Thursday, November 26, 2020
- Thursday, November 26, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
Madame President, Honourable Members, thank you very much for having this opportunity to address you today on a very important issue, the geopolitical implications of the recent agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and, recently, Sudan. And maybe many more in the future.On behalf of the European Union, I have welcomed these announcements...However, although these agreements bring positive developments, it is clear that they all focus on the broader regional picture.... As we have always said, there will not be sustainable peace and stability in the region without a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and, in particular, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the basis of a negotiated and viable two-state solution, built upon the internationally agreed parameters.
This normalisation of the relations has to be considered within the complex reality in the region. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have never been technically at war with Israel. So, to call that a peace agreement without having had a war may be an exaggeration.
Normalization is much, much more significant than a technical peace agreement - but Borell wants to pretend that it is no big deal.
But, as I said, in any case it is a positive approach that reflects a somewhat transactional rather than transformative approach....
It is clear that this normalisation comes after other strategic considerations, such as gaining military [advantages] – F35 fighters for the Emirates - or economic advantages - economic deals with Emirates and Bahrain - or for Sudan, a major gain to get out of its international isolation, by taking it off from the States Sponsors of Terrorism list, which is a major win for Sudan and its economy is on the verge of collapse and baldy needs outside investment. All these things, for sure, are being taken into consideration in these kind of agreements.
Saying it is not transformative reveals Borell's own wishful thinking, not reality. It shows that he is really uncomfortable with peace happening in ways that the EU wasn't involved in, using a paradigm that the EU still rejects.
(h/t Irene)
- Thursday, November 26, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
Wednesday, November 25, 2020
- Wednesday, November 25, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
- Opinion, Richard Landes, Vic Rosenthal
Binyamin Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by prize recipient Lord David Trimble, who got it in 1998. Trimble was honored for his part in negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement that brought relative peace to Northern Ireland.
In my opinion, the Abraham Accords represent the first ray of light in the darkness of the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948, and if I were a Nobel recipient I would have nominated Donald Trump and Jared Kushner as well.
Of course the chances of Netanyahu receiving anything but abuse from the “international community” of which the Nobel committee is a pillar, are close to zero. The United Nations and the human rights industry, much of it set up in direct response to the industrial murder of European Jewry by the Nazis and their enthusiastic helpers over almost all of Europe, have ironically embraced the would-be genocidaires of the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the revolutionary Iranian regime. Especially since the year 2000 (see this brilliant analysis by Mark Pickles and Richard Landes), international institutions and NGOs have picked up and carried the flags of misoziony and Judenhass relinquished by the Soviets and the Nazis.
The USA was more or less neutral with respect to Israel (although its Jewish community strongly supported her) until the 1973 war, when it adopted Israel as its Cold War proxy. But soon after, thanks to OPEC’s devastatingly effective “oil weapon,” US policy became ambivalent. Henry Kissinger negotiated multifaceted agreements with the Arabs which resulted in ending the oil boycott; but one of the conditions was that the US would work to restore all territory conquered by Israel in 1967 to Arab control. Until Trump’s presidency, this was firm American policy, followed by relatively pro-Israel presidents like Clinton and Bush II, less friendly ones like Bush I, and anti-Israel ones like Carter and Obama alike.
The policy required a certain degree of cognitive dissonance from American politicians (not to mention the liberal Jews that supported them). It was necessary for them to advocate the transfer of strategically essential territory from Israeli to Arab control, while still at least appearing to support Israel’s continued survival. This they did by providing military aid. A master stroke, the massive aid package for Israel and Egypt that began with the Camp David agreement got Israel out of the Sinai, provided the US with leverage to control Israel’s behavior, and enriched American defense contractors. Later, it served as a fig leaf to hide the dangers of withdrawal inherent in demands for Israel to leave Gaza, the Golan, and Judea and Samaria.
Anti-Israel politicians like Barack Obama had less of an internal struggle than friendly ones. With the help of the Israeli Left, he argued counterfactually that security would come from territorial concessions. His policy was to weaken Israel while pretending to help her, for example by phasing out the portion of the military aid that could be used to buy from Israel’s own military industry. No matter what he did to damage Israel’s strategic position, he could always point to those billions of dollars in military hardware as proof of his support for the Jewish state. But whether an administration was friendly or not, the policy was always fundamentally incoherent. It also distorted internal Israeli politics, leading to disasters like the Oslo Accords.
