John R. Houk
September 10, 2015
I have typically been a supporter of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In part because Netanyahu has stood up to America’s Leftist-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. That drove BHO and his Leftist minion Democrats nuts. I am still okay with that. I am on the Historical and Investigative Research (HIR) email list. I finally took the opportunity to read an August 31 email from HIR which highlighted some disturbing news about Iran, Judea/Samaria, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and unfortunately Benjamin Netanyahu.
This email provides an understanding of a possible reason Netanyahu may face some hostility from the further Right Wing of his Conservative base. In summary the more Conservative faction is a bit upset their Prime Minister that Iran has a path to acquire nuclear WMD which will be used against Israel but still supports the idea (at least publically) for the existence of Palestinian State in which the PA leadership is receiving clandestine financial and military aid from Iran. The more Conservative Israel Right is seeing a big load of hypocrisy from Benjamin Netanyahu.
It is my humble opinion though that Netanyahu is dealing with the realities of a rock and a hard place.
The rock is Israeli Leftists promoting the concept of land for peace under the delusion it will bring peace to the Jewish State of Israel. The hard place is President Barack Hussein Obama trying to court Muslim favor a la idiotic Jimmy Carter that sold out the Shah-ruled Iran (See Also HERE) to the psycho-Shi’ite Ayatollah-rule. As if exchanging the despotism of the Shah (American Leftist, CIA-Mossad Impact, Neocon Perspective, U.S.-British Oil Interests, Pro-Shah Perspective and fsmitha.com Perspective) for the despotism of the Ayatollah’s (See Also HERE) would be better for America and global peace. The Carter concept was erroneous in the late 1970s and the Obama concept is just as ludicrous in 2015 and beyond.
Obama is willing to throw Israel under the bus either under the delusion of peace in our time (can you say Neville Chamberlain?). OR Obama is embarking on a more nefarious agenda of disrupting the current global power structure which includes weakening the USA, to usher in a more Left Wing globalist power structure paradigm. Either way Obama sells out both America and our closest ally in the Middle East – Israel.
I am still convinced Netanyahu is the best man for the job in Israel. He is simply being forced into a geopolitical game in which Netanyahu is waiting to see who the next U.S. President will be, with the hope the new President understands the danger of a nuclear armed Iran and proceeds accordingly.
On the other hand, if Netanyahu’s geopolitical gamesmanship fails between Obama and Israel’s Jewish Left then followed by Iran actually acquiring nuke WMD resulting in a Palestinian State carved out of Israel’s heritage with Iran as hegemonic master and the new Palestinian State the new client. The next domino would be the destruction of Israel and a second modern Holocaust so devastating that Hitler’s final solution look like a picnic.
An important Israeli politician, Moshe Feiglin, has reposted on his Facebook Page an Arutz 7 article written by Rob Muchnick, his US director, asking the question:
Will the Israeli government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?
Email sent by Professor Francisco Gil-White
Sent from Historical and Investigative Research
Sent August 31, 2015 9:46 PM
The article makes reference to HIR's short documentary film: PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship (on Vimeo, on YouTube), which tells the story documented in an earlier HIR piece. This is exciting, because it is the beginning of political awareness on this crucial issue.
Here is Moshe Feiglin's post:
I wholeheartedly support this very important article from our US Director, Rob Muchnick.
Please read it and demand that Bibi answer the questions that Rob poses.
I wish to ask you a question.
Will the Israeli government — the government of the Jewish State — give Judea and Samaria to Iran?
That may seem impossible.
First, because our prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, daily warns that Iranian leaders wish to destroy us.
Second, because the media, although they discuss the connection between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, never mention the deeper ties that bind Iran and PLO/Fatah (better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’).
And what is not in the news goes to sleep in the mind.
But a few days ago, Iran’s official news agency brought this connection back into view by reporting that PLO/Fatah and Iran have signed an “all-out cooperation agreement.”
PLO/Fatah will cooperate fully with Iran!
As a recent documentary reminds me, such cooperation is nothing new. (1) (2)
In the Second Intifada, the Iranian ayatollahs were running PLO/Fatah’s deadliest terrorists, the Al Aqsa Martyrs, and mobilized them to ensure that Mahmoud Abbas became Yasser Arafat’s replacement. At the same time, Iran also sent the Karin a freighter with 50 tons of weapons to the PLO/Fatah. Thankfully, this ship was intercepted by Israel.
But the relationship is older.
In 1979, when the Iranian Islamist regime came to power, the New York Times reported on its front page that PLO/Fatah had been architect of that revolution:
• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas armed and trained Ayatollah Khomeini’s troops;
• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were invited, before any others, to celebrate with Khomeini in Teheran; and then
• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas helped created the Iranian security services and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
As they celebrated in Teheran, Arafat declared that PLO/Fatah and Iranian aims were identical: the violent destruction of the Jewish people and State.
Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas explained to Arab reporters how it would be done:
First, promise peace. Then, gain some territory. And last: annihilate Israel. Abbas called it the ‘Plan of Phases’; the media called it the ‘Peace Process.’
So far, all goes according to plan. But will they conclude it?
Will we let them?
Join me, as Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide, in demanding from our prime minister answers to these questions:
Why is PLO/Fatah still in Israel?
Will our government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?
