We have another indication as to why Haleh Esfandiari is being held in Iran. According to blogger Judith Apter Klinghoffer at the History News Network, Esfandiari has been accused of apostacy. This report is from a blog called Zaneirani that Klinghoffer links:
Haleh Esfandiari is a case to watch and read closely. Apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. In a recent article in Keyhan (the link was referred by a friend) I read about Haleh Esfandiari being an ex-Muslim. Apparently she had converted to Judaism after marring Shaul Bakhash (a renowned Iranian Zionist (exact word from the Keyhan article) who is currently teaching at a university in VA.) This means the Iranian regime can put Haleh Esfandiari to death because of converting to another religion. This is despite the fact that Dr. Esfandiari's boss is a supporter of a talk with the murderer regime of Iran. Last but not least... Hossein Shariatmadari the head of Keyhan is a Jewish converter to Islam. His siblings if I recall correctly live in France and are strong supporters of the Zionist movement.
Unfortunately, the only link in that post which is not to a Wikipedia page is in Farsi and I don't speak or read Farsi. But if Zaneirani is correct this is most serious indeed. You will note that in my post last night, I noted that her husband denied that she is a Zionist, but did not deny that she is or was a Jew, even though the source for my post - the Washington Post - did say that she is a Shiite Muslim. The fact that Hossein Shariatmadari converted to Judaism from Islam would only give him even more incentive to 'get' Esfandiari. Finally, I am assuming that "his siblings" refers to Shariatmadari and not to Bakhash. If I am wrong, Esfandiari has another problem.
Klinghoffer notes that Shaul Bakhash went on the BBC to confirm that Esfandiari is still a Muslim. The BBC program that she cites is not available on the Internet (and I have no idea who 'Dense Katty Kay' is), but it appears that Shaul Bakhash was interviewed by a dense - or Islamophilic - broadcaster:
Dense Katty Kay was less interested in the Haleh's fate than finding a way to justify her detention.
Iran does not accept dual citizenship, she remarked then asked Bakhash "What is the message Iran is sending to dual citizens such as Esfandiari?" Bakhash first tried to deflect her and than reminded her that his wife is in danger and that is the reason he came on the show.
Katty Kay promptly ended the interview. Unfortunately the exchange is not available on the internet.
The BBC notes that Esfandiari is not the only US citizen currently being held in Iran and adds yet another charge to the list:
Iran's Kayhan newspaper has accused Ms Esfandiari of spying for the US and Israel and of trying to incite a democratic revolution in the country.
...
Iranian authorities appear to be particularly suspicious of attempts by the Bush administration to promote democratic change in Iran, says the BBC's Middle East analyst, Roger Hardy.
Other Iranian-Americans have also been banned from leaving the country recently, including journalist Parnaz Azima, who works for the US-funded Radio Farda.
Former FBI agent Robert Levinson disappeared in March on Iran's resort island of Kish.
I'm sure many of you are wondering why US citizens are allowed to travel to Iran. The following is from the rather lengthy US State Department travel advisory on Iran:
U.S. citizens who were born in Iran, who have become naturalized citizens of Iran, or who were at one time citizens of Iran, and the children of such persons, are considered Iranian nationals by Iranian authorities. Therefore, despite the fact that these individuals possess U.S. citizenship, they must enter and exit Iran bearing an Iranian passport. Exit visas are required for dual nationals to depart Iran.
In addition to being subject to all Iranian laws, U.S. citizens who also possess Iranian citizenship may also be subject to other laws that impose special obligations on citizens of Iran, such as military service or taxes. More specific information on Iranian passport and exit visa requirements may be obtained from the Iranian Interests Section of the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, D.C.
Dual nationals sometimes have their U.S. passports confiscated and may be denied permission to leave Iran, or encounter other problems with Iranian authorities. Likewise, Iranian authorities may deny dual nationals access to the U.S. Interests Section in Tehran, because they are considered to be solely Iranian citizens. Refer to the above section entitled "Entry/Exit Requirements" for additional information concerning dual nationality.