Trump turned everything upside down. New technology that increased oil production in North America and various other developments had defused the oil weapon. In addition, some of the important Middle Eastern oil producers were worried about Iranian expansionism and its nuclear program, and realized that Israel could be an indispensable ally in opposing it. American interests were now seen to lie with a strong Israel, in truth and not just in rhetoric.
So for the first time since 1973, Trump’s administration was able to introduce a reality-based policy, affirming the rationality of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, and ending the obsequious treatment of the frankly terrorist PLO and its dictatorial Palestinian Authority. Under the Trump plan, the Palestinians would be required to give up their maximalist demands and make real compromises, if they wanted a state of any kind.
But as almost everyone finally admits, the clock has run out. There will not be a second Trump Administration. The new one, depressingly, seems firmly wedded to the old paradigm. Although most (not all!) of his appointments do not appear to be overt enemies of the Jewish state, Biden seems likely to restore the traditional deference (and funding) to the Palestinians, as well as to try to reopen negotiations about the JCPOA with Iran, which at the very least implies that sanctions on Iran will be reduced.
This is not because Biden and his people are idiots. They are fully aware that things have changed, and that the oil weapon no longer threatens America. But now the pressure comes from the home front. They can’t afford to alienate the misozionist left wing of the Democratic party, which has grown stronger in Congress. They don’t worry about American Jews, for whom Israel has little weight when they vote. They can ignore the Evangelicals, who will support Republicans anyway over social issues like abortion and LGBTx rights. And of course, they want to wipe out any traces of Trumpism. Staying in power and achieving domestic objectives is more important to them than logical consistency, or the negative consequences for America’s allies in the Middle East.
So we will go back to hearing platitudes about the “unbreakable” US-Israel relationship, while the administration complains about Israel building apartments in Jewish neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem. What appeared to be a real possibility that Israel would extend sovereignty to the Jordan Valley – an area of extreme strategic importance – will fade away. We’ll watch as the US goes back to pretending that the failed and antisemitic United Nations can play a positive role in any sphere, and that the PLO can be made into a peace partner. Sanctions on Iran will be relaxed, emboldening the regime to push ahead on the ground and with its nuclear and missile programs.
A dark picture. Israel has a difficult four or eight years ahead of her, at least. There will be little room for mistakes and missed opportunities. It looks like we will shortly go through yet another round of elections. Is it too much to ask that we end up with a government equal to the task?
Ruthie Blum: Can anti-Semites combat anti-Semitism?
If George Orwell is spinning in his grave these days, he's likely rolling so hard with laughter that it's bringing him and the rest of us to tears. An upcoming webinar on Jew-hatred is but one of many recent examples of phenomena that even the prescient social critic, whose essays and novels predicted with chilling accuracy the world that has unfolded since World War II, couldn't have anticipated.When Anti-Zionism becomes Anti-Semitism
The Dec. 15 event – called "Dismantling Antisemitism, Winning Justice" – is being hosted by the left-wing, anti-Israel NGO Jewish Voice for Peace, and moderated by JVP and JVP Action deputy director Rabbi Alissa Wise.
Its equally radical co-sponsors are JVP Action, If Not Now, United Against Hate, Jewish Currents, Foundation for Middle East Peace, Arab American Institute, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, the Jewish Vote, and the People's Collective for Justice and Liberation.
According to JVP, anti-Semitism "is used to manufacture division and fear, [and] while anyone can fuel it, [it] always benefits the politicians who rely on division and fear for their power."
The group didn't have to specify which "politicians" it has in mind, but it's obvious that they are in the camp of US President Donald Trump. The stated aim of the online happening is to "explore how to fight back against anti-Semitism and against those that seek to wield charges of antisemitism to undermine progressive movements for justice."
Again, the reference is clear: Trump's team and voters are simultaneously guilty of anti-Semitism and of hurling false allegations of anti-Semitism at innocent progressives, whose only wrongdoing is to seek peace and justice.