Please go to Moshe Feiglin’s Facebook page and show your support by sharing, and by clicking “like” on his posting.
[Blog Editor: Below are the cross posts of Notes one and two. Instead of Vimeo I’ll be using the Youtube version]
PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship
By Francisco Gil-White
May 25, 2010
Revised and improved, 8 September 2010
Vimeo video link: WILL ISRAEL GIVE YESHA ('WEST BANK') TO IRAN?
Youtube Link: WILL ISRAEL GIVE YESHA ('WEST BANK') TO IRAN?
Published by FACESHIRHOME
Published on Jun 19, 2015
PLO/Fatah, now better known as the “Palestinian Authority,” will govern a Palestinian State in the militarily strategic territories of Judea and Samaria (or “West Bank”) if the Middle East “peace process” concludes with a “Two-State Solution.” Given that Iranian leaders daily promise the destruction of Israel, most people assume that PLO/Fatah has nothing to do with Iran. It would be absurd, they implicitly reason, for Israeli leaders to give strategic territory to an Iranian proxy. And yet, it is a historical fact that PLO/Fatah helped install Ayatollah Khomeini in power and helped create the current Iranian Islamist regime. It has maintained a close relationship with this regime ever since. This short film documents that relationship.
The Obama administration, like any government, routinely makes public statements about its intentions, values, and policy imperatives. For example, the Obama administration claims publicly to be enemy of Iran and friend of Israel. In fact, the US government claims that “‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests.”
But what if PLO/Fatah, also known as the ‘Palestinian Authority,’ is a proxy of Iran?
The US government pushes very hard for Israel to give strategic territory to PLO/Fatah in exchange for a promise of ‘peace.’ So if PLO/Fatah is helping Iran destroy Israel, the US government’s behavior is quite interesting.
About the future PLO/Fatah state, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu states: “I think it's important to make peace with the Palestinians. And I’m prepared to negotiate that peace right away. ...They should have their own independent country.” Consistent with this, Netanyahu is rushing to give PLO/Fatah its independent state, and has even put Jerusalem on offer. But Netanyahu has also said: “We should be assured that this country [the future PLO/Fatah state] is not used as a staging ground for Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on us.” So if PLO/Fatah is a proxy of Iran, the Israeli government’s behavior is also quite interesting.
One should then ask: What in the world are the US and Israeli governments doing?
This must be answered, because PLO/Fatah, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is indeed part of an Iranian offensive to destroy Israel.
We will show here that PLO/Fatah has always been and continues to be very closely allied with Iran.
PLO/Fatah’s role in Ayatollah Khomeini’s coup
The regime that still rules Iran was inaugurated by Ayatollah Khomeini (see pictures, top right), a ferocious Islamist terrorist who led the 1979 Iranian Revolution to depose the previous ruler, the Shah of Iran. With whom did the Ayatollah Khomeini want to celebrate, right away and before sharing the joy with anybody else?
With Yasser Arafat, then head of PLO/Fatah.
It was just two weeks after the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran and took power that the New York Times reported how Yasser Arafat had accepted an invitation to visit Teheran. Why so soon? Why so much deference? Because the Ayatollah Khomeini was grateful: “Palestinian sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the [Iranian] revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970s.” Only four days later Arafat was already in Teheran, celebrating the Iranian theocratic Islamist revolution, and promising to help export it everywhere. Wrote the New York Times: “Bantering and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations.”
Fact: PLO/Fatah played a key role in the Iranian revolution, arming and training Khomeini’s troops.
Naturally, PLO/Fatah expected the favor to be repaid, and the Iranians rushed to state that they would honor their debts. The Globe and Mail reported:
[Quote from Globe and Mail begins here]
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said yesterday that Iranian guerrillas would fight alongside Palestinian forces against Israel.
... Mr. Arafat, the first prominent visitor to Iran since the revolution, said the Palestinian and Iranian aims were identical. “We will continue our efforts until the time when we defeat imperialism and Zionism,” he said.
A close aide of Ayatollah Khomaini, Deputy Premier Ibrahim Yazdi, also attended the inauguration of the PLO office and referred to the identity of the two causes and the large number of Palestinian sacrifices in the PLO's struggle against Israel.
... The son of Ayatollah Khomaini, Seyyed Ahmad Khomaini, a Moslem clergyman who also spoke at the inauguration of the new PLO office, pledged Iran would continue its revolutionary struggle until all Islamic countries had been set free.
The bearded, black-turbanned Seyyed Khomaini said: “We will continue our struggle until we free all Islamic countries and hoist the Palestinian flag together with ours.”
Soon after this Arafat bestrode the world stage as the indispensable best friend of Khomeini, negotiating the safety of the Americans held hostage in the US Embassy in Teheran at the request of ...(drum roll)... the US government.[6a]
This makes it rather obvious that the PLO was very powerful in Iran.
