Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, December 25, 2020

Egypt gives up on Palestinian unity, closes its representative office to the PA in Gaza

After almost 14 years of the Hamas/Fatah split, it appears that Egypt has given up on any hope of reconciliation between them.

On Wednesday, Egypt has permanently closed its representative office in the Gaza Strip.

A delegation from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, which arrived in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, supervised the transport of the remaining furniture in the office back to Egypt.

Egypt kept its office closed but ready for rapid re-opening for nearly 14 years, since the Hamas takeover of Gaza.

About four years ago, Egypt stopped renting the house of their consulate general in Gaza and moved its contents to this office which is on Al-Thawra Street in Gaza City.

Only three months ago, to much fanfare, Hamas and Fatah held reconciliation talks in Turkey. Much of the world actually believed that this time the two groups would unify; they even announced a date for national elections.

All of that fell apart, as it had many times before.

Apparently Egypt has finally had enough.

Disgust over the Palestinian inability to govern itself has been one of the reasons the Arab world has been more open to relations with Israel. it has become increasingly untenable to boycott Israel in order to support Palestinians who couldn't even agree on who their leaders are.

There was no immediate comment from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry on the office closing.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The Night Before Christmas, Iranian version (@JSchanzer)

Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, created this updated version of the famous poem A Visit from St. Nicholas, with as bit of a twist:

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the region

Not a creature was stirring, but Iran’s foreign legion;

The rockets they placed in the Mideast with care,

In hopes that the Quds Force

soon would be there;

The weapons were nestled

all snug in their places,

While visions of war

put grins on their faces;

In Syria the bombs burst

with a terrible clap,

While the U.N. settles in

for a long winter's nap.

The war grinds on,

Russia spreads more confusion.

More S400 sales are a foregone conclusion.

Trump from the White House tweeting “Syria withdrawal!”

America’s footprint grows increasingly small.

What Biden does next,

nobody knows.

But the fear is a deal that empowers these foes.

Then who to my wondering eyes should appear,

But Esmail Ghani

from the Republic of Fear.

It used to be Qassem,

so lively and quick.

But American drones made quick work of that prick.

Now it’s on Ghani

to continue the game.

In some ways he’s different,

but he’s more of the same.

A bundle of weapons

he brings in his sack,

He’s a peddler of death,

and remorse he does lack.

But his eyes lack that twinkle.

He’s not quite as sly.

Soleimani’s the one for whom Supreme Leader does cry.

Still, the plan is in place

and his control does expand,

with the terrorist groups

that Iran does command.

To fight for the cause,

one by one they all came.

Ghani whistled, and shouted,

and called them by name;

"Now, Hezbollah! Now, Hamas!

now, Shiite militias!

Those Mahan air routes

are so damn suspicious!

To the border with Israel!

Through tunnels we’ll crawl!

We can also hit Saudi!

Bombs away all!"

The refugees shiver

amidst new-fallen snow,

The Levantine land bridge,

It continues to grow.

The IRGC plan,

It’s as clear as can be.

It’s precision munitions

But there’s nothing to see.

It’s all underground,

It’s all out of sight,

Human shields will get hit

But Iran gets off light.

It’s Christmas tomorrow

Nobody will talk of this plight

HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,

AND TO ALL A GOOD-NIGHT!

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

12/24 Links Pt2: Daniel Pipes: Arabs and Muslims increasingly accept Israel even as the global left rejects it; HRW's Anti-Israel Agenda; UN Watch: The Top 10 Worst UN Actions of 2020

From Ian:

Daniel Pipes: Arabs and Muslims increasingly accept Israel even as the global left rejects it

That four Arab states in four months normalized relations with Israel is a remarkable development that opens the possibility that the Arab states’ war with Israel, which began in 1948, is winding down.

But there is more good news, less visible and also potentially momentous: a change taking place among the people who constitute Israel’s ultimate enemy, its Arab citizens. This sector may finally begin to end its self-imposed political isolation and recognize the Jewish state.

First, some background: About 600,000 Arabs fled as Israel came into existence, including most of the educated, leaving 111,000 behind, mostly peasants. That rump population then multiplied many through the decades, supplemented by a steady influx of immigrants (in what I call the “Muslim aliya”); Israel’s Arabs now number 1.6 million, or about 18% of the country’s population.

That population long ago escaped its rural confines, having become educated, mobile and connected. By now, it has included a supreme court judge and a government minister, ambassadors, businessmen, professors and many others of distinction.