To engage in this "discussion," whose purpose is to reach a foregone conclusion – namely, that anti-Semitism is spread by the Republican right – the sponsors of the conference enlisted four apt anti-Israel panelists: Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), columnist Peter Beinart, Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill and the University of Illinois at Chicago academic Barbara Ransby.
Context provides one clue. Political attitudes and statements do not take place in a vacuum. And over the past few years there is no doubt that there has been a palpable rise in overtly threatening anti-Semitic sentiment, a rise that by no means has been limited to college campuses. This sentiment has also, alarmingly, metamorphosed into action.
This is the context, a fraught atmosphere, in which anti-Semitism is becoming increasingly acceptable and, for some, easily translated into virulent anti-Israel attitudes. Israel becomes the easily available vessel into which long-repressed, traditional, anti-Jewish attitudes can be poured.
This applies to the question of double standards. Some consistently portray Israel in demonic, evil terms ignoring its democratic parliamentary system and the increasing integration of its Arab citizens into the life of the country. It is a lie to accuse Israel of engaging in apartheid, racism and ethnic cleansing. It is this special venom, this single-minded animus, this double-standard that masks an anti-Zionism that is no less than an anti-Semitism repackaged.
The best way to address anti-Semitism is to understand it. In order to understand it one needs to be able to define it. Adoption of the complete International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition and examples of anti-Semitism is a critical first step to stopping Jew hatred in its tracks. If the United Nations, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates can do it, so too should any American institution be able to.
All this is taking place in a self-righteous, moralistically indignant “cancel culture’” intent on demonizing and delegitimizing the other. Thankfully, the First Amendment permits free speech, which also permits hateful speech, whether racist or anti-Semitic. The answer to hate speech is more speech, not silencing other viewpoints or excluding individuals because of their race, ethnicity or religion.
Universities properly condemn all forms of injustice and they need to begin to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination, a right of all peoples. No student should feel that there is a conflict between standing up for social and racial justice and compromising their identity; no Jewish student should feel that they should conceal their identity because they feel a connection to the State of Israel (or out of fear abandon that connection).
Both faith and their historical experience have rendered Jews particularly sensitive to discrimination of all kinds. Either when it is explicit or when it is in the form of dog whistles, these exclusionary measures are unacceptable. As Lauren Nesher, a senior at UIUC said: “The answer to anti-Semitic speech is never to do nothing. Just like the answer to racist speech is never to do nothing.”
Jews are America’s most abused minority.
— Israel Advocacy Movement (@israel_advocacy) November 24, 2020
FBI data recorded Jews being subject to…
🔸 Twice as many hate crimes as trans folk
🔸 Three times as many as black folk
🔸 Four times as many as Muslims
This is what #JewishPrivilege looks like. pic.twitter.com/F7XjmYyFOD
- Wednesday, November 25, 2020
- Varda Meyers Epstein (Judean Rose)
- Judean Rose, Opinion, Varda
Shirley Kopelman Meyers, January 10, 1927-November 8, 2020 |
I like to tell people I made aliyah when I was young and stupid and that that’s the way to do it. When I made aliyah at the age of 18, I wasn’t thinking about what it would be like to have an aging parent far away, and not be able to help. I didn’t think about how, someday, in middle age, I would long to care for my mother, as I only I would have cared for her had I been there. But I was not there, except in fits and starts, two-week visits that were somehow never enough for either of us. And now she’s gone.
In the middle of the morning, the message came: “Our mother
went to the true world this morning.”
I was not even surprised. I had seen it coming. She was 93.
She was fading. This was Sunday morning, and she had fallen asleep in the
middle of our last phone call, on Thursday night.
I watched her funeral on Zoom. Which was a blessing. I
always knew I would not be going to the States for her funeral, as she had
forbidden me to do so, some years ago.
A child of the Great Depression, my mother was practical.
She didn’t see the point of me spending all that money on a ticket when she
wouldn’t even be there to see me. Never mind that in some respects, the rituals
are for those who remain. My mother had made her wishes clear, and I was stuck
with respecting those wishes, and her.