...
While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. Penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses. Persons violating Iranian laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned. Fines, public floggings, and long prison terms are common. Former Muslims who have converted to other religions, as well as persons who encourage Muslims to convert, are subject to arrest and possible execution. Drinking, possession of alcoholic beverages and drugs as well as flirting or having sexual contact outside of marriage are considered to be crimes. Penalties for possession, use, or trafficking in illegal drugs in Iran are severe and convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines. Iran executes many people each year on drug-related charges. Engaging in sexual conduct with children or using or disseminating child pornography in a foreign country is a crime, prosecutable in the United States. Please see our information on Criminal Penalties.
U.S. citizens in Iran who violate Iranian laws, including laws that are unfamiliar to Westerners (such as those regarding the proper wearing of apparel), may face severe penalties.
The Iranian Government reportedly has the names of all individuals who filed claims against Iran at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at The Hague pursuant to the 1981 Algerian Accords. In addition, the Iranian Government reportedly has compiled a list of the claimants who were awarded compensation in the Iran Claims Program administered by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. The Iranian government is allegedly targeting award-holders who travel to Iran. It is reported that upon some claimants' entry into Iran, Iranian authorities question them as to the status of payment of their respective awards with a view to recouping the award money. It is also reported that the Iranian Government has threatened to prevent U.S. claimants who visit Iran from departing the country until they make arrangements to pay part or all of their award.
American - Iranian academic Haleh Esfandiari was released from jail yesterday after being held since December when she was taken off an Iranian plane at knife point. Esfandiari's family put up some $400,000 in bail for her release. Below is an interview with Esfandiari from Iranian television (Hat Tip: Kamangir); there is also a BBC video report available (embedding not allowed) by going here.
It is not yet known whether Esfandiari will be allowed to leave Iran, where she had gone to visit her elderly mother. I would not hold my breath waiting for her to be released. In fact, I think it's far more likely that the regime will try to lure her husband to Iran.
Iran accuses 67-year old grandmother of spying for US and Israel
Iran confirmed over the weekend that it is holding 67-year old grandmother and American scholar Haleh Esfandiari of Potomac, Maryland and accused her of spying for the United States and Israel.
The unofficial charges were made in Tehran's Kayhan newspaper, which is closely tied to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reflects government views. The allegations against Esfandiari, who is director of the Middle East program at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars, offer the first indication of the case that Iran may be trying to craft against the Potomac resident. Although the Foreign Ministry finally confirmed her detention Sunday, no formal charges have been issued since she was imprisoned a week ago after more than four months under virtual house arrest and weeks of interrogations in Tehran.
...
Esfandiari's husband Shaul Bakhash, Monday refuted the long list of allegations made in a front-page Kayhan article. Esfandiari had never been to Israel, worked with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, formed an "Iran office" for the Jewish organization, organized its conferences, worked with the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, or been a Zionist, Bakhash said.
Kayhan said Esfandiari had been "one of the main elements of Mossad in driving a velvet revolution strategy in Iran." The article also said she ran "obvious intelligence missions" under her cover as a Wilson Center programming director and used her seminars to "evaluate the capacity of reformists to change the Islamic order." It also said she had formed two networks of Iranian activists in the United States and Dubai with the goal of toppling Iran's Islamic government.
Bakhash, a George Mason University professor, also denied today that he had ever worked with Mossad. "The charges against my wife Haleh and myself are sinister and also absurd and fantastical, the concoctions of men who have lost touch with reality," he said.
Bakhash said today that he had also never been a Zionist.
My first reaction to this story was to ask why any westerner would visit Iran. It turns out that Esfandiari, who is a Shiite Muslim(!) was in Iran to visit her 93-year old Austrian-born mother who is ailing.
Her husband, by the way, is also an expert on Iran. But he is an Iranian-born Jew, which may be way the Iranians seized his wife.
