Category Archives: NSA Spying

DHS Avoids Details to Maintain NatSec

Posted on by

By Susan Jones

(CNSNews.com) – The United States must use “all of the tools at our disposal” to deal with the threat posed by Americans and other Westerners who go to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS, a State Department official told Congress on Tuesday.

But so far, that does not include revoking the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled to Syria to fight with ISIS.

“Has the State Department cancelled the passports of any U.S. citizens who have joined any terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq?” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) asked Ambassador Robert Bradtke on Tuesday at a hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

“To my knowledge, the State Department has not cancelled any passports,” responded Bradtke, a senior adviser with the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism who was called out of retirement to focus on foreign fighters.

“As Secretary Kerry said, he does have the authority to revoke passports. And this is something we would only do in relatively rare and unique circumstances because of the importance for average Americans (to) have the freedom to travel,” Bradtke said.

“We would only do it also in consultations with law enforcement authorities. And we have not yet had any requests from law enforcement authorities to cancel the passports of ISIS or foreign fighters. So again, we have the authority; it is one tool; we do have other tools to use as well in this regard.”

A second government official told lawmakers that the no-fly list is one of those other tools:

“Congressman, if we have indications that someone on the no-fly list is trying to fly back to the United States, we would deny them boarding,” said Thomas Warrick, a deputy assistant secretary for counter-terrorism policy at the Department of Homeland Security.

“If someone shows up in the United States and there’s indications that that person has been a foreign fighter in Syria, it would be referred to the FBI, and then it would be a matter for law enforcement,” Warrick explained.

Video of hearing is below:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/foreign-affairs-subcommittee-witness-says-us-has-not-cancelled-passports-any-foreign-fighters

“We would have the ability at the border to ask any questions that were necessary and appropriate; we would have the ability and the authority to inspect their luggage, inspect their personal possessions, in order to determine whether they were or were not a foreign fighter who had been fighting with ISIL. Anything like this, I can assure you, is taken extremely seriously.”

Later in the hearing, Warrick was asked what would happen if an Irish national, for example, tried to come to the U.S. after fighting with terrorists in Syria.

“Where somebody has been identified as a foreign fighter fighting for ISIL in Syria…they’re going to be in all likelihood on a no-fly list or another list of the U.S. government that is going to attract a great deal of attention before they’re allowed to get on board an airplane for the United States.”

But Warrick admitted that the no-fly list can’t guarantee that foreign fighters will be kept out of this country:

“Well, they wouldn’t be able to fly here,” he said. “The no-fly list obviously doesn’t apply to other modes of transportation. However, I can assure you that there are equal or equivalent measures in place so that somebody on the no-fly list is almost certainly not going to be allowed entry into the United States, if they come by cruise ship or if they fly to Canada, for example…and they were to try, let’s say, to come across the U.S.-Canadian border.”

No one mentioned the U.S.-Mexico border, which was overwhelmed by an influx of people from Central America just a few months ago.

Additional video of hearing is below:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/dhs-witness-cant-guarantee-no-fly-list-will-keep-foreign-fighters-out-us

Warrick put the number of U.S. citizens fighting with ISIS/ISIL at “greater than a hundred,” and he said some of those returning fighters have been arrested on arrival in this country. He did not say how many have been arrested, but when it happens, he  said the returning fighters move from DHS purview to FBI purview.

Two Democrats on the subcommittee asked why the State Department has not hired its own expert on Islamic law.

“It is incredibly important that we get Islamic scholars, experts and jurists to issue rulings adverse to ISIS and favorable to the United States,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).

“It is about time that the State Department hire its first Islamic legal expert to work full time on that — maybe a couple (of experts). And it is time that at least somebody be hired at the State Department, not because they went to a fancy American school or because they did well on the foreign service exam.”

Sherman said he’s been told that the State Department is relying on outsiders to provide expertise on Islamic law and issue statements that are favorable to the United States.

Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) said the Middle East is “unraveling,” posing “a threat to us and the West.”