Despite this impressive progress, the community has consistently voted for radical and anti-Zionist representation in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. While its members (MKs) have differed sharply among themselves in ideology, dividing into Palestinian nationalist, pan-Arab nationalist, Islamist and leftist, all reject Israel’s Jewish nature.

Gerald M. Steinberg: Human Rights Watch's Anti-Israel Agenda

Human Rights Watch (HRW) was founded as Helsinki Watch by the late Robert Bernstein in 1978, and has grown to become one of the most influential international NGOs active in this arena. However, the organization and its leaders have been strongly criticized, including by its own founder, Bernstein, for acting against its original mission, and for deep-seated political and ideological bias.

The influence of HRW is reflected in its intense involvement in the UN and the International Criminal Court. Its Israel-focused activities are fundamentally different from its role on other topics and countries on HRW's agenda, and contrast strongly with norms of universality and political neutrality.

The History of Soviet Jewish Hijackers—and Why It Matters

On Dec. 24, 1970, the Leningrad municipal court issued verdicts in the cases of 11 defendants in a case that would transform the Jewish world, the State of Israel, and the Soviet Union itself. The court sentenced two defendants, Mark Dymshits, age 43, a former military pilot, and Eduard Kuznetsov, age 30, a dissident who had already done seven years in the gulag, to death by firing squad. Seven defendants, ages 21 to 30, were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in labor camps, with two receiving shorter sentences. Their crime: attempting to hijack a Soviet airplane in order to escape to Israel. With two exceptions, all the defendants were Jews.

The story of the Leningrad hijacking plot is one of the most powerful stories of Jewish courage and commitment in the last half century of diaspora history. It turns the narrative about passive, silent Soviet Jews on its head, shining a spotlight on the true heroes of the struggle for Soviet Jewry—Soviet Jewish activists themselves. Most important, it offers profound lessons about the meaning and value of Jewish identity, and the need to struggle for it, at a time when such lessons are needed more than ever.

Today, it is American Jews who are being conditioned, in ways subtle and overt, to give up slices of their identity. It is American Jews who are facing an onslaught of anti-Semitic attitudes in their political and cultural homes and workplaces. It is American Jews who are being asked to reject their connection to Israel and proclaim themselves to be “privileged” and “white”—and many are meekly or reluctantly falling into line. The story of these Soviet Jews who responded to anti-Semitic attitudes, assimilationist pressures, and vicious anti-Israel and “anti-Zionist” propaganda not by retreating or keeping quiet but by flinging their windows wide open and screaming for all the world to hear is no longer simply part of history, but also a beacon.

The Leningrad plot was as brazen as it was hopeless. Few of its participants believed they would ever get off the ground, let alone fly across the Soviet border. Most viewed their chief objective not as reaching their preliminary destination—the Swedish town of Boden—but in drawing the world’s attention to the virtual prison that the Soviet Jews found themselves in. Their desperate action and defiant words touched the hearts of millions, moving world leaders to act on their behalf and propelling the nascent movement for Soviet Jewry into high gear.

When Jordan didn't allow even Christians to visit Bethlehem....

This NYT article from 1956 is interesting:

Mary Catherine Bateson ended up becoming a famous anthropologist like her mother. She is still alive. But who knew that she knew Hebrew?

Also notice that during Jordan's occupation of Bethlehem, never more than a couple of thousand Christians would make the pilgrimage for Christmas. The NYT made those numbers sound huge. But in recent years, far more Christians could visit and the NYT would make it sound like there were severe limitations in how many could come - because of Israel.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Isolated Iran Encourages April 1945 Hitler: 'You Have Them Right Where You Want Them' (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Berlin ruins 1945 Tehran, December 24 - High-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a message today to boost the confidence of the German Führer hiding in his bunker as the Red Army closed in on Berlin more than seventy-five years ago, urging the Nazi leader to view the developments of the previous two-and-a-half years positively, in that the convergence of several army groups vastly outnumbering the remaining Wehrmacht and irregular German forces on the capital of the Third Reich means that the main body of the Soviet military now lies within striking distance.

"Herr Führer, you have them right where you want them," urged Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif in a communiqué to the April 1945 Adolf Hitler in his Führerbunker. "After a series of Red Army 'victories' on the entire Eastern Front since the winter of 1943, your enemy has grown complacent, and ripe for easy defeat. You have bided your time well, lulling them into what they assume to be a routine of triumph after triumph. Soon you will bring down the hammer that crushes the enemy and energizes the citizens and soldiers of the Reich to restore the glory it has too long been denied."