In fact, the New York Times wrote in November of 1980 that “The P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,” including the Defense Minister Mustafa Chamran and the leader of the Revolutionary Guards Abu Sharif. “Like Yasir Arafat,” wrote the New York Times, “both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East - in particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf” (emphasis added). The Times also explained that PLO/Fatah had played a role in the creation of the Revolutionary Guards (for it trained Abu Sharif) and in creating the new Iranian secret police: SAVAMA (because Sharif and Chamran “relied heavily on their P.L.O. contacts” in setting it up). The Times added:
“The current head of the P.L.O. network in Iran is Hani al-Hassan, alias Abu Hassan, a Jordanian citizen who belongs to Arafat's inner circle of advisers. Before he was sent to Teheran, Abu Hassan served as deputy chief of Fatah’s security department. He enjoys a remarkable entree to Khomeini and other key members of the Iranian regime -- so much so that one Western diplomat suggests that the P.L.O. envoy should be counted as one of the most influential men in Teheran.”[6b] [(HIR) emphasis added]
The picture is clear.
1) PLO/Fatah played a key role in the creation of the Iranian Islamist terror state.
a) It armed and trained Khomeini’s troops for his revolution.
b) It helped create the all-important Revolutionary Guards.
c) It helped create the Iranian secret service SAVAMA.
2) The idea of spreading Iranian Islamist terror everywhere was closely associated with “the PLO’s struggle against Israel.”
a) Iran pledged itself to assist PLO/Fatah against Israel.
b) PLO/Fatah pledged itself to export the Iranian Islamist Revolution.
For years now PLO/Fatah has been represented not only as unlinked to Iran, but also as a secular organization, to be distinguished from the ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘Islamist’ Iranian terror proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah. Most people accept this, and that is a testament to how a media barrage can alter the perception of history. It is obvious, however, that if Yasser Arafat’s ideology was to spread the Iranian Revolution, then he was an Islamist. Historian Howard Sachar, writing in 1982, agreed with how the New York Times represented things back then: “from the outset... the Fatah’s reputation depended largely upon the success of its Moslem traditionalist approach of jihad against Israel.”[6c]
Not just any kind of jihad: Iranian jihad.
PLO/Fatah’s alignment during the Iran-Iraq war
To understand just how intimate the relationship between the Islamist Iranian government and PLO/Fatah, one must take into account that such a strong alliance with the Iranian Shiites angered almost every Arab government that was supporting PLO/Fatah. One cannot imagine that they were pleased to hear Arafat announce his goal of exporting the Iranian revolution to the Gulf States (see above), because this would mean deposing the governments in the Gulf States. And yet Yasser Arafat remained close to his friend Khomeini.
A month after the Iran-Iraq war broke out in late 1980, the Arab governments had sided with Iraq and the situation had become politically dangerous for Arafat. So much so that Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states cracked down on their Palestinian populations. “The reason,” reported the Globe and Mail, “is that the authorities are suspicious of Palestinian ties to the militant Shiite Moslems in Iran, who have vowed to export their Islamic revolution.” And it observed: “Palestinian opinion, while reflecting the PLO’s reluctance to choose sides in a war between its two allies, appears much more pro-Iranian than that of conservative Gulf governments” (emphasis added).
That was October 1980. In December, this was the situation:
[Quote from Washington Post begins here]
Dependent on fellow Arab governments for virtually everything -- physical protection, diplomatic backing, arms, money -- Arafat has had to watch helplessly as the Persian Gulf war split his benefactors into antagonistic blocs with the PLO caught uncomfortably in the middle.
More damaging was the way the PLO’s much advertised independence crumbled under the arm-twisting pressures of the two camps. When the showdown came before last month’s divided Arab summit meeting, Arafat and the PLO were forced by Syrian President Hafez Assad, leader of the pro-Iran axis, to join a boycott of a summit whose aim was to organize a long-term strategy for the Palestinians’ crusade against Israel.
I would call this remarkable. Even though the PLO was dependent on Arab states for everything, when these states got together to plan a long-term strategy for the PLO’s fight with Israel, the PLO sides with Iran. It was “uncomfortable,” sure, but it sided with Iran.
In March 1981 Arafat had a sympathetic meeting with Iraqi Shiites allied with Iran, as reported by Tehran’s news service. 
‘Estrangement’ leads to renewed love
But this could not last. As observed above, the PLO’s entire infrastructure was based in the Arab states. Soon the PLO was forced to take a more pro-Arab position. And then, as the Iran-Iraq war was ending with the cease-fire in 1988, the prelude to the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process was getting into high gear. This process quite suddenly represented the terrorist PLO/Fatah as a moderate organization that wanted to make peace. So to keep matters propagandistically consistent, Iran just had to accuse Arafat of ‘treason’ against the Palestinian cause, while Arafat just had to pronounce himself in public against Iranian terrorism.
Thus, for example, when a bomb exploded in Tel Aviv in 1996, the Egyptian news agency MENA reported that Arafat was blaming the Iranians: “Nabil Abu Rudaynah, adviser to Palestinian President Yasir Arafat, ...accused foreign, non-Palestinian, elements in the region of being behind these terrorist incidents to wreck the peace process. He specifically accused Iran...” Shortly before that, Arafat had claimed that two Palestinians working for Iran had tried to assassinate him. This is how a story of ‘estrangement’ between Arafat (formerly Khomeini’s best friend) and the Iranian regime was built.
But was it true?
Just one year later, the Palestinian daily Al Quds reported that a top PLO/Fatah leader had come back from Iran with a renewed relationship. What’s an assassination attempt between friends? But in fact this made perfect propaganda sense, because the newly elected Iranian president Mohammad Khatami was supposed to be an Iranian Gorbachev pushing liberal reforms, and Arafat was ‘making peace’ with Israel. Under this guise, an open friendship could resume.