“As the United States moves forward, it just seems that the State Department needs to be promoting leadership from within that has particular focus on this region, since that’s what we’re dealing with…I do think Mr. Sherman has a point, that longer term, the United States has got to get serious about this region and expertise in this region if we’re going to address the challenges we face.”

Sedition: Education and Media

Posted on by

C’mon parents, your children are being indoctrinated to Islam and Sharia in public schools and at university.  That is bad enough, but do you approve of seditionist infiltration on campus where you pay for tuition for classes taught by Marxists, Leninists and Communists?

Where is the FBI?

Former President Bill Clinton pushed back against the charge that President Obama and his fellow Democrats are card-carrying members of the Communist Party — telling supporters Monday that “nobody’s seen a communist in over a decade” and chastizing a freshman Republican for name-calling.

Invoking the specter of Communist-hunter Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Clinton blasted Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), who in April said that he could identify 80 members of the U.S. House who were Communists — pointing to a caucus of House liberals when pressed for evidence.

Where is the FBI?

Former President Bill Clinton, his wife Hillary and hundreds in the Obama administration who full well there are communists in the federal government, at universities across the country and across all spectrums of media. Need more proof?

Well look at Ferguson, Missouri. Leftist organizers are using Ferguson to rehearse the Big Ugly

Scan the signage in the photos taken at Ferguson street protests across the nation and note that a handful of groups’ names reoccur.  Among them are REVCOM.US (Revolutionary Community Party USA , A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition (founded by the pro-Leninist Becker brothers and aligned with the Party for Socialism and Liberation), Peoples Power Assemblies, Socialist Worker.org, and the International Action Center (founded by Jimmy Carter’s former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, in 1992). There are more.

Standing behind the signs are well-funded 501(c)(3) groups that receive millions of dollars every year through donations and foundation grants, and then allocate monies to promote social change.

It’s a one-two-three punch involving community organizers, supported by moneyed enablers, who marshal protesters to the street carrying signs with organizational ties most know nothing about.     

All of it is well-organized, well-executed, and well-funded by intelligent, well-rehearsed, highly-motivated, ideologically-driven zealots for fundamental transformation in America, and, for some, the world. It’s all perfectly legal.

Where is the FBI?

Where does the money come from that is financially supporting these groups and protests? Organizations that, in recent years, have received direct funding and assistance from George Soros and his Open Society Institute (OSI), For a complete list go here.

But there is more and you need to pay attention as the leadership of these groups get unfettered access to the White House and to media.

Where is the FBI? Who performed the background checks of these people and approved access?

This website did some good work as noted below.

If there were any more reasons Van Jones should step down or be fired. In 2006 he signed a petition by the Radical Black Panther Collective for Social Progress. The petition states, “resist so that we will not be crushed. Our resistance gives other people courage.”

Among the supporters, a who’s who of socialist/communistic organizations.