Had there not been a pandemic, perhaps no one would have thought to set up that Zoom funeral I got to see, so at least I had that: the beautiful chill autumn day, some red and gold leaves still on the trees in the Beth Shalom Cemetery, in Millvale, Pa.
We visited my dad a few years ago. Now she is next to him. |
On the other hand, had there not been a pandemic, I might have been able to see her one last time. But I was terrified at the thought of picking up the virus during my travels and that I might somehow, unwittingly, bring it to her, when I loved her almost as much as life itself. The thought of making her sick was paralyzing, in its most literal meaning. That thought kept me here in place in Israel, and far away from her.
And I think that was difficult for her. Knowing that I wasn’t going to be there that one more time. Perhaps—at least a little—she gave up hope that I would ever come again. It was not going to happen: a thing that made life worth living when she could no longer walk, see or hear, a visit from her baby.
It hurts that I hurt her that way. And it hurts that I
lost my mom. But in spite of the terrible pain of losing my mother—of missing
out on being able to care for her as only I would have cared for her—in spite of
depriving her of my presence at the end, and missing her funeral, I do not
regret making aliyah. “Non, je ne
regrette rien.”
I regret nothing.
Is aliyah a
selfish act? In some ways, no doubt, it is.
There’s no doubt it was excruciating for my mother not to
have me with her all these years, when she loved and needed me so. It was I who
picked up and left Pittsburgh to make aliyah
to Israel. I who made the decision, and simply did it—made aliyah—when I was young and stupid, and
unaware of what the future held. It was painful for my mother to not be close
by my children, her grandchildren, whom she loved so dearly.
I put out photos of my mother in the shiva house, and there was one photo where you could see just the
edge of her face, and she was glowing with love for a newborn grandchild she
held, and you could see it, that love, though much of the picture was in
shadow, including the object of her love, obscured. How it must have
hurt her, to be so far away from them,
her grandchildren, whom she would have loved to have cuddled and loved and
known.
As evening fell on the day my mother died, Z”L, my rabbi’s
wife came to my house to help me do kria,
to help me tear my shirt just over the heart, as one does for a mother. “This
is the price of aliyah,” I said to
her, and she knew what I meant: that I hadn’t been there to care for my mother
or be with her at the end, that I was observing the rituals from a distance: that
I wasn’t there.
It was all a part of the price: the price of aliyah.
She issued no bromides or platitudes, my rabbi’s wife. My rabbi’s wife, who is wise, said something I’ve held onto, during the past two weeks, through my shiva and the days that followed. “Look,” she said in her quiet voice. “That’s Lech Lecha. You did Lech Lecha.”
This was a reference to the Torah portion not long past, Lech Lecha, in which God directs Abram to leave his native land and all that he knew, for a “land that I will show thee.”
Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.’ Genesis 12:1
One can only imagine the depth of Abram’s faith, leaving his
father’s house like that with no second thoughts. But I was no Abram. The
repercussions of the act were not clear to me at the time of the act: It is not
an easy thing to leave a mother, or to leave all that I knew. I gave up one
life for another, yet the shock and the pain of it all, came on only over
time. It was a gradual sinking in.
And now that I’ve experienced this loss, I think that had I known how painful this all would be—the not being there—the enormity of this thing, I might not have made aliyah, at all.
I don’t think I could have done it, though I regret nothing, “Non, je ne regrette rien.”
It was the right thing to do, to make aliyah, and I’m glad, every day, that I did.
I didn’t know what I was doing at the time. I only longed
and yearned to be here in Israel and I made it happen. But there was a cost to aliyah that makes Israel and my living
here, all the more dear to my heart. I put my people ahead of myself, and even
my own dearest mother, z"l, by moving to Israel. And how can I regret the chance to
play a part in this noble project, the building of our national home, making
Israel stronger, just by dint of being here?
“Non, je ne regrette rien.”
I wish that things had been different. I wish that my mother hadn’t fit into Pittsburgh the way I wished I fit Israel: like a glove. Because then she might have come here and I could have taken care of her. She would have had the chance to really know her Israeli grandchildren and great grandchildren, growing up under a different sun, proud and free in the Jewish State.
Instead of snatching a few weeks here, a few weeks there, for a birth or a bar mitzvah.