In 2002 the Second Intifada, a series of hair-raising terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, was raging. This was Arafat’s -- that is to say, PLO/Fatah’s-- war. Not even the mainstream Western media, so often a cheerleader for Arafat, was denying that most of the violence was due to the activities of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah terrorist group. Here is the Times of London, in April 2002: “A new group directly linked to Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement through its Tanzim military wing, the [Al Aqsa Martyrs] brigades are behind the majority of recent shootings and suicide attacks against Israelis.” And here is The Australian, in September of 2003:
[Quote from The Australian begins here]
Israeli officials said documents captured last year in a massive military raid on the West Bank after a series of suicide bombings inside Israel showed the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which carried out many of the attacks, was an arm of Fatah, Arafat’s political organisation. They also said the documents proved the Palestinian Authority’s intelligence apparatus, also headed by Arafat, was involved in planning terror activity.
Israeli officials said the documents showed Arafat had personally authorised fund transfers for such activity. ‘Arafat views terrorism as a legitimate tool for obtaining the Palestinian national goal,’ said one official.
In the Second Intifada, behind PLO/Fatah, was Iran. Here is the Christian Science Monitor, writing in January 2002 under the headline: “Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look firmer”:
[Quote from the Christian Science Monitor begins here]
... [T]he once-frosty relationship between Iran and Arafat appears to have thawed since the outbreak of the [second] intifada in September 2000. Iran, which opposes Israel's very existence, is a staunch backer of the intifada, opening its hospitals to wounded Palestinians, training fighters, and rallying support for the uprising.
In April last year, Tehran hosted a conference for 34 Arab and Islamic countries and organizations. All the hard-line Palestinian groups were there as well as Hizbullah. But also attending was a representative of the Palestinian Authority, Salim Al Zeenoun, who admitted that the Oslo Accords had turned out to be a “sandcastle of illusion.”
Two months later, Arafat sent a telegram to Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to congratulate him on his re-election.
“We look to all the people of the Islamic world, foremost among them the Muslim Iranian people and their faithful leadership, to support, aid, and assist [Palestine],” Arafat said. He also asked Iran to “work fast to end this bloody and savage war which the Israeli government has been waging for eight solid months.”
Israel says that the military alliance between Iran and Arafat and the scheme to smuggle a shipload of [Iranian] weapons to the Palestinian Authority [the famous Karine A incident] was born at around this time. 
So PLO/Fatah, once installed inside Israel thanks to the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, began functioning as a terrorist proxy of Iran.
At the same time, however, the road was being prepared for Mahmoud Abbas to posture as the anti-terror ‘peacemaker.’ Notice what The Australian wrote in September 2003:
“Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas resigned last month after Arafat refused to hand over control of the security forces Abbas said he needed to make Hamas and Islamic Jihad halt their suicide bombings.”
So, yes, the terrorist activity is all being directed by Arafat, but when Abbas takes over there will be peace, became the media message. In fact, the mainstream Western media went quite out of its way to laud Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen) as a supposed arch moderate.
Only one problem with this. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- the most violent Palestinian terrorists, and the ones most involved in the Second Intifada that Iran was sponsoring -- in fact preferred Abbas to their own Tanzim boss Barghouti as a replacement for Arafat when the latter died. An Associated Press wire dated December 2004 reports that:
“Abbas already has been nominated as Fatah’s presidential candidate, so Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he would likely undermine Abbas’ prospects… Zakaria Zubeidi, the 29-year-old West Bank leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a violent group linked to Fatah, said he would back Abbas. ‘Barghouti … should resign from Fatah,’ he told The Associated Press.”
It is already clear that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was linked to Iran, because Iran was sponsoring the Second Intifada, which was being waged especially by the brigades. In fact, only two months earlier, with Arafat still alive, the Daily Telegraph had reported: “Israel believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, has now come under Iran's sway, especially in the West Bank.” Who were they directly working with? None other than Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy Fatah is supposedly so different from: “Scores of Palestinian attacks, accounting for roughly a third of the 98 Israelis killed so far this year, are believed to have been orchestrated by the Lebanese Hizbollah movement.” Arafat did not deny this, though he tried to give it a different spin: he claimed to be upset, and accused Iran of trying to “infiltrate Fatah.”
The upshot is that nobody was denying that Iran was heavily involved with the PLO/Fatah terrorists, the same terrorists who pushed for Mahmoud Abbas becoming the new PLO/Fatah leader.
Oh wait. Somebody would deny the link between PLO/Fatah and Iran. Guess who? The Israeli government.
As Frontpage magazine explained in 2007:
“Iran’s direct connection to Hamas is openly discussed and widely acknowledged. Where Fatah is concerned, the issues are more complex; but the link has been established. In March, Brig. Gen. (res.) Shalom Harari, a Senior Research Scholar with the Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, wrote an Issue Brief for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in which he noted: ‘There is a growing strategic alliance between Iran and the radical Palestinian forces in the territories. Iran is involved in supporting both the Islamic factions and Fatah, as well. Today, at least 40 percent of Fatah’s different fighting groups are also paid by Hezbollah and Iran.’