Individuals and Organizations

* Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), San Francisco
* American Civil Liberties Union, Sonoma County, CA
* Asians for Mumia/Jericho
* Association of Micro-Power Broadcasters
* Barrio Defense, San Jose, CA
* Bay Area Police Watch
* Philip Berg, Libertarian Candidate for Congress California District 8
* Berkeley Copwatch
* Geoffrey Blank, No Police State Coalition, NY
* Elombe Brath, Patrice Lumumba Coalition
* Mary Browne, Michael Randall Ealy Social Justice Foundation
* Caduceus Outreach Services
* Center for Constitutional Rights
* Center for Tactical Magic
* Communities United Against Police Brutality
* Chalice Farm
* Todd Chretien, Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate
* Omowale Clay, December 12th Movement
* Coalition for Justice and Accountability, San Jose, CA
* Chris Daly, Supervisor for SF District 6
* Dan Dileva, October 22 Coalition Seattle affiliate
* Carl Dix, Revolutionary Communist Party
* Jeremy Dreher
* Education Not Incarceration, Oakland, CA
* Samina Faheem Sundas, Executive Director of American Muslim Voice (for ID purpose only)
* Freedom Socialist Party, San Francisco
* Fr. Paul Gawlowski OFM Conv, Pastor, St. Paul of the Shipwreck Church, San Francisco
* Green Action
* Greenwood Earth Alliance
* Grey Panthers
* Guerrilla Wordfare
* HACKBLOC.org (Anarchy)
* Haitian Coalition for Justice, NY
* Marie Harrison, Candidate Supervisor for SF District 10
* Barry Hermanson, Green Party candidate for CA State Assembly
* Goldy Holmes
* Idriss Stelley Foundation, San Francisco, CA
* ISO (International Socialist Organization), San Francisco
* Van Jones and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
* Justice4Palestinians
* Krissie Keefer, Green Party candidate for Congress
* Jane Kim, President, San Francisco People’s Organization, Youth Organizer, Chinatown Community Development Center
* Richard Konda, Coalition for Justice and Accountability
* Larry Holmes, Troops Out Now Coalition
* Latinos for Mumia
* Dorinda Moreno, Hitec Aztec Communications, Elders of the 4 Colors 4 Directions
* National Jericho
* New Black Panther Party, New York Chapter
* Efia Nwangaza, African American Institute for Policy Studies and Planning
* NYC Jericho
* Party for Socialism & Liberation
* Pastors Against Injustice
* P.O.W.E.R. (Police Observers Working to Effect Reform), San Francisco
* Project Common Touch, Tommie Escargaza, Director
* Radical Women, NY
* San Francisco African American Community Policing Relations Board
* San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper
* San Francisco Code Pink
* San Francisco Faith Based Coalition, Rev. Ted Frazier
* San Francisco Peacemakers
* Alicia N. Schwartz, People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) (for ID purpose only)
* SEIU-Local 790
* Seven Generations Consulting
* O’Maly Sinclair
* Lynne Stewart, attorney, NY
* Dr. Ahimsa Sumchai, reporter for Environmental Medicine
* Celeste Taylor, Coordinator for Pittsburgh Oct. 22
* Tiny, Editor, Poor Magazine, San Francisco
* United for Peace and Justice
* United Playaz, Rudy Corpuz, SF SOMA
* Vox Populi Collective
* Mary Weaver, People’s Organization for Progress
* Wilson Riles
* Patricia St. Onge
* Oakland CAN (Community Action Network)
* Workers World

Where is the FBI?

Then in 1954 a law was passed title the Communist Control Act. The spirit of the law is to identify organizations and people attempting to overthrow the system of government including the Federal and State level. Sure in garden variety terms this has not happened, but when it comes to political correctness, edicts, mandates, enforcing law and prosecution, Communism is here and it is effective, as noted by meetings today in the White House and in towns such as Ferguson, Oakland, St. Louis and Chicago.

Where is the FBI? Where are you parents? Where is the top leadership at the Department of Education? Where is the leadership of universities and the donors?

 

 

FBI, Shameful Treatment

Posted on by

INTERIM REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S HANDLING OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS ADMITTED INTO THE FEDERAL WITNESS SECURITY PROGRAM

So why is that important? The Justice Department is protecting terrorists while they have lost others around the country. But when it comes to our own citizens that are part of the free press, doing their jobs in foreign countries and they get taken hostage then escape, the Justice Department offers no protections.

Below is a shameful display of a government agency known as the FBI. The FBI is worse than al Qaeda? You be the judge.

Former al-Qaida hostage recounts nightmare of dealing with FBI after his return

By Nancy A. Youssef

WASHINGTON — The only thing as bad as being tortured for months as a captive of jihadists in Syria was dealing with the U.S. government afterward, according to one former American hostage.

Matt Schrier, 36, a freelance photographer held by extremists for seven months in 2013 until he escaped, has told McClatchy that the bureaucracy he endured upon his return home was a second kind of nightmare following the months of abuse he suffered while he was a hostage.

“I never thought it would get this bad,” Schrier said.

The FBI never told his father that he had been kidnapped. It waited six months into his capture to produce a wanted poster, and only after his mother prodded. It allowed jihadist forces to empty his bank account — $17,000 — with purchases on eBay, even as the government warned hostage families not to pay ransom so as not to run afoul of anti-terrorism laws.