A website has been set up to push for Dr. Esfandiari's freedom. It is sponsored by the American Islamic Congress in conjunction with Ibn Khaldoun Center in Cairo, the Initiative for Inclusive Security in Washington, and the Kuwaiti Economic Society. I have looked at the websites of these organizations, but know no more about them than what I am putting below. If any of you find out that they are all anti-Israel, I will not be shocked.
The American Islamic Congress (AIC) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to building interfaith and interethnic understanding. Our organization grew out of the ashes of September 11. We believe American Muslims must take the lead in building tolerance and fostering a respect for human rights and social justice at home and throughout the Muslim world. Within the Muslim community, we are building a coalition around the agenda of unequivocal denunciation of terrorism, extremism, and hate speech. Reaching out to all people of conscience, we promote genuine interfaith dialogue and educate about the diversity within Islam.
IBN KHALDUN CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (ICDS) is a non- governmental professional institution, registered in Cairo since 1988 as a limited liability civil company (license no. 3044). Its headquarters are located in theMokattam Hills.
The main objectives of the Center are the advancement of applied social sciences with special emphasis on Egypt and the Arab World. It is commitment to the promotion of responsible dialogue, democracy, peace and development for all peoples in the region.
The Initiative for Inclusive Security, including The Women Waging Peace Network, advocates for the full participation of all stakeholders, especially women, in peace processes. Creating sustainable peace is achieved best by a diverse, citizen-driven approach. Of the many sectors of society currently excluded from peace processes, none is larger—or more critical to success—than women.
I was unable to find a website for the Kuwaiti Economic Society, but its chairlady, Rolah Dashti, is a candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament. This is the first election in Kuwait in which women can be candidates.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, October 24.
1) Not responding
Earlier this week Lee Smith wrote America's 40 year embassy crisis.
Ben Affleck's movie "Argo" about the Iranian takeover of the American
embassy in Tehran prompted the article. In short, American diplomatic
personnel have often been targets of hostile elements and America -
under both Democratic and Republican presidents - has failed to respond.
Here are a few examples from Smith's list:
In February 1973, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Black
September faction assassinated the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel,
and Deputy Chief of Mission George Curtis Moore. The terrorists broke
into the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, which was hosting a party, separated
the Americans and a Belgian diplomat from the rest of the guests and
demanded the release of Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, and
other Palestinians held in European and Israeli jails. When the Nixon
Administration refused to negotiate, the Palestinians, according to one
account, opened fire on their hostages, “from the floor upward, to
prolong their agony of their victims by striking them first in the feet
and legs, before administering the coup de grace.”
...
In June 1976, a different Palestinian faction kidnapped the newly
appointed U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Francis E. Meloy, Jr. along with
Robert O. Waring, the U.S. economic counselor. When Soviet diplomats
were taken in Beirut during the 15-year-long civil war, Moscow took
swift and brutal action against the families of the kidnappers. But
after Meloy and Waring’s bullet-riddled corpses were found dumped on the
side of the road, Washington did nothing.
In February 1979, under President Carter, the American Ambassador to
Afghanistan Adolph Dubs was killed in an exchange of gunfire between
Afghan security forces and the Muslim extremists who kidnapped him.
Again, the Americans failed to respond in kind.
Here's a list of the American victims of Iranian aggression: The 17
Americans killed in April 1983 at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut by the
Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad Organization, later known as Hezbollah. The
241 U.S. servicemen killed by Islamic Jihad at the Marine barracks in
Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983. Master Chief Robert Dean Stethem, beaten to
death in June 1985 by a Hezbollah terrorist in Beirut aboard TWA flight
847. William Francis Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, tortured
to death by Hezbollah that same month. Marine Col. William Higgins,
taken hostage in 1988 while serving with U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon
and hanged by Hezbollah sometime later. The 19 U.S. Air Force personnel
killed in June 1996 in the Khobar Towers bombing, for which several
members of Saudi Hezbollah were indicted in U.S. federal court.