Corroborating Harari’s analysis, Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant, head of the IDF Southern Command, wrote an Issue Brief for the JCPA one month later in which he observed: ‘A few years ago, Fatah’s Al Aqsa Brigade in Judea and Samaria was bought out by Iran.’ Checks with various security and intelligence sources have provided additional confirmation of this information. Iranian funding of Fatah is not direct, but comes through the conduit of Hezbollah and goes in the main to Al Aqsa Brigades.
The government of Israel... maintains that Al Aqsa, although originally a spin-off from Fatah, is no longer part of Fatah and no longer answers to Abbas. This spin makes it possible to continue to promote Fatah as potentially moderate, in spite of Al Aqsa’s very radical connections. Experts refute this scenario, however. Said one security source who provided background information: ‘Abbas is formally the commander of Al Aqsa…he has little to do with them to ensure deniability…but privately supports Al Aqsa. US money to PA security agencies go to Al Aqsa people as well. Indeed, Abbas has ensured that most of the Al Aqsa people are on the payroll.’”[17a]
The Israeli government goes out of its way to pretend that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is not part of Al Fatah, thus supporting Abbas, who pretends that he has nothing to do with them in order “to ensure deniability” for Al Aqsa’s murders of Israeli civilians. The Israeli government is covering for those who murder Israeli citizens. We have already seen above how absurd the Israeli government’s position, for Abbas owes his position to Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: they were the ones lobbying for him—marching in the streets, in fact—and intimidating his competition.
But the US government wants PLO/Fatah to inherit strategic Israeli territory. And the Israeli government is cooperating. What are they doing?
What are the US and Israeli governments doing?
It is now probably a good idea to review HIR’s First Principles, in order to do some hard thinking about US geopolitics.
Premise 1. The way to do better geopolitics is to have a more accurate representation of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.
Premise 2. The Government of the United States, the most important geopolitical player, has the strongest motivation to do better geopolitics.
Therefore: The Government of the United States works very hard to obtain a better understanding of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.
Fact: CIA director George Tenet said in the year 1998 that the budget on that year had been a little under 27 billion. Recently, a US Intelligence official said in a press conference that the yearly budget was now 44 billion. But the truth is that nobody knows for sure, because the budget for US Intelligence is a state secret.
Hypothesis: The Government of the United States has very good information—definitely better than my own—on which to base its geopolitical decisions.
Premise 1. The Government of the United States, for many years running, has been the most powerful in the world.
Premise 2. Idiots don’t become the most powerful people in the world.
Therefore: The Government of the United States is not run by idiots.
Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States behaves in ways that seem idiotic to me, then a) there is something I don’t yet understand; or b) this government has different values than my own. Or both. (And I have yet to accept this, which is why I think the behavior is idiotic.)
Premise 1. The true preferences of someone are revealed in his/her expensive behaviors.
Premise 2. Saying “My intentions are X” is not expensive but cheap.
Therefore: Speech acts (e.g. public and official declarations) don’t necessarily convey information about the true intentions of a government.
Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States consistently, year after year, spends billions of dollars and achieves always similar results, and if these results contradict the government’s publicly declared intentions, the publicly declared intentions must be deliberate deceptions.
US Intelligence knows perfectly well everything that I have documented in this article. And it knew it long before I did. Hence, the US Government is applying very strong pressure on Israel to create a ‘Palestinian State’ run by PLO/Fatah on strategic Israeli territory knowing full well that PLO/Fatah is allied with Iran to destroy Israel.
Is this consistent with other expensive US Government behaviors? It is.
As we have documented on HIR, the entire history of US foreign policy toward Iran, despite the loud public condemnations, is one of consistent and dramatic assistance to Iran’s long-term goals.
On the basis of this evidence we may conclude that when President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel states to a group of rabbis that “ ‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security -- and long-range interests,’ ” the Obama administration is lying. If the US government is lying, then we must consider the alternative hypothesis: that the US Government -- not the American people, but the US Government -- is an enemy of Israel.
Does this make sense?
It is certainly consistent with HIR’s detailed investigation of US foreign policy toward the Jewish people and state since the 1930s, which shows conclusively that -- contrary to popular belief -- the US ruling elite has always worked hard to undermine Israeli security.
Israeli leaders are cooperating with this process, because they have not yet expelled PLO/Fatah from Israel. On the contrary. Though they pretend to drag their feet, they are engaged in an on-again, off-again process with PLO/Fatah that (let’s face it) is designed to give it everything it wants, in exchange for... Well, for nothing, because PLO/Fatah has not laid down its arms and does not intend to.
The Israeli government is also much better informed than I am, and likewise knew everything I have reviewed here long before I did. After all, the documentation I use is publicly available, and one of the main targets of Israeli intelligence-gathering is, naturally, PLO/Fatah.
So what are Israeli leaders doing? It is an important question.
Any effort to begin answering this question must examine what certain important Jewish leaders did in the prelude to, and during, World War II. HIR has much documentation on this topic, but two articles in particular offer a good place to start.