But it was understood: my mother was a Pittsburgher, born
and bred, and she would never live anywhere else. It was who she was.
And the truth is, it is who I was, and the last several
times I visited there, I found myself touching the trees, and the buildings,
the low walls and soaring yellow street lights, and would shed a tear or two as I said goodbye, over and over again.
The smells of that place! The sight of that curb, that hill, this tree! A
sensory experience that reached down to me, toward some primal place, an essence.
But Israel had called, had always called, that nobler cause
from afar, from when I was little. This too, was me. Perhaps the ultimate me,
the place I had to grow into. The place I had to earn.
Yes, I was young and stupid when I made aliyah. I hadn’t seen the cost. But no. From afar, from this
distance, I regret nothing.
“Non, je ne regrette rien.”
I regret nothing in part because I live in a wonderful
community that embraced me in my sorrow, came to sit with me, talk with me, cook for me. The people here know they are my family, since my family cannot be
here. And they try hard to fill the breach. They know that I gave up my real
family to be here with them in our land. And that makes them my family, in some
ways more even than the real family I knew as a girl.
But community cannot replace my mother. It is hard to lose a mother. It hurts:
another one more installment on the price of aliyah, which I continue to pay in ways and amounts I never
anticipated, back when I was 18, young, and stupid. I think I never could have
done it—made aliyah—if I’d known the
price, how much it would cost, how much it would hurt.
It’s the kind of knowledge—well, it’s better not to know, to be young and stupid: to dare to just do the thing without knowing what’s ahead, the repercussions of the act. Did Abram know what was ahead, the trials and tribulations? Can anyone really make an informed aliyah, for instance know loss of this sort without having been in it, away from a mother they love, so far away?
Now I can say I’ve been there. I’ve dwelt in the country of my loss and I
know the price of aliyah.
And still, I am here.
Today, and hopefully for a long time, I am here in Israel. And
I do not and will not regret that.
“Non, je ne regrette rien.”
- Wednesday, November 25, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
JPost Editorial: 2020 brought us COVID-19, but it also brought a new Middle East
In Israel, too, media reviews of 2020 will surely not place it in a positive light, especially given the loss of nearly 3,000 lives to COVID-19 and the havoc that the pandemic has wrought on people’s livelihoods and the country’s economy. In addition, 2020 has proven to be yet another year of political dysfunction and instability.
But not all has been dismal. This year will also go down in Israeli history as the one when the Jewish state took enormous strides, via peace and normalization treaties with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan, to further break out of its long regional isolation.
For a few weeks back in September, it seemed to be raining peace agreements. And on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Neom, Saudi Arabia, with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
No, this was not the first time that senior Israeli and Saudi officials have met, nor did the meeting lead to any dramatic announcement regarding the establishment of formal ties. But that the meeting was leaked to the public – and it beggars belief that this would have happened without the consent of all the parties – sends important messages to various significant audiences.
The first audience is US president-elect Joe Biden. The message to Biden is simple: the Mideast table has been reset – including a spanking new Israel-UAE-Saudi place setting – that he and his new administration will need to take into account when re-assessing Washington’s Iran policy.
It is no coincidence that this meeting took place now, a few weeks before Biden is set to move into the Oval Office, just as it was no coincidence that the deals with the UAE and Bahrain were consummated just before the US elections.
Is there a new map emerging of countries in the Middle East, and India and Greece, a new system of partnerships, economic, diplomatic and security, shared regional views. I think so, and here's my map: pic.twitter.com/sI3UcRBXoN
— Seth Frantzman (@sfrantzman) November 23, 2020
Dr. Sabah al-Binali: UAE and Israel: A partnership that can help the world
News of the Abraham Accords normalizing diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel has been greeted with enthusiasm across Emirati society.Houda Nonoo: My first trip to Israel – when dream became reality
The positive attitude is being led from the top. One striking example is the website of the Abu Dhabi Investment Office, which appears in Hebrew if you click on it from Israel. They are also running Hebrew promotions across social media and have announced that they will open an office in Israel.
Many business executives in the Gulf already have friends and even business relationships with their Israeli counterparts. Many of us have spent time studying or working in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and established connections with Jewish and Israeli colleagues that in some cases go back decades.