After his escape, the government made him reimburse the State Department $1,605 for his ticket home just weeks after he arrived in the United States. The psychiatrist assigned to help him readjust canceled five appointments in the first two months. And when he had no means to rent an apartment, FBI victims services recommended New York City homeless shelters.

The FBI declined to comment on the specifics of Schrier’s complaints but said in a statement that “When an American is detained illegally overseas, the FBI’s top priority is ensuring the safe return of that individual.”

“To that end,” the statement said, “the FBI provides support services to victims and their families, to include help in meeting short-term exigent needs, and shares information about their loved ones that is timely and appropriate.”

There is no way to independently confirm Schrier’s version of events, and emails he shared with McClatchy make it clear that his relationship with his FBI handlers was, at best, acrimonious. But his telling of his experience is consistent with the anger relatives of other hostages have expressed in interviews with McClatchy when speaking of their interactions with U.S. government officials.

“The next time the FBI calls me will be the first time,” said Schrier’s father, Jeffrey, 67, who lives in Coconut Creek, outside Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “I thank God my son was able to escape, because if he was waiting for the government to spring him he would still be waiting in that hellhole.”

Spurred by the recent beheadings of three Americans who had been held hostage in Syria by the Islamic State, the Obama administration earlier this month said it is reviewing the way government agencies handle hostages and their families.

But none of the families of those who have been killed or are still missing have been asked to be a part of the review, which White House spokesman Josh Earnest said last week had begun in August. Schrier and another American who was released told McClatchy that they too have not been contacted. Some families said the administration has yet to reply to a weeklong request to give their input to the review.

“How can you change a policy where there is not one?” Jeffrey Schrier asked. “If there had been a policy, on what planet would you not notify the kidnapped person’s father?”

National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said the White House would have no comment.

Schrier’s complaints are a symptom of a bigger problem, the families say — a government approach to retrieving hostages that gets lost among several government agencies, none of which is tasked with doing everything possible to bring an American home.

The FBI generally is a family’s main point of contact because it is charged with investigating overseas crimes against Americans, but the State Department, intelligence community and the National Security Council all have roles. Often, the agencies don’t share what they learn with one another — or the families.

How aggressively a family pushes for a loved one often shapes the U.S. government’s approach, several families have told McClatchy. Many alleged that the government’s approach appeared to be to do the minimum possible to secure an American’s return and that a hostage’s release appeared to depend primarily on the goodwill of whoever is holding him.

Often families said they feared that their loved ones’ cases were seen more as a way for the U.S. to gather intelligence on the groups holding American citizens than on actually finding and freeing the hostages.

Schrier is among those making the accusation. “They use us,” he said. “They use journalists as chum to bring sharks to the surface.”

Such handling not only hurts the chances of getting hostages home but the subsequent investigation into the effects of the kidnapping, Schrier said.

In his case, his kidnappers used his debit card to buy things overseas. They also paid off his Discover card, he said, leading the FBI to suspect he had joined the extremists. Then they created a clone of the card, which someone used as recently as this summer in Garden City, N.Y. Schrier fears that portends an extremist sleeper cell in the United States, funded in part by a card in his name.

But he’s never received a call from the FBI, though he has called them repeatedly to report the misuse. “I am the victim and I have been shut out of the investigation,” Schrier said.

Schrier was entering Syria for the second time in December 2012 seeking to become a news photographer when he went missing. At the time, there was little indication in news accounts that al Qaida-affiliated rebels were a significant presence in northern Syria, making it appear relatively safe for Westerners to cover the war there, and so Schrier went. Instead, a group of kidnappers surrounded his taxi and snatched him. He eventually would fall under the control of the Nusra Front, al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria.

Back home, his mother called the authorities and reported her son missing. When the FBI arrived, she told them not to call his father as she was estranged from him and Schrier had not talked to him for years. They followed her wishes during the entire time he was a hostage, Schrier said.

Schrier’s mother did not realize at first that he was just one of several Americans being held hostage in Syria. When she realized there were other victims, she noticed that the FBI had created missing-person posters for the others, but not for her son. When she asked why, the FBI hurriedly posted one online, six months after her son’s disappearance, he said.