And then there are the thousands of U.S. troops killed by improvised
explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most lethal IEDs were
manufactured in Iran for the purpose of killing Americans.
Let's also not forget the 52 American diplomats held hostage in Tehran
for 444 days; the hostaging in Lebanon of Americans such as Thomas
Sutherland and Terry Anderson; the de facto hostaging of American
backpackers Sarah Shourd for 14 months and of her companions Josh Fattal
and Shane Bauer for more than two years; the capricious imprisonment of
Iranian-Americans visiting Iran such as Kian Tajbakhsh, Haleh
Esfandiari and Roxana Saberi; the mysterious disappearance and apparent
hostaging in 2007 of former FBI agent Robert Levinson; and the current
imprisonment—under a suspended death sentence—of former U.S. Marine and
defense contractor Amir Hekmati.
Both Smith and Stephens point out that the perpetrators of many
instances of violence against Americans and American interests often
goes without response. If those who attacked Americans and the countries
or powers that harbored them, knew that there would definitely be a
price to pay, they might be less inclined to attack in the first place.
2) Missing from the debate
A "news analysis" in the New York Times claims that Foreign Policy Debate’s Omissions Highlight Skewed Worldview.
The article is mostly critical of the candidates for not discussing the
issues that the writer, Steven Erlanger, deemed important. The problem
is that he doesn't mention the moderator, Bob Schieffer, who chose which
questions to ask thus shaping the debate.
However the article, really was less about what was really important
(and arguments could surely be made that many important issues were addressed superficially) but what was really important for Erlanger's worldview.
For example, regarding the Middle East, Erlanger writes:
There was no mention, let alone discussion, of the role of Turkey or
its dilemma as a Muslim nation sharing a border with Syria, no
discussion of the aging royal family of Saudi Arabia and its sponsorship
of radical and conservative Islam, no mention of Somalia or Islamist
threats to allies like Jordan and Morocco. There was a glancing
reference to the Palestinians, but no discussion of their divisions, of
the role of Hamas, of the separate status of Gaza, of the weakening grip
of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah movement, of what might happen if and
when Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian president and leader of the Palestine
Liberation Organization, leaves the scene.
And there was no criticism of Israel, its settlements or its occupation
of the West Bank. Mr. Romney did say that Mr. Obama had not visited
Israel as president even after his 2009 visit to Cairo in which he
pledged a new era in relations with the Muslim world.
Mr. Obama responded with descriptions of an earlier visit as a
legislator, but Mr. Romney missed an opportunity to respond tartly, for
even top Obama aides concede that failing to go quickly to Israel after
Cairo to make a similar speech and then calling for a “settlement
freeze” in East Jerusalem, instead of in the larger West Bank, were
errors.
Note that for Erlanger the problem with Saudi Arabia is its support "of
radical and conservative Islam" but doesn't use the same terms to
describe Turkey. He mentions Hamas without mentioning its continued
terror war against Israel.
Of course, Erlanger still thinks that the "occupation" needs to be
criticized. Even here, he sort of defends the President from criticisms
he's received for his condemnation of Israeli settlements by pointing
out that Obama's aides agree that he shouldn't have focused on
criticizing building in Jerusalem. (At the time of Vice President
Biden's visit, the New York Times in its reporting and editorials was quite supportive of the President's making an issue of apartment building in Ramat Shlomo.)
Erlanger makes too much of the omissions. For better or worse, whichever
candidate is elected in two weeks will deal with everything he needs
to. Debates are shows to give us a sense of the candidates. This "news
analysis" is simply a rant because issues that are important to the New
York Times were not addressed in the way that editors and reporters of
that paper would have liked them to be.
Still, I would argue that the United States has made the right
choice; that this new policy of engagement with even extreme currents of
political Islam in the Middle East is salutary; that the model should
be extended; and that indeed the Obama administration had little choice.
To keep doing the same thing when it does not work is one definition of
madness.