"The operations at Stalingrad and Kursk were especially convincing," continued the message. "Allowing the Sixth Army to be destroyed, with the masterstroke charade of all the disagreement between you and General Paulus, to make it appear an unmitigated disaster, made all the Soviet 'maskirovka' techniques during the whole war pale by comparison. Then, to follow that up with 'losing the initiative' at Kursk must certainly have nurtured an unhealthy sense of inevitability and invincibility that subsequent Soviet advances only augmented. Now, with the enemy at the gates of Berlin, they will assume their 'final' offensive to be a cakewalk, unaware that the entire time, you, in your proven strategic and tactical brilliance, have orchestrated the entire campaign to lead to this very instant, when you sweep the rug out from under the Slavic horde at the precise moment they have been so expertly conditioned to think will belong to them, and the entire Stalinist edifice comes crashing down like the Jewish-backed Communist house of cards it is. Kudos."

The communiqué also stressed the common Aryan heritage of Hitler's "master race," noting that the term "Aryan" is the very source of the name "Iran." Zarif and the other signatories then expressed the hope that their increasingly-isolated, sanctions-plagued regime can follow a similarly dramatic path to victory as Muslim state after Muslim state joins an emerging anti-Iran coalition that even includes their onetime mutual foe Israel

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

From Tehran Times:

Iranian Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raisi said on Monday that justice-seekers in the world should know that Jesus Christ is unhappy with all these injustices, corruptions, state terrorism and the cruelty against human beings in the world.

“His Majesty Jesus Christ (PBUH) is abhorrent of all these oppression, corruption, terror, especially state terrorism of the American regime, and if he had been (alive) he would not have tolerated all these oppressions which are being committed against the people of the region, especially the oppressed Palestinian people and Yemeni children,” the top Shia cleric asserted.

The senior judge said the message of Jesus Christ is justice, peace and friendship and those who do injustice under his name have in fact nothing to do with him.

Who is Ebrahim Rassi [Raisi]?

Ebrahim Raisi, had been part of the Khomeini regime’s killing machine since he was 18 and played one of the main roles in the bloodbath of the religious fascism at the age of 28 as a member of the 1988 Death Commission.

In the summer of 1988, following a fatwa by Khomeini, over 30,000 political prisoners, mostly members, and supporters of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), were executed in various Iranian prisons, including Evin Prison in Tehran and Gohardasht Prison in Karaj.

Raisi was Tehran’s Deputy Prosecutor at the time.

Since then, he has become a leader in supporting terrorism outside Iran. He was appointed caretaker of Astan-e Quds Razavi, an organization that supports extremist and terror groups financially, maertially and logistically.

He's such a nice guy.

I'm sure Jesus is happy being represented by him.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

12/24 Links Pt1: US begins to label settlement products as ‘Made in Israel’; The Collapse of Palestinian Grand Strategy; Palestinian arrested in suspected terrorist killing of Israeli mother of six

From Ian:

US begins to label settlement products as ‘Made in Israel’

US Customs and Border Protection on Wednesday said an order requiring goods made in Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank to be labeled as “Made in Israel” has come into effect.

The policy shift was announced by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in November following an unprecedented visit to a West Bank settlement, where he visited a winery. It’s unclear whether the incoming Biden administration will uphold the order.

Since 1995, US policy has required products made in the West Bank and Gaza to be labeled as such. That directive was republished in 2016 by the Obama administration, which warned that labeling goods as “made in Israel” could lead to fines. Prior to the Oslo Accords, however, all products manufactured in these areas were required to mention Israel in their label when exporting to the United States.

With Pompeo’s newly announced rules, which he said were “consistent with our reality-based foreign policy approach,” all producers within areas where Israel exercises authority — most notably Area C under the Oslo Accords – will be required to mark goods as Israeli-made.

“This document notifies the public that, for country of origin marking purposes, imported goods produced in the West Bank, specifically in Area C under the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (the Oslo Accords), signed on September 28, 1995, and the area known as ‘H2’ under the Israeli-Palestinian Protocol Concerning Redeployment in Hebron and Related Documents (the Hebron Protocol), signed January 17, 1997, must be marked to indicate their origin as ‘Israel,’ ‘Product of Israel,’ or ‘Made in Israel,'” the US Customs notice said.