His mother also deferred to the FBI on how to get her son home. Every time she sought answers, however, the FBI gave her vague responses, Schrier said. They said, for example, that the government could not get into his email, but when she called AOL and explained the situation AOL gave her a temporary password. FBI agents made no mention of jihadists’ spending her son’s money.

She received poorly worded emails from her son’s account during his capture telling her he was all right. The agents told her they could not say whether he was writing the emails or still being held, Schrier said.

During his captivity, Schrier’s captors tortured him, whipping his feet repeatedly until he could not walk, giving him electric shocks and holding him in a dark room for extended periods, making it difficult for him to know how many days had passed.

He escaped through a window on July 29, 2013. Hours later, he met with American officials across the border in Turkey in what he thought would be a warm welcome home. Instead, the next day officials had him sign a document vowing to reimburse the State Department for his airfare back to the United States. He complied, as he said they told him it was only a formality. Less than a month later, officials said they would not help him get a new passport unless he paid.

The FBI’s Office of Victim Assistance is supposed to help American hostages who return home, but Schrier said that in his case it ignored his requests for help and valued him only as an intelligence source on jihadists in Syria. He briefed the office for weeks.

“I am the one who told the government that the (rebel) groups are fighting each other,” Schrier said. “I regret doing anything for them.”

With an al Qaida-affiliated group using his identity to make purchases, Schrier needed to get a new ID and Social Security number. It took five months for him to get a new identification card — and that was only after he cursed the agent who was supposed to help. He so far has not received a new Social Security number.

The FBI put him up in a hotel when he returned to the United States. But one month into his return, with his lack of valid identification contributing to his difficulty finding an apartment, the FBI suggested he move to a homeless shelter.

“I hear they are not that bad,” he said the victims assistance agent told him.

Schrier said his experience is a case study in how not to treat a hostage who’s returning to the United States.

“It is like a scam. I don’t understand what they do, victims services,” Schrier said. “The FBI has made it impossible for me to recover.”

 

UPDATE: No Access to 2,500 Documents IRS to WH

Posted on by

Update:  12/3/14 It seems that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has intervened with the court’s decision forcing release of these documents. The White House is also working over-time to ensure the Judge’s ruling is impeded. This is more law-FARE.

Here is the link for more on this developing matter. Collusion and obstruction are being realized.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feds-balk-at-releasing-docs-showing-irs-sharing-tax-returns-with-white-house/article/2556890#.VH9yMn7mYv0.twitter

 

It begins with a FOIA lawsuit, then comes a ruling, then comes the Inspector General. It should be noted that those guilty is actually per document, per count. Congressional hearings are scheduled.

September 30, 2014                                                Mary Beth Hutchins, 202-400-2721

Cause of Action Defeats Treasury IG Tax Office in FOIA Lawsuit

Court Rules that TIGTA Must Process FOIA Request Regarding Investigations Into

Tax Records Improperly Shared with the President

WASHINGTON –The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Monday that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) must process an October 9, 2012 Cause of Action Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents about investigations into unauthorized disclosures of taxpayer information to the Executive Office of the President.

Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein said:

The court has ruled that the federal government cannot hide behind confidentiality laws to prevent Americans from knowing if our President has gained unauthorized access to their tax information. This is a decisive win for all Americans and for government transparency and accountability. The public already knows the President uses FOIA to shield his targeting of the press and this ruling prevents the President from using FOIA to shield his targeting of taxpayers.

Revealed: 2,500 new documents in IRS / W.H. harassment cases

In a shocking revelation, the Treasury Inspector General has identified some 2,500 documents that “potentially” show taxpayer information held by the Internal Revenue Service being shared with President Obama’s White House.

The discovery was revealed to the group Cause of Action, which has sued for access to any of the documents. It charges that the IRS and White House have harassed taxpayers.

In an email from the Justice Department’s tax office, an official revealed the high number of documents, suggesting that the White House was hip deep in probes of taxpayers, likely including conservatives and Tea Party groups associated with the IRS scandal.