First, to examine the behavior of (soon-to-be) Israeli leaders during the Holocaust, please read:
► “The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist) Israeli leaders during the Shoah ('Holocaust')”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE: An HIR series; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 February 2007; by Francisco Gil-Whitehttp://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders4.htm
Then, to examine the behavior of a string of Israeli prime ministers, consistent with the history documented above, please read:
►”Leaders Lied, Jews died: Why have Israeli leaders been lying to their fellow citizens about the PLO/Fatah?; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White (with the editorial assistance of Ted Belman)
If History is indeed repeating itself, then the Jewish people is in great peril, for when the causes recur, so do the consequences. And if the Jewish people is in peril, then so are ordinary people all over the West, because 2500 years of Western history show conclusively that periods of Jewish persecution coincide with periods of savage oppression against non-Jews (a recent and dramatic example is the 20th c. Holocaust).
Footnotes and Further Reading
 Last Friday it was reported that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pushing for another round of United Nations sanctions against Iran.” Here, the US government is projecting that Iran is the bad guys and that the US will work to undermine Iran.
SOURCE: “Obama the appeaser; The transnational dove has left a vacuum that Iran is filling”; The Washington Times, May 21, 2010 Friday, B, COMMENTARY; Pg. 3, 777 words, By Jeffrey T. Kuhner SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
 A week ago, President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel stated to a group of rabbis that “‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests. Watch what the administration does.’ ” Here, the US government is projecting that Israel is the good guys and will work to strengthen Israel.
SOURCE: “US ‘screwed up’ message on Israel, Emanuel tells rabbis. Officials deny administration changing view on Israeli nuclear policy”; The Jerusalem Post, May 16, 2010 Sunday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 1197 words, HERB KEINON, JTA contributed to this report.
 Interview With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; CNN; July 7, 2010 Wednesday; NEWS; International; 5805 words; Larry King
 “The PLO announced today that its chairman, Yasser Arafat, had accepted an invitation to visit Teheran soon. It also said that followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had seized the former Israeli diplomatic mission in Teheran, and the PLO had accepted an offer to turn it into a Palestinian embassy.
Wafa, the Palestinian press service, reported that the Ayatollah’s forces had contacted Mr. Arafat by telephone yesterday and proclaimed their solidarity and gave their thanks.
Palestinian sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970s.”
SOURCE: P.L.O. Is Cool to Dayan Remarks; Statements Given Prominence; By MARVINE HOWE Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 15, 1979. p. A12 (1 page)
 “An exultant Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, proclaimed here today that the Iranian revolution had ‘turned upside down’ the balance of forces in the Middle East.
‘Today Iran, tomorrow Palestine,’ he said.
Mr. Arafat received a pledge from Ayatollah Khomeini that the Iranians would ‘turn to the issue of victory over Israel’ after Iran had consolidated its strength, the Teheran radio reported.
…Bantering and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations, saying:
‘It is enough that we are here, and no matter how much we have helped we cannot offer as much back as the Iranian people have offered us. It is enough for us to be among the Iranian people.
Asked whether the Palestinian movement felt ‘stronger’ since the Iranian uprising, he said:
‘Definitely. It has changed completely the whole strategy and policy in this area. It has been turned upside down.’ ”
SOURCE: Arafat, in Iran, Reports Khomeini Pledges Aid for Victory Over Israel; Visit a Sign of Iran's Sharp Turn; ARAFAT, IN TEHERAN, PRAISES THE VICTORS; By JAMES M. MARKHAM Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 19, 1979. p. A1 (2 pages)
 “Four more generals executed; PLO, Iran will fight Israel, Arafat says”; The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 20, 1979. p. P.10
[6a] “Grand Theater: The US, The PLO, and the Ayatollah Khomeini: Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO the task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
[6b] “The P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. One of the most intriguing delegates at the Fatah conference in Damascus at the end of May, for example, was Arbas-Agha Zahani whose nom de guerre is Abu Sharif. He was then the head of the Ayatollah's Revolutionary Guards, or Pasdaran Enghelab, a post he resigned in a power play in June that was designed to weaken the position of the relatively ''moderate'' President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr. (Abu Sharif was subsequently reappointed deputy chief of the Pasdaran Enghelab.) Abu Sharif rose to a position of influence thanks to the patronage of the present Iranian Defense Minister, Mustafa Chamran. Like Yasir Arafat, both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East - in particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf.
Abu Sharif's links with Arafat, Abu Jihad and other key figures in the P.L.O. leadership date back to the early 1970’s, when he attended a guerrilla training course at a Fatah camp in Lebanon. After the downfall of the Shah, Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran relied heavily on their P.L.O. contacts for help in setting up a new secret police to replace the Sha's notorious Savak. A special P.L.O. unit, whose members had received intelligence training in the Soviet Union, was dispatched to Teheran to assist in rooting out ‘counterrevolutionaries.’ Abu Sharif repaid his personal debt to the P.L.O. by successfully lobbying -- with the backing of, among others, one of the Ayatollah's grandsons -- for a big Iranian contribution to the Palestinian war chest and for the dispatch of more than 200 Iranian ‘volunteers’ to fight with the P.L.O. in southern Lebanon
The current head of the P.L.O. network in Iran is Hani al-Hassan, alias Abu Hassan, a Jordanian citizen who belongs to Arafat's inner circle of advisers. Before he was sent to Teheran, Abu Hassan served as deputy chief of Fatah’s security department. He enjoys a remarkable entree to Khomeini and other key members of the Iranian regime -- so much so that one Western diplomat suggests that the P.L.O. envoy should be counted as one of the most influential men in Teheran.” [(HIR) emphasis added]
SOURCE: “TERROR: A SOVIET EXPORT”; New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 2, 1980. pg. A.42; by Robert Moss
NOTE: though the PLO supposedly rooted out “counterrevolutionaries” to help create the Ayatollah’s new secret service, exiled Iranians were pointing out that the new SAVAMA was almost identical in all its personnel to the old CIA-created SAVAK. This would make sense if the Islamist Iranians and PLO/Fatah all answered to the same (US) master. Otherwise it is very strange.