Goods manufactured in Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank will be marked as made in the West Bank, while Gaza-produced items must indicate they were made in the Palestinian coastal enclave, the order added, rejecting any joint “West Bank/Gaza” labels that had been permitted since 1997.

The new guidelines were effective as of Wednesday, though importers were given a 90-day grace period to implement the changes.

Perhaps the most important apart in the Israel labelling rule published today: "@StateDept
further advised that it recognizes that Israel has disengaged from Gaza and that Gaza and the West Bank are politically and administratively separate and should be treated accordingly."
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) December 24, 2020

Eugene Kontorovich: Trump Was Right To Recognize Moroccan Sovereignty Over Western Sahara

The Trump administration has achieved yet another success in brokering peace between Israel and the Islamic world, with the recent announcement of normalized relations between Israel and Morocco. The U.S. benefits greatly from good relations between two of its long-standing Middle East allies—and as part of the arrangement, the U.S. agreed to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara. There is nothing unusual about adding "sweeteners" to such deals: The Carter administration, for example, made Egypt one of the largest non-NATO recipients of U.S. aid as a result of the Camp David Accords between Cairo and Jerusalem.

But the Western Saharan recognition has come under attack from those who had long supported unsuccessful policies for resolving the conflict. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton and Former Secretary of State James Baker both penned op-eds lambasting President Trump's move. These criticisms claim that the recognition is a radical departure from both U.S. policy and international law norms. Neither claim has any basis.

First, some background. Western Sahara had never been an independent state; rather, it was a Spanish colony until 1975, when Spanish rule crumbled at the end of the Franco regime. Morocco promptly took control of Western Sahara as the Spanish were on their way out, leading to a three-way conflict with Mauritania and the Algeria-backed Polisario guerrilla group. Morocco prevailed and has administered the territory as its "southern provinces" ever since.

The United Nations has described Morocco's presence as an "occupation" in a couple of resolutions. But much of the international community, including the United States, has taken a more ambiguous position, describing the territory as "disputed" between Morocco and the Polisario, which claims to govern an independent state that it calls the Sahrawi Arabic Democratic Republic. Newsweek subscription offers >

The double-barreled attack on the deal by Baker and Bolton seems designed to give an opening for the Biden administration to renege on the deal, and to cite senior Republican officials as support. But Baker and Bolton are hardly disinterested in this matter. Baker had served as a UN special envoy for the Western Sahara issue and was the author of the latest failed peace plan for the area: a "two-state solution" known as the Baker Plan. Bolton worked for Baker on these issues at the State Department.

The Collapse of Palestinian Grand Strategy

The Palestinian quest for an internationally imposed “solution,” which would not require them to negotiate a compromise deal with Israel, has failed. Palestinian leaders may attempt this again after Joe Biden becomes US president, but this will fail yet again, since the collapse of their past strategy is due to much more than the policies of the Trump Administration. Indeed, evolving regional and global realities allow for a new Israeli peace initiative, which can preserve the underlying principles of the Trump outline for peace.

During the US presidential transition period, Israel faces a challenge and an opportunity regarding the Palestinians. The challenge may result from a Palestinian attempt to co-opt the incoming US Administration and revive its “grand strategy” of international coercion against Israel. However, the underlying assumptions of that strategy are now largely passe. The attempt to isolate Israel and boycott it in the international community, and thus force it into surrender, have thoroughly failed. This is not simply the result of President Trump’s policies (although they contributed to this outcome). Palestinian failures, rather, reflect a profoundly changed landscape, regionally and globally.

Foundational aspects of the regional order have changed. There has been a breakthrough towards peace and normalization with three Arab countries. Moreover, the Arab League (under Egypt’s guidance) refused to consider the Palestinian complaint against “normalizers” and the Abraham Accords. Even European position(s) towards Israel are showing signs of reconsideration, against the background of a violent challenge by Islamist terror.

Rather than reduce the prospects for peace and stability, these developments make them more likely. Many countries around the world want to engage with Israel. Consequently, the Palestinians would be wrong to assume that their strategy of isolating Israel can be revived with Trump’s departure.