In requesting a delay in the delivery date of the documents, Justice told Cause of Action, “The agency [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] has located 2,500 potentially responsive documents and anticipates being able to finish processing 2,000 of these pages by the December 1 date. It needs the additional two weeks to deal with the last 500 pages to determine if they are responsive and make any necessary withholdings.”

Cause of Action, which calls itself “Advocates for Government Accountability,” wasn’t surprised by the number of documents. It had filed suit to win access to them and a federal judge shot down Treasury’s earlier bid to hide the documents.

“This disclosure, coming only after Cause of Action sued TIGTA over its refusal to acknowledge whether such investigations took place, and after the court ordered TIGTA to reveal whether or not documents existed, signals that the White House may have made significant efforts to obtain taxpayers’ personal information,” it said in a statement to Secrets.

The disclosure follows the agency’s recovery of 30,000 “lost” emails from former IRS executive Lois Lerner, the central figure in the IRS-Tea Party scandal.

Cause of Action said the latest finding renews their “concerns about the decaying professionalism of, and apparent slip into partisanship by, IRS’s senior leadership.”

Below is the full email from Treasury:

My client wants to know if you would consent to a motion pushing back (in part) TIGTA’s response date by two weeks to December 15, 2014. The agency has located 2,500 potentially responsive documents and anticipates being able to finish processing 2,000 of these pages by the December 1 date. It needs the additional two weeks to deal with the last 500 pages to determine if they are responsive and make any necessary withholdings. We would therefore like to ask the court to permit the agency to issue a response (including production) on December 1 as to any documents it has completed processing by that date, and do the same as to the remaining documents by December 15. I note that the court’s remand was for a “determin[ation],” which the D.C. Circuit has recently explained can precede actual production by “days or a few weeks,” but we would prefer to simply agree on a date for turning over any of the remaining 500 documents that may be responsive.

18 page lawsuit is here in full text.

Time Limit/1967 Lines/Jerusalem

Posted on by

While the talks over Iran’s nuclear program have failed, negotiations have now been extended by seven more months. Eyes have now been turned back to the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Votes are flying, time limits are being attached and secret back-channel negotiations are no longer secret. Israel is failing to sell their position globally especially to the United Nations and to Europe. Allies of Israel, especially the United States are also working to make a deal to the detriment of the 1967 borders.

PARIS — France’s foreign minister Friday urged the international community to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within two years, as the French parliament debated whether to recognize a Palestinian state.

“At the United Nations, we are working with our partners to adopt a Security Council resolution to relaunch and conclude talks. A deadline of two years is the one most often mentioned and the French government can agree with this figure,” Laurent Fabius told MPs

***

The Secret Back Channel That Doomed the Israel-Palestine Negotiations

By

The latest wave of violence in the Holy Land has prompted influential centrist voices in Israel—including former intelligence chiefs and army generals—to call for new peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. But those calling for the revival of the eternal “peace process” admit that the most recent effort, which failed miserably earlier this year, offers some harsh lessons. Since the collapse of talks back in April, many have analyzed why Secretary of State John Kerry fell short of reaching any kind of agreement. One critical fact, however, has been kept hidden until now: a secret communication channel between the private attorney of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a confidante of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The secret channel—reported here for the first time—created substantial progress toward an agreement. But it also had one fundamental flaw, which contributed to the collapse of Kerry’s entire process. Abbas’s supposed representative was in fact holding these talks without a real mandate from the Palestinian President; the concessions he discussed with Molho didn’t represent the President’s views. Parts of this story remain unsolved—most importantly, why this lack of a mandate was missed or ignored in real time. But what can be told is enough to raise some hard questions about Kerry’s effort, and offer important lessons for future attempts at reaching an agreement.

In 2010, Yitzhak (Itzik) Molho, Netanyahu’s attorney and his point man for negotiations with the Palestinians, began to hold secret talks with a person considered very close to Abbas. The New Republic has decided not to publish the identity of this person out of concern for this individual’s security. Peace process veteran Dennis Ross—at the time a special foreign policy adviser to President Obama—was brought into the discussions as well.

