinian violence and terrorism currently plaguing Israel began during the most recent Jewish High Holidays. In retrospect, the ITIC has concluded it began with the stones thrown at the vehicle of Alexander Levlowitz near the Armon Hanatziv neighborhood of Jerusalem on September 14, 2015. Initially the wave of violence and terrorism focused on the Temple Mount and east Jerusalem and later spread throughout Jerusalem and to other sites inside Israel and various hotspots in Judea and Samaria (especially the region around Hebron). So far 12 Israelis and more than 70 Palestinians have been killed.[1]

2.   The current wave of violence and terrorism is part of the overall “popular resistance” strategy adopted by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah at the Sixth Fatah Conference in August 2009.[2] It is manifested by rising and falling levels of popular terrorism. The current wave (which is unique in some aspects) is one of the most serious. Its popular terrorism includes riots, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, and stabbing and vehicular attacks which are supported and condoned by the PA. The current wave of Palestinian terrorism, like those before it, has included several shooting attacks, which are not included in the modus operandi of the “popular resistance,” but the PA does not condemn them, and in effect supports them.

3.   This study examines the profiles 35 Palestinian terrorists who carried out attacks in Israeli territory (Jerusalem and other locations inside Israel) during the current wave of terrorism. Twenty-four of them were killed while carrying out the attacks and 11 were injured. They carried out a total of 29 terrorist attacks, most of them in greater Jerusalem and some in other locations inside Israel. Their personal attributes were different, but based on the initial examination a general profile can be drawn.

4.   The Palestinian who most commonly carries out a terrorist attack in Israel, especially a stabbing attack, is generally male, young, between the ages of 17 and 19, unmarried, unknown to Israeli security, not affiliated with a terrorist organization, and lives in one of the neighborhoods of east Jerusalem (especially Jabel Mukaber and Sur Bahr in southeast Jerusalem) and in several instances also in the Hebron region. In most instances he carries out the attack by himself following a spontaneous personal decision without instructions from any organization or leadership. He does not follow an Islamist ideology (some of the terrorists lived fairly secular lives) and does not belong to a terrorist organization, although he feeds off the incitement to terrorism and anti-Israel hatred disseminated by the various terrorist organizations.

5.   The Palestinian terrorist who carries out an attack in Israel is motivated by Palestinian nationalism, and for the past six years he has been deeply influenced by reports of popular terrorism. He has also been influenced by events on the Temple Mount and by the false slogan “Al-Aqsa mosque is in danger.” He is personally and socially frustrated and feeds off the anti-Israel hatred and incitement on the social networks (mainly Facebook). He is willing to risk his life and aspires to follow in the footsteps of Palestinians who died initiating the current wave of terrorist attacks (the deaths of some of them and their glorification in the Palestinian media has become contagious, and copying them has become a challenge and “fashionable”).

 

6.   An initial conclusion of this study is that the attributes of the terrorists who have carried out terrorist attacks inside Israeli territory during the current wave of terrorism are different in some respects from those who carry them out in Judea and Samaria. The main difference would appear to be the areas they come from: many terrorists in Judea and Samaria have come from the Hebron region, while most of the terrorists who carry out the attacks in Israel have come from east Jerusalem (for reasons that will be discussed below). Another difference is their ages: the terrorists who carry out attacks in Israel are younger (average age of 18) while those from Judea and Samaria are slightly older (average age of 20).[3] As far as their level of education, the percentage of students in Judea and Samaria who carry out terrorist attacks (and participate in riots) seems higher.

7.   The current wave of terrorist attacks has witnessed young, lone Palestinians carrying out terrorist attacks. They have made a personal decision to carry out attacks with high personal risks that are likely to cost them their lives. On the other hand, stabbing attacks have no dramatic or spectacular results (like the suicide bombing attacks of the second intifada). That has become more and more obvious as the current wave of violence and terrorism continues.

8.   That characteristic seems to indicate the depth of the frustration and desperation felt by the younger generation of Palestinians at the forefront of the wave of attacks. Their generation did not experience the second intifada, but rather was raised in the shadow of the violent characteristics of the “popular resistance.” They are frustrated by what seems to them as the ongoing Israeli occupation, disappointed by the PA and apparently also by the Palestinian terrorist organizations. They regard the violent struggle as the only path to bring change to Palestinian national prospects and to their own personal futures. The intense incitement around the Temple Mount and the difficult conditions in the Palestinian neighborhoods and east Jerusalem are unique additional incentives motivating young Palestinians from the eastern part of the city to stand at the forefront of the current wave of terrorism (which did not happen in the past). The result is that the strong anti-Israel incitement spread by the Palestinian media, especially by the social networks, falls on willing ears and contributes to their motivation to carry out terrorist attacks.

Methodological Remarks

9.   This study is primary and partial. It deals only with profiles of the Palestinian terrorists who carried out attacks in Israeli territory (and not Judea and Samaria). The ITIC considers them two separate categories because they have unique attributes not shared by those who have carried out attacks in Judea and Samaria. For that reason, and because of the primary nature of the information, general conclusions cannot be drawn about the Palestinians who carry out “popular resistance” terrorist attacks or about the deep-seated motivations of young Palestinians (such as the importance of nationalist vs. religious motives; the influence of socio-economic factors; and the role of personal, family or regional considerations).

10.       The study is based on primary Palestinian and Israeli open sources. A great deal of material was taken from the Palestinian media, especially websites and the social networks (including sites dedicated to the memories of Palestinians who were killed, sites of various towns and villages, personal Facebook pages, statements from relatives). Israeli sources included Israeli Police Force reports, indictments handed down against terrorists who carried out attacks and the website of the Israel Security Agency, and the Israeli media, which closely follow the various events, and its reports contain much important information (even if it is primary and partial) about the terrorists who carry out attacks.

11.       The study is time-defined: it refers to the period that began on September 14, 2015, when Palestinians threw stones at the vehicle of Alexander Levlowitz near the Jerusalem neighborhood of Armon Hanatziv, killing him (which the ITIC considers the beginning of the current wave of terrorism). Thus the current wave of terrorism has so far lasted for about a month and a half (it is dated by others as beginning on October 1, 2015, with the killing of the Henkins on the road between Alon Moreh and Itamar). The study is updated to October 25, 2015, although the wave of terrorism continues and it will be necessary to update it further in the future, in view of the daily terrorist attacks being carried out.

12.       The study has three appendices. The first presents the main findings of the primary examination of the attributes the terrorists. The other two include a short, initial summary of the attacks carried out in Israel and individually examine each of the terrorists who carried them out. The parameters examined include the modus operandi of attack, its geographical location, where the terrorist came from, his motivation, age, organizational affiliation (if it exists), family status, education, profession, the involvement of women in terrorist attacks and various other aspects unique to each individual terrorist.