[6c] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (pp. 698)
 MANAMA BAHREIN -- MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) - Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states have tightened restrictions on an estimated 400,000 Palestinians since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war, diplomatic sources say.
A ban on political gatherings by Palestinians has been imposed and strict visa requirements are being rigidly enforced. The reason is that the authorities are suspicious of Palestinian ties to the militant Shiite Moslems in Iran, who have vowed to export their Islamic revolution.
Other sources said that Yasser Arafat, head of the Lebanon-based Palestine Liberation Organization, has reassured Persian Gulf governments that his guerrilla movement would never upset the stability of the oil- rich area and ordered his representatives in Gulf capitals to remain neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict. “The PLO has been treading a delicate path of neutrality between Iraq and Iran and that has not been easy,” one Arab diplomat said. “Iraq, and all other Arab powers, insist that the PLO must put its political cards on the table and declare its unchangeable commitment to the Arab cause against that of the (non-Arab) Persians.” At the same time, Iranian leaders are reported to have asked the Palestinians to support Iran in return for their support of the guerrilla movement.
Palestinian opinion, while reflecting the PLO’s reluctance to choose sides in a war between its two allies, appears much more pro-Iranian than that of conservative Gulf governments.” [(HIR) emphasis added]
SOURCE: “Gulf states tighten hold on Palestinians”; The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Oct 23, 1980. p. P.14
 “War, arab Feuding Leave Arafat, PLO in Disarray; Gulf War and Arab Feuding Leave Arafat and PLO in Disarray”; The Washington Post, December 14, 1980, Sunday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 1487 words, By Loren Jenkins, Washington Post Foreign Service
 “Arafat's Meeting with Iraqi Da'wah Party Delegation”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 3, 1981, Tuesday, Part 4 The Middle East and Africa; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8; , 395 words.
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
March 3, 1981, Tuesday
Arafat's Meeting with Iraqi Da'wah Party Delegation
SOURCE: Tehran in Arabic for abroad 1430 gmt 1 Mar 81
Excerpt from abroad
SECTION: Part 4 The Middle East and Africa; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8;
LENGTH: 395 words
March 3, 1981, Tuesday
Arafat's Meeting with Iraqi Da'wah Party Delegation
SOURCE: Tehran in Arabic for abroad 1430 gmt 1 Mar 81
Excerpt from abroad
SECTION: Part 4 The Middle East and Africa; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8;
LENGTH: 395 words
A delegation representing the Da'wah Islamic Party in Iraq met with Brother Yasir Arafat the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and member of the delegation commissioned to study the issue of the war that has been imposed on Iran by the Iraqi regime, at noon today.
The spokesman for the Iraqi Da'wah Islamic Party briefed Brother Arafat on the measures of suppression, oppression and banishment that have been carried out by the infidel Tikriti regime against the Iraqi Mujahidin. The spokesman, who supported his statement with pictures, statistics and documents, added that during the past year alone, Saddam's regime had killed and executed 100,000 Iraqi strugglers. The spokesman added that the Iraqi regime's suppressive measures have escalated to the extent that even women, children and old men are not spared. They, too, have been subjected to tyranny, injustice, imprisonment and execution.
The spokesman stressed that the stance of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran did not represent the stance of the Government and people of Iran alone, but also the claims of more than 60,000 exiled Iraqis and the claims of the help- less Iraqi people. Speaking to Brother Arafat, the Iraqi spokesman added: We ask you, as a true revolutionary, not to deal with us in terms of international political principles and international relations; we call upon you to help our voice of truth be heard through- out the world and to pressure Saddam's bloody infidel regime to change its position on the oppressed Iraqi people and end the war he has imposed on both of the Muslim peoples in Iraq and Iran.
Then one of the Iraqi mujahidin spoke and said to Brother Arafat: O Brother Abu Ammar, I am a struggler and revolutionary just as you are, and my duty is to fight at your side against the Zionist regime and for the liberation of Palestine and not to be exiled by Saddam's regime to Iran after a period of torture. Then the struggler showed the marks that remained on his body after being tortured by the Iraqi regime to Brother Arafat, and said that the torture carried out by Saddam's gang against the Iraqi mujahidin was much more than that carried out by the Zionist entity against the Palestinian combatants. Seeing and hearing all this, Brother Arafat could not prevent his tears of sympathy for the Iraqi brothers from falling. . .