Since their first meeting in 2010, Molho and Abbas’s confidante focused on finding common ground—a basis for final status negotiations that both Abbas and Netanyahu could tolerate. Back then, they came up with a formula in which Israel would accept the 1967 borders (with land swaps that would allow it to annex some large “settlement blocs”). In return, the Palestinians would show flexibility regarding Netanyahu’s insistence on recognizing Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people (while clarifying that such recognition would not abridge the rights of Israel’s Arab citizens). This formula, which was discussed but not concluded or agreed upon, included a huge concession from each side—Netanyahu’s representative accepting the same borders Bibi had spent decades rallying against, and Abbas’s supposed representative coming to terms with an Israeli demand that the Palestinian president had rejected time after time, on every possible stage.

Ross tried to make these conversations more prominent with the Obama administration back in 2011, but met with little success. One source in the administration said that except for former national security adviser Tom Donilon, no one was truly interested in this backchannel at the time. Washington wasn’t the only city where the secret channel didn’t incite much excitement. Neither Netanyahu in Jerusalem nor Abbas in Ramallah gave any public sign of accepting the proposed formula. As it became clear no one was interested in their work, Molho and his counterpart reduced the frequency of their meetings.

Things changed in the spring of 2013, when Kerry began a serious push for new peace talks, visiting Jerusalem and Ramallah five times between March and July. As Kerry was laying the ground for an official negotiating track, Molho and his counterpart also renewed their backchannel, with Molho flying in and out of a European capital where the two would meet every few weeks.

Ross had officially quit the Obama administration late in 2011, but he remained involved in talks long after his resignation—even after Secretary Kerry appointed former ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk as his envoy to the official peace talks in July of 2013. Ross had no official mandate when the talks resumed in 2013, but used his personal relationships with Molho, Indyk, and Kerry to weigh influence.

In the early months of the Kerry talks, the official track, led by Indyk, stalled. As Ben Birnbaum and I detailed last summer, arguments, shouting matches, and other distractions dominated the negotiations during this period. Molho, who in addition to pursuing this backchannel was also representing Netanyahu in the official talks, showed little interest in what was being discussed there. His Israeli negotiating partner, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, and the official Palestinian negotiators, Saeb Erekat and Mohammed Shtayyeh, all expressed frustration over his behavior. “It was clear he thought this wasn’t where the important things were happening,” says a source involved in the talks.

Important things were happening, however, in the secret channel. Molho and his counterpart were busy reconstructing their understanding from 2010, and transforming it into an outline of the terms for serious final status negotiations. Building from the Israeli acceptance of the 1967 borders (with land swaps) and Palestinian flexibility on the “nation state of the Jewish people” (with equal rights for Arab citizens) demand, additional components were added. Molho and Abbas’s confidante discussed the Palestinian refugee problem in depth, and were close to finding a creative wording they thought both sides could accept. On the explosive issue of Jerusalem, the two couldn’t reach an understanding, thus postponing the discussion for later stages of the negotiations.

Kerry, Indyk, and Livni were all aware of the secret channel, and briefed regularly on progress. But Israeli officials believed that the official Palestinian negotiators had no idea about the backchannel. By December 2013, when Molho and his counterpart were finalizing their talks and working on a dramatic understanding that summed up everything they had discussed, a larger problem emerged: The Israelis began to realize that it wasn’t clear if Molho’s counterpart was truly negotiating on behalf of President Abbas.

Late that month, one of Israel’s top newspaper columnists, Nahum Barnea, reported that during Netanyahu’s prior term in office (2009–2012), Molho had a “secret Palestinian contact” with whom he exchanged messages between Abbas and Netanyahu. Barnea didn’t report on the fact that this channel was still active and important—at least in the eyes of senior people in Israel and the U.S.—but the essence of his report was correct. Netanyahu’s office refused to comment, but Abbas was quick to reply, saying in an interview that “there is no secret channel with Netanyahu, and never was one.” He added that the official negotiations led by Indyk are “the only channel of communication I have with Netanyahu.”