JINSA PodCast: Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions

What makes for a good sanctions regime? Is regime change a reasonable policy goal for a sanctions regime? Does COVID-19 change the calculus for economic sanctions? What changes to the U.S. sanctions regime, if any, might we expect during the transition from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration with regards to Iran, Russia, and China? The Hon. Stephen Rademaker, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, joins The National Security Digest to offer his assessment of the U.S. sanctions approach. Mr. Rademaker currently serves as Senior Of Counsel at Covington in D.C, as well as a Senior Advisor to JINSA’s Gemunder Center and a Member of JINSA’s Iran Policy Project.

More Than Just Peace -- It's Normal (Daled Amos)

Seth Frantzman presents an interesting thesis in his op-ed in Newsweek this week. He argues that Israel's Peace Deals Show How Abnormal Israel's Treatment Has Been, based on his recent visit to Dubai -- along with 50,000 other Israelis since November 26.

Noting how normal his experience there felt, and how normal in fact it should feel, Frantzman writes that Israel's isolation within the Arab world is an artificial situation:

However, a concerted campaign over the decades attempted to make it seem acceptable that not only would Israel lack relations with dozens of mostly Muslim countries, but Jewish religious displays themselves would be considered taboo or "controversial" in those places.

...Acceptance of the isolation of Israel and erasure of Jewish history in the Middle East has been an open wound afflicting the whole region. It should never have happened. Israel and some Arab countries fought a war in 1948, and there are legitimate reasons that Palestinians and their supporters opposed Israel's policies. But similar terrible wars, such as that between India and Pakistan in 1948, didn't result in dozens of countries not recognizing India or pretending that Hindus don't exist. Normalization and the presence of diplomatic relations are the most basic geopolitical norms throughout the world. Yet so many politicians, like former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who pushed for engagement with Iran, blindly accepted the fact that so many countries did not normalize ties with Israel. [emphasis added]

Frantzman sees the "anti-Israel crusade" of the past 70 years as the result of antisemitism.

The comparison of Israel with India is an interesting one.

On the one hand, one can argue that unlike India, Israel -- as a Jewish state -- provokes the long-standing animus in the Arab/Muslim world against Jews that is practically hard-wired into Islam. That tension has been evident throughout the Arab world since its beginnings.

Normalization is a Western concept and the goal towards which states work when they resolve conflicts with each other. It is not necessarily an Arab approach -- where hudnah, or truce, is used: a temporary solution, awaiting an auspicious change in the status quo with the enemy.

That is what makes the Abraham Accords so striking -- that it is not the way things are normally done in the Middle East, as opposed to the peace treaties Israel has with Egypt and Jordan, where there is a 'cold' peace and anti-Israel rhetoric there is common. In the Abraham Accords, there are Arab countries that have turned the corner and do not see Israel as the enemy; Egypt and Jordan have not yet been able to do this.

The similarity between India and Israel is in their active pursuit of improving ties, both globally and with the Muslim world in particular.

The Wikipedia article on Foreign relations of India has a list of the countries with which India has forged ties. In the section describing India's ties with the Palestinian Arabs, it says

In the light of a religious partition between India and Pakistan, the impetus to boost ties with Muslim states around the world was a further tie to India's support for the Palestinian cause. [emphasis added]

This claim that India's conflict with Pakistan is a motivator for better relations with Muslim countries is echoed in the descriptions of India's ties with some Muslim countries:

Afghanistan: "The new democratically elected Afghan government strengthened its ties with India in wake of persisting tensions and problems with Pakistan, which is continuing to shelter and support the Taliban"

Bangladesh: "At the outset India's relations with Bangladesh could not have been stronger because of India's unalloyed support for independence and opposition against Pakistan in 1971."

Iran: "After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran withdrew from CENTO and dissociated itself from US-friendly countries, including Pakistan, which automatically meant improved relationship with the Republic of India."

Tajikistan: "India's role in fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and its strategic rivalry with both China and Pakistan have made its ties with Tajikistan important to its strategic and security policies"

And on the flip side:

Saudi Arabia: "India's strategic relations with Saudi Arabia have been affected by the latter's close ties with Pakistan. Saudi Arabia supported Pakistan's stance on the Kashmir conflict and during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 at the expense of its relations with India."

Turkey: "Due to controversial issues such as Turkey's close relationship with Pakistan, relations between the two countries have often been blistered at certain times, but better at others."

In other words, Pakistan has served as an impetus for certain Muslim countries to improve their ties with India, similar to the way Iran has motivated certain Muslim countries to improve their relations with Israel.