 “PALESTINIAN REACTION; Arafat's adviser accuses Iran of sheltering terrorism”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 5, 1996, Tuesday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; AFTERMATH OF TEL AVIV BOMBING; EE/D2553/ME, 326 words
 “ ‘SABOTAGE’ ATTEMPT; Two pro-Iran Palestinians reported arrested for plotting to kill Arafat”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, February 21, 1996, Wednesday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS; EE/D2541/ME, 79 words
 “Bethlehem: Brig-Gen Abu Khalid al-Lahham, who recently returned from Iran, said that Hojjat ol-Eslam Mohammad Khatami is considered a close friend of Palestine and the Palestinian people, as well as a personal friend of President Yasir Arafat. Moreover, he called him the Iranian Napoleon and described him as Iran's saviour.
In an exclusive interview, Lahham said... the new Iranian leadership will strive to refute its image of exporting revolution and interfering in the internal affairs of other people.
On the internal level, the new leadership will engage in building a free economy and will allow freedom of thought and faith and the formation of political parties.
Lahham, who arrived in Iran 10 days before the elections on an assignment by President Yasir Arafat, added that the new leadership will support the Palestinian people with all their leaders and inclinations, including the peace process, but it will fight to defend its role and presence as a major Middle Eastern state. The Palestinian people will be able to ask for Iran's support”
SOURCE: “Arafat adviser visits Iran, brings message of support for Palestinians”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, June 12, 1997, Thursday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; ISRAEL; ME/D2943/MED, 428 words
 “Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look firmer”; Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), January 18, 2002, Friday, WORLD; Pg. 08, 1353 words, Nicholas Blanford Special to The Christian Science Monitor
 “A bitter taste for vengeance”; Sunday Times (London), April 7, 2002, Sunday, Features, 2938 words, Marie Colvin in Ramallah
 “Arch-terrorist or hero of peace: Arafat's enduring image”; The Australian, September 25, 2003 Thursday All-round Country Edition, WORLD-TYPE- FEATURE-BIOG- YASSER ARAFAT; Pg. 8, 1079 words, Abraham Rabinovich
 Barghouti Seeking Palestinian Presidency, Associated Press Online, December 1, 2004 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 836 words, MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH; Associated Press Writer, RAMALLAH, West Bank
 “Israel believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, has now come under Iran's sway, especially in the West Bank.
Scores of Palestinian attacks, accounting for roughly a third of the 98 Israelis killed so far this year, are believed to have been orchestrated by the Lebanese Hizbollah movement.
The Shia group pioneered the use of suicide bombings in the 1980s, kidnapped westerners and successfully drove the Israeli army out of south Lebanon in 2000. Hizbollah is now a political party in Lebanon.
‘Hizbollah is a finger of Iran's hand,’ the senior Israeli security source said. ‘In the past year we can see increasing Iranian influence in Palestinian attacks on Israel.
‘The same people sometimes receive money both from Arafat's headquarters and from Hizbollah. If the attack succeeds in causing fatalities, they get a bonus from Hizbollah.’
Another security source said Hizbollah rewards Palestinian cells to the tune of $5,000 (pounds 2,900) for each Israeli killed.
Israel regards Teheran as its mortal enemy, and has every interest in presenting Iran as a dangerous state sponsor of international terrorism. But on the issue of penetrating Fatah, Israel is in unusual agreement with Palestinian leaders.
Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian ‘president’ who has been confined to his Ramallah headquarters for more than three years, said this week that Hizbollah was trying to infiltrate Fatah.
He said Iran was financing radical Islamist groups, and denounced Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei.
He said: ‘Khamenei is working against us. He is giving money to all these fanatical groups. Khamenei is a troublemaker.’ ”
SOURCE: “Iran ‘in control of terrorism in Israel’; Hizbollah, described as a ‘finger of Teheran's hand,’ is said to be paying $5,000 for every Israeli killed.” Anton La Guardia reports from Tel Aviv; THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (LONDON), October 15, 2004, Friday, 803 words, by Anton La Guardia
[17a] “The Fatah–Iranian Connection”; Frontpage June 8, 2007; By Arlene Kushner.
 The Israeli soldiers were under orders to protect civilians (apparently no matter the cost, because they defended themselves, at first, with non-weapons such as paint-ball guns). It was only after one of the wounded Israeli soldiers was thrown from the upper deck and the lethal weapons of the soldiers were taken from them by the attackers, that their fellow soldiers opened fire to protect them. The result was that some of the attackers died.
The images of the brutal attack against the Israeli soldiers—a blood curling lyinching (sic)—are available to the public.
 “Will the US attack Iran?: An alternative hypothesis”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 February 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
 “How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT: An HIR Series, in four parts; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
 “Is the US an ally of Israel?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
Netanyahu in a Rock and Hard Place Gamble?
John R. Houk
September 10, 2015
Will the Israeli government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?
PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship
Francisco Gil-White has a Masters in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a PhD in biological and cultural anthropology from UCLA. His PhD thesis work was in rural Western Mongolia, where he did 14 months of fieldwork studying the mutual ethnic perceptions of neighboring Torguud Mongol and Kazakh nomadic herders. Until June 2006, he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Today he teaches at ITAM, in Mexico City. His research is broadly concerned with the evolution of the proximate mechanisms responsible for social learning and social perception and cognition. His main interests are the evolution of ethnic processes, with a special focus on racism, and particularly anti-Semitism; prestige processes; the evolution of language; the structure of narrative memory; the structure and interaction of media and political processes; the laws of history; Western geopolitics; and the political history of the West.