On the Israeli side, an argument erupted over the meaning of Abbas’s statement. Some officials started voicing concerns that Abbas truly had no idea about the state of the backchannel talks, or that he knew about them but didn’t consider them to be important. This concern was also shared by senior American officials, including Indyk, who had thought for some time that Abbas and Netanyahu did not see the backchannel in the same light. A Palestinian official close to Abbas claims that, from their very first day back in 2010, the Palestinian president had no interest in these talks: “He never took these talks with Molho seriously.”

The extent of Abbas’s detachment from the secret-channel’s product became clear in early 2014, when Kerry decided to merge the two negotiation tracks. The understanding that had developed through the secret channel was spilled into the discussions that Indyk’s team was holding with both sides over a “framework document.” Netanyahu was willing to work with the fruits of the secret channel (although he insisted on airing his reservations, and the negotiations his advisers held with Indyk over the exact wording were endless). But Abbas completely rejected what had already, supposedly, been accepted by his own negotiator. He wasn’t willing to show any flexibility on the Jewish state issue, and the idea of excluding any clear reference to a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem seemed like political suicide.

The anger Abbas expressed at the American framework caught Kerry by surprise: After all, these were all ideas his supposed negotiator was discussing with Molho. Realizing he had a problem with Abbas, Kerry tried to convince Netanyahu to tilt some of the provisions in Abbas’s direction. But the Israeli Prime Minister was not having it. “We already agreed on these issues in the secret channel,” he told the Secretary, according to a former senior U.S. official. “Bibi is angry at Kerry for opening up understandings that everybody considered a done deal, just because Abbas had changed his mind,” an Israeli Minister told me in February. But a Palestinian official rebuffed this criticism, saying that Abbas never changed his mind on anything: “He was presented with positions that no Palestinian leader could ever accept, and that he personally had spoken out against many times.”

For some, it was always clear that the positions presented by the supposed “Palestinian negotiator” in this secret channel were totally unacceptable for Abbas. Officials involved in the process admit in retrospect that there was too much wishful thinking regarding the backchannel.

A major reason for the skepticism of some people involved in the negotiations toward this backchannel, had to do with Abbas’s ostensible confidante. A number of Israeli, American, and Palestinian officials claimed that it was a miscalculation to assume this person would have authority to make concessions on delicate issues. One senior Palestinian official told me that those in the American and Israeli camps who thought otherwise were “fools.”

 

If Abbas really was unaware of, or not totally committed to, the backchannel negotiations, what was his “representative” telling Molho? And why did Kerry and Netanyahu treat this channel so seriously, if they had no proof that Abbas had any interest in the proceedings? Perhaps Netanyahu understood that Abbas didn’t know or didn’t care about the backchannel, but decided to keep it going, hoping to bring the negotiations to a point where he could say: “We were willing to make historical concessions, but have found out that we have no partner.” This could explain why some senior Obama administration officials have lately been saying that Netanyahu misled Kerry during the negotiations.

Then again, perhaps Abbas did know what was going on with Molho, but regretted it midway. There is historical precedent for this scenario: In 1993, Abbas held secret negotiations with Israel’s then–Deputy Foreign Minister, Yossi Beilin. The negotiations gave birth to the “Beilin–Abu Mazen Understandings,” the first-ever draft of a final status agreement. But when the document was leaked to the press, Abbas tried to distance himself from it and to minimize its importance. Some Israeli officials believe something similar happened in the last round of negotiations—that after extracting territorial concessions from Israel, Abbas backtracked on any concessions from his side. (The irony of this claim is that Netanyahu had also retreated from the positions presented by Molho in the secret channel, first by insisting on having reservations and later by going back to hardliner positions in the recent months.)

Both scenarios could serve some beautifully written conspiracy theories, but the truth could very well be much simpler: that this blunder was just a terrible misunderstanding. Perhaps what the Israelis considered a serious backchannel, the Palestinians—including their man in the room—saw as merely an unofficial exchange of ideas. Only two people can really solve the mystery, Yitzhak Molho and his negotiating counterpart. Both of them refused to comment.