What is the alternative to supporting Morsi and the Brotherhood and
urging them to be inclusive in the new Egypt? Well, the United States
could cut them off and hope they fail — but I can think of no surer way
to guarantee radicalization and aggravate the very tendencies the West
wants to avoid as a poverty-stricken Egypt goes into an economic
tailspin. The same would be true of any attempt to install the armed
forces again, with the difference that there would also be bloodshed.
The United States tried Middle Eastern repression in the name of
stability for decades: What it got was terrorism-breeding societies of
frustrated Arabs under tyrants. (Mohammed Atta came from Cairo.) The
Brotherhood narrowly won a free and fair election. If they fail, throw
them out next time. That’s democracy.
Is it tyranny that bred terrorism? Is it poverty? (Mohammed Atta came from a solid middle class
background.) It is rather ideology. And it is the ideology espoused by
the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood may be better at hiding its
true beliefs and may have adulterated some beliefs in the pursuit of
political power, but its extreme views are the views of the terrorists
who have declared war on us.
Of course, if the Muslim Brotherhood actually adopted politically
moderate positions despite their ideology, it would be worthwhile to
engage them. But what if they are adopting or threatening to adopt
positions at odds with American interests, why not cut them off? It
wouldn't be because the United wanted them to fail, but because they
chose to take American aid and then kick sand in our face.
One hallmark of democracy is a free press. President Morsi has shut down
a number of media outlets he didn't like. Given its control of much of
society and its organization, the Muslim Brotherhood really doesn't need
to worry about the next election. With people like Roger Cohen
apologizing for them (just as he did for the Iranian regime) it will
make their suppression of democracy that much easier.
But there's another danger that the Muslim Brotherhood presents. Just after the Emir of Kuwait handed Hamas a major diplomatic victory by visiting Gaza, Hamas launched another round of attacks against Israel. Barry Rubin gives some context to this escalation:
There are two important factors in this latest offensive. First, the
attacks from Hamas and the smaller groups it allows to operate from the
Gaza Strip are increasing. Second, an emboldened Hamas is now more
directly involved in these operations. This trend is a direct result of the fact that Hamas now feels secure
in that its Muslim Brotherhood allies are governing Egypt and allowing
more, and apparently more advanced, military equipment to enter the Gaza
Strip. The danger is that as the Brotherhood consolidates power in Cairo and
Hamas becomes even more confident it will at some point open a war
against Israel. Such a conflict would bring even more Brotherhood-Hamas
cooperation and such things as escalated attacks across the Egypt-Israel
border and the entry of Egyptian volunteers into the fighting. An
Egyptian army that has been purged by the Brotherhood regime will not
pose an independent barrier to such a situation, which could lead to
Cairo being dragged into war with Israel.
Cohen's thesis of the temperate nature of the Muslim Brotherhood were
obsolete before the pixels were illuminated on the screen. Hamas's
latest escalation is further proof of how asinine his analysis is.
About six weeks ago, US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (pictured at top left) led a Congressional delegation on a tour of the repressive Syrian regime. Ten days ago, US Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice met with Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem on the sidelines of a conference on Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh. In today's Jerusalem Post, Professor Barry Rubin looks at some of the 'results' of kissing up to the Syrian regime:
Mamoun Homsi is a courageous pro-democracy activist who had been one of the few independent members of Syria's puppet parliament. In March 2002 he was thrown out of the legislature and sentenced to five years in prison. As he was dragged off to jail, Homsi shouted, "This is a badge of honor to me and others like me. Long live the people!"
Released after four years in 2006, Homsi immediately left the country, saying there was no possibility of changing the regime by reform, and that any criticism would bring more imprisonment.
Homsi wrote Pelosi a letter urging her not to visit Syria as such a step would only strengthen the regime. Last week, the government seized all of his assets in the country, leaving his family destitute.
KAMAL LABWANI, head of the Liberal Democratic Gathering, visited the US in 2005, including meetings with human rights‚ groups and a trip to the White House. He told the Americans he saw that he would be arrested once he got back home. Sure enough, the Syrian police grabbed him at Damascus airport in November 2005.