While one might argue with Frantzman's contention about how artificial the enmity towards Israel is in the Arab world, it is clear that prior to Trump, US administrations "blindly accepted the fact that so many countries did not normalize ties with Israel." The Trump administration didn't, and orchestrated not just the end of hostilities, but normalized relations between Israel and 4 Muslim states.

In a recent article, Jonathan Tobin describes How Trump Transformed ‘Quid Pro Quo’ From Democratic Slur to Diplomatic Triumph. He notes the opposition, including among Republicans:

That Latin phrase has become a term of abuse among Democrats, ever since it became the totemic phrase used to justify their failed Trump impeachment attempt. But the string of normalization deals showcases a triumphant side of the quid pro quo approach.

Far from indicating a shallow, cynical attitude to governance, these deals show quid pro quo is a swifter, smarter, saner strategy than the very different ideas and tactics pursued by previous administrations.

Tobin describes this quid pro quo approach as transactional diplomacy -- but good luck defining how it is any different from normal diplomacy.

Wikipedia traces transactional diplomacy back to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who focused specifically on regional solutions and working with countries to build up their infrastructure and reducing their reliance on the US. The Christian Science Monitor sees transactional diplomacy as values free and compares it with the US agreeing to reduce its relations with Taiwan in order to improve relations with China or Obama trading sanctions relief in exchange for Iran's agreeing to a nuclear deal.

Tobin's view of transactional diplomacy is pragmatic and is about tossing ideas that don't work:

The point about Trump’s transactional strategy is that it worked. Instead of focusing on maintaining policies that could never achieve any results — such as the unrealistic hope the Palestinians would ever seriously negotiate, and the equally hopeless stalemate in the Western Sahara — Trump seized opportunities to make deals that did advance U.S. interests, rather than allowing himself to be bogged down by diplomatic traditions.

Maybe the Trump administration really is onto something here. No act of diplomacy could have created the kind of warmth and friendship we are seeing between Israel and the UAE.

Maybe that quid pro quo did not so much create peace as remove the roadblocks to it.

And that brings us back to Frantzman's claim that normal relations for Israel, even within the Arab world, may not be such a strange or abnormal idea after all.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas participated in the funeral today Abdel-Rahim Mallouh, who was given full honors.

Mallouh was a major leader of the PFLP terror group and involved with some major terror attacks.,

The funeral was also attended by PA prime minister Muhammad Shtayyeh, members of the Executive Committees of the PLO, the central Fatah movement, the government, and members of his family.

An honor guard was lined up during the arrival of Mallouh's body to the presidential residence, carrying his coffin on soldiers' shoulders, passing in front of a group of honor guards, and playing the Palestinian national anthem and funeral music.

Abbas placed a wreath on his coffin.

Mallouh was one of the co-founders of the PFLP in 1967. He became a PFLP military commander in 1972 and a PFLP politburo member in 1973, and was promoted to be PFLP Deputy Secretary General in 1991.

Israel arrested Mallouh in June 2002 and was sentenced to seven years in prison for his involvement in the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Earlier this week, I wrote about the ‘Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021’’ that:

While there are various strings attached to many of these programs, not a word is in the budget about conditioning aid to Jordan on its extraditing terrorist Ahlam Tamimi to the US.

I was wrong. There is a section of the Act that addresses this situation, without mentioning Jordan, which mimics language from the 2020 Appropriations Act:

SEC. 7055. (a) LIMITATION.—None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to provide assistance ...for the central government of a country which has notified the Department of State of its refusal to extradite to the United States any individual indicted for a criminal offense for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or for killing a law enforcement officer, as specified in a United States extradition request.

(b) CLARIFICATION.—Subsection (a) shall only apply to the central government of a country with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations and with which the United States has an extradition treaty and the government of that country is in violation of the terms and conditions of the treaty.

(c) WAIVER.—The Secretary of State may waive the restriction in subsection (a) on a case-by-case basis if the Secretary certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that such waiver is important to the national interest of the United States.

This year's bill is not yet signed into law, but last year's was, on December 20, 2019.

Which brings up the question: did Mike Pompeo sign a waiver for Jordan to continue to receive aid from the US even though they have refused to extradite Tamimi?

The language of the Act doesn't seem to allow for any other possibility. Yet that does not seem to be Pompeo's style. Reporters at the State Department should ask this question of how exactly Jordan received funds despite its refusal to extradite Tamimi - if Pompeo explicitly authorized the waiver or if something was done further down in the State Department to quietly bypass the rule.