The normalization of diplomatic relations now allows us to build commercial ties on existing social ties, and new ones are already flourishing.
The initial response to the Abraham Accords from Israel’s business community was to welcome the opportunity to access funds in the UAE and Bahrain for investment in Israeli startups. While that is certainly one facet of the new relationship, it is by no means the only one—nor the most significant.
While Israel has been building its Startup Nation in the western Middle East, the UAE has been developing its own high-tech sector over in the east.
Last week, I had the honor and privilege of participating in a delegation led by Foreign Minister H.E. Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani’s to Israel – the first time Bahraini officials landed in Israel, flying on our national carrier, Gulf Air Flight number 972. While it was historic and memorable for all, it was particularly exciting for me as a Bahraini Jew.
This was my very first visit to Israel. As you may know, I was the first Jew to ever be appointed as an ambassador of Bahrain and the first woman to serve as Bahrain’s ambassador to the United States. During my five years serving in Washington, I made many new friends and was often asked if I had been to Israel. I always said, “Not yet.” In my heart, I hoped and prayed for the opportunity, but I was determined to wait for the moment when circumstances would allow such a visit. As a loyal and committed citizen of Bahrain, I naturally respected the reality of the situation. I could only dream. And hope. And wait. And dream some more. Last week, that dream became a reality.
I wish to thank His Majesty, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and His Royal Highness, Prince Salman Bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the Crown Prince and Prime Minister, for their leadership, vision, and courage to lead our nation proudly and boldly into the future through the signing of the Abraham Accords. I, like my fellow Bahraini citizens, express our support and enthusiasm for the opportunity our leaders have seized and the promise it represents to build a better life with security and opportunity for all of us and for future generations still to come.
2020 has been a difficult year for all of us as we continue to battle the pandemic sweeping across the world. However, 2020 was also a historic one in a positive way. It’s when Bahrain, Israel and the United Arab Emirates decided to pave the path forward for a bold vision of the new Middle East. During this time, the world has shifted on its axis in a very positive way. Amid a world dealing with so many difficult issues, a pandemic, economic challenges, social unrest, the Middle East gives all of us a ray of hope.
- Wednesday, November 25, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
- Wednesday, November 25, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
These bigots attacking @RashidaTlaib, Reema Dodin, & others, might as well just come out & say it: they don't believe that Palestinians have the right to speak, to act, or really to exist in American public life, at all, as Palestinians. We should not normalize this in any way.
- Wednesday, November 25, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
Although Joe Biden says he will not move the US Embassy back to Tel Aviv, he will definitely erase other Trump moves - re-opening the PLO office, restoring funding UNRWA, and restoring the Iran deal.
Tuesday, November 24, 2020
How Trump can expose biggest lie in Middle East: Palestinian ‘refugee’ myth
The outgoing Team Trump should issue an updated, unclassified report that provides a current estimate of the number of people receiving UNRWA assistance today who were personally displaced in 1948, aren’t residing within the borders of the Palestinian Authority and aren’t citizens or permanent residents of another country, such as Jordan.
This number should be easy to estimate by simply requesting figures from Israeli, Palestinian, UN, Jordanian and other Mideast officials. The public release of these figures could spark an international debate over UNRWA’s mandate. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo should also announce an official US policy change that for purposes of future US funding and planning, Palestinian refugees are narrowly defined as people who were personally displaced from then-Palestine between 1948 and 1949 and aren’t currently citizens or permanent residents of the Palestinian Authority or any country.
Such a move would challenge the notion that UNRWA is a refugee agency and demonstrate how it instead has kept people in poverty. Unlike the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which has a mandate to resettle refugees, UNRWA has encouraged multiple generations of helpless people to remain erroneously identified as refugees.
The policy change would thus upend the mythology of a Palestinian “right of return” — making it clear that Israel determines who becomes Israeli citizens, not a UN agency. With all of this established, destitute Palestinians living in the West Bank might finally be encouraged to lead economically productive lives within a future Palestinian state.