But he was not tried. After all, the regime reasoned, perhaps the US might get even tougher with Syria if they repressed a man who had just been a White House guest. Last week, confident that the current administration and its presumed Democratic successors were caving in, the government sentenced Labwani to life imprisonment, which was "kindly" commuted to 12 years with hard labor.
The charge? "Inciting a foreign state to attack Syria."
That's not all. Anwar al-Bunni, a lawyer and another brave dissident, knew what held Syria back from crushing any dissent. Back in 2003 he explained: "The government's fear that it will be next on America's 'regime change' list may make it wary of committing gross violations of human rights... Some of us say that it is only because of what America did in Iraq, the fright it gave our rulers, that we reformers stand a chance here."
Bunni was proven right. Once Syria no longer had any fear, the regime sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.
On Sunday, three democracy activists were sentenced to three to 10 years in prison, including Michel Kilo. An articulate journalist who most clearly expressed the hope of peaceful change in Syria, Kilo was sentenced to three years in prison on charges of "spreading false news" and "weakening national feeling."
Blogger Harry's Place notes that the basis for the charges against Kilo, who was sentenced along with activist Mahmoud Issa, was that they signed a petition(!) last year calling on Syria to seek better relations with Lebanon.
Syrian blogger Ammar Abdulhamid - now living in the Washington DC area - is decidedly pessimistic:
The trials of the past four years to be specific also serve to demonstrate that unless there is a consistent long-term international consensus for isolating such rogue regimes, the situation will almost always end in their favor, for managing external crises is a skill that these regimes have had plenty of time to develop and hone. Meanwhile, the situation can always be used as an excuse for a continuing internal crackdown on basic liberties, and all signs of dissent.
So, and as the US gradually turns its attention inward and gets immersed again with the usual partisan politics of the elections, the belligerence of the Syrian regime, and all others in the region, just look at the continuing crackdown against bloggers in Egypt and Bahrain and the arrest of Haleh Esfandiari in Iran, will only increase. The lion will continue to devour the flock, with an appetite rendered more voracious with rage.
Do all dictators have to look like Saddam or Ahmadinejad to be convincing? Isn’t their record of misdeeds enough, especially when it reads more like a rap sheet?
No. Not in partisan America, where image is everything. So long as the voracious lion looks like a lanky smiling gentle-looking giraffe, who is often accompanied by an equally lanky smiling gentle-looking wife, the American public can be allowed to be fooled. The pundits have spoken.
It is clear now that Bashar is going to have a joyride though the American media over the next few months, and will receive a kiddy glove treatment by most pundits even while his goons deliver stiff jail terms to dissidents in contravention to all international norms in this regard.
And why should they not behave with such impunity, they have just been “engaged?”
Anwar, Kamal and soon Michel, are the first casualties of engagement. And that’s only the beginning.
Out of all the coverage of Ahmadinejad's visit to New York, I found this short bit on how the story is being covered in Iran most interesting.
PJM’s Ardeshir Arian reports the following from inside Iran regarding Ahmadinejad’s speech today:
1) VOA Television nightly services on HotBird and TeleStar 12 satellites were disrupted in Tehran for about 20 minutes, as soon as he was to be introduced at Columbia university’s podium. Iranian citizens did not hear the criticism of Ahmadinejad by Columbia President Bollinger. The way the Islamic Republic does this is to scramble the signals of these satellites locally, using stationary and mobile microwave dishes.
2) It has been rumored from inside Iran that one of the conditions for Iranian-American Haleh Esfandiari’s release from Evin Prison was for Ahmadinejad to give his speech at Columbia University and to visit Ground Zero. Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia was canceled last year.
Yesterday, I blogged a story that said that Ahmadinejad's appearance in New York was a quid pro quo for the release of Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh on bail. It's unlikely we will never know the truth on that one.
But the first item is the more interesting one. I suppose that if Iranians heard what the West thinks of their President, there might be some more gas stations burning.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