According to this Jordanian news article, some $845 million was given to Jordan in June, way ahead of its original schedule of the end of the year and part of the $1.2 billion given the entire year. It seemed to be done because there were noises from the Trump administration that it would stop aid to Jordan because of Tamimi so some people decided to send the money ahead of time to make any actions moot.

It seems some games were being played to avoid or obfuscate the restriction mentioned in the Act in 2020. And that is unconscionable.

With a new administration, assuming that this section of the Act survives the current attempts to modify it, next year we need to watch to see if Tony Blinken will sign such a waiver or if there are any other ways used to bypass the restrictions. If Jordan continues to receive the $1.65 billion mentioned in the Act (a significant increase from 2020), Blinken must be forced to publicly explain his reasons for going against the will of Congress - and why justice for terror victims is not considered a priority.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

ZDNet published a list of organizations and Internet domains that appear to have been hit by the massive Russian SolarWinds hack.

Security experts reverse-engineered the malware, known as Sunburst, and found dozens of Internet domains that communicated with the Russian command and control center, indicating at least that they were hit with the initial attack. It doesn't mean that they were necessarily further compromised with a second-stage attack.

Major companies like Intel, nVidia and Cisco are on that list, and they have admitted that they were attacked. But the list also includes three Israeli university domains:

mnh.rg-law.ac.il - apparently the College of Law and Business in Ramat Gan

staff.technion.ac.il - Technion
tr.technion.ac.il - Technion

None of these three subdomains are accessible from the Internet, so decoding their names is a very strong indication that they were hit by the malware.

Hopefully they have patched the initial Solarwinds issue and are vigorously investigating what data might have been stolen and whether any additional backdoors or malware were installed in their networks.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

12/23 Links Pt2: To fight anti-Semitism, the UN must first define it; Europe’s Highest Court Gives Its Approval to Attempts to Outlaw Jewish and Muslim Life

From Ian:

To fight anti-Semitism, the UN must first define it

The United States “must deal with the insanity at the center of the Human Rights Council — persistent and egregious anti-Israel bias,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft declared last Monday. She criticized the council for targeting Israel more than any other country in the world. Craft is right about the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias, but an effective response to the problem begins with recognizing that this bias is rooted in plain anti-Semitism.

It is the kind of anti-Semitism that manifests itself in double standards. The council obsesses over Israel to the point of distraction and deems it a pariah, all the while turning a blind eye to genuinely oppressive regimes, such as those in Beijing, Tehran, or Damascus.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has recognized that such double standards constitute anti-Semitism as much as other manifestations such as Holocaust denial and symbols like the swastika. The IHRA is a joint initiative of dozens of governments, mainly European, committed to Holocaust education and combating anti-Semitism. Its definition of anti-Semitism has been adopted by more than 25 countries, the European Parliament, and even the English Premier League.

The Human Rights Council may be the U.N. body that has most often engaged in IHRA-defined anti-Semitism. The UNHRC maintains agenda item seven, which requires the council to review Israel’s human rights record at every meeting. No other country is singled out in this way. In fact, resolutions targeting Israel far outnumber those leveled against China, Iran, Syria, and North Korea combined. The UNHRC also supports a special rapporteur whose mandate is limited to investigating alleged Israeli crimes but not Palestinian ones.

In 2016, the council called for the creation of a database of all businesses conducting activities in or related to Israel’s settlements. The list is intended to intimidate companies out of operating in the West Bank, even though they are legally allowed to do so, and even though no such list exists for any other conflict zone around the world, from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the Turkish-dominated northern Cyprus.

Meanwhile, the U.N. General Assembly maintains a special committee to investigate accusations of Israeli abuses. It also has a committee and a division dedicated to advocating for Palestinians, which in practice has mainly entailed denunciations of Israel. The U.N. maintains no analogous bodies dedicated to defaming any other country.

Of course the BDS supporting and Assad loving @MaxBlumenthal would like to defund @elliecohanim’s position ... it would make it easier for him to keep spreading his vile Jew hatred. https://t.co/9eIMznf0ji
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) December 23, 2020

4th Anniversary of Anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution 2334 Can you guess who played a major role?

This December 23rd is the fourth anniversary of the infamous United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which declares that “the establishment of settlements by Israel in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” The Obama-Biden administration broke with the longstanding practice of both Democratic and Republican administrations to protect Israel from one-sided, anti-Israel United