The United States should not be alone in this effort. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are among the agency’s top contributors. As they look to a future of peaceful coexistence with Israel, they can influence UNRWA’s mandate and remove a significant historical hindrance to the peace process. American allies in Europe may also quietly seek to reduce UNRWA’s unending financial burden. They, too, may be persuaded to join a reform coalition.
UNRWA has done enough damage. It’s time for reform.
The Peace Illusion
It is not surprising that Israelis, including those, like Schwartz and Wilf, who want a two-state solution to the conflict, will not accept the putative right of return. What is surprising and dismaying is that Western governments, including that of the United States, have failed to recognize the centrality and pernicious character of this demand. How, then, should the Biden Administration approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict beginning in 2021?Jonathan S. Tobin: The man Israel left behind and the damage left with him
First, it should follow the lead of the Trump Administration, which declined to continue to fund UNRWA, and seek to abolish that agency. In their concluding chapter, the authors of The War of Return offer some helpful suggestions for how to do so. Second, the new administration should make clear to the Palestinian authorities that the necessary condition for the continuation of an American-sponsored peace process is a clear, unambiguous, publicly and repeatedly stated renunciation of the right of return. By retaining their claim to this right, the Palestinians signal that they continue to pursue the destruction of Israel, in which case no settlement is possible.
Third, the Biden Administration should observe the diplomatic equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath in medicine: it should do no harm. Persisting in trying to broker an agreement while the Palestinians insist on a right of return does do harm. It encourages the Palestinians to believe, or at least to hope, that the American government does not oppose the elimination of Israel, which in turn gives them reason to continue to seek it. As long as they call for millions of people to be able to make themselves at home in a country that they have never seen, with the vast majority of whose citizens they do not share a common language, common aspirations, or common values, and whom they have been taught their whole lives to despise, nothing American diplomats can do will end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under such circumstances that is precisely what the United States should do about that conflict: nothing.
What followed was a long-running shadow play in which many American Jews and Israelis portrayed Pollard as a martyr to anti-Semitism—something that only undermined the otherwise strong case for clemency for him and also hardened the desire of U.S. intelligence to keep him in prison in order to make an example of him. Eventually, he even became a bargaining chip in which his release was offered as an inducement to make Israel make territorial concessions in peace negotiations, though in the end, Netanyahu’s efforts to get President Bill Clinton to free him in this manner ultimately failed.Netanyahu phones Pollard: ‘When are we going to see you here? We’re waiting’
While the value of his spying and the damage he did to America remains a matter of debate, what isn’t in question is that this affair created unnecessary tension between the two allies that lasted for decades.
Just as bad was the shadow that his spying cast on the loyalty of every Jew working in the Pentagon. Indeed, U.S. authorities spent many years hounding Jewish personnel searching for another mythical Israeli spy, harming the careers of many Jews. It also fed into an anti-Semitic narrative that dovetailed with the “Israel Lobby” myth that portrayed the United States as being ruthlessly manipulated by Jews who were more loyal to Israel than to America.
It is only right that the ordeal of the spy, who paid far more dearly than he should have for his mistakes (Pollard served more time in prison than many murderers), is over. Let’s hope that after so much suffering, he finds some peace in Israel and will avoid doing anything that will fuel a revival of the controversy he engendered.
But it is just as important that his many supporters not misinterpret what happened to him as being solely a morality tale of a heroic Jew who was persecuted by anti-Semites for helping Israel. Both the hapless Pollard and his cynical Israeli handlers—none of whom were ever truly held accountable for their part in this fiasco—supplied ammunition to those anti-Semites who falsely claim that there is a contradiction between being an American patriot and having a deep concern for Israel. Sadly, that will remain Jonathan Pollard’s true legacy long after he has completed his journey to the Jewish state.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday spoke by phone with Jonathan Pollard, telling the former US Navy analyst convicted of spying for Israel that the Jewish state is waiting for him to move here after his parole ended.
“When are we going to see you here? We’re waiting for you,” Netanyahu told Pollard, speaking in English.
Pollard’s reply, which caused Netanyahu to chuckle, could not be heard.
“You should feel comfortable and you should really feel at home,” the prime minister added.
He also promised to make sure Pollard’s wife Esther gets the cancer treatment she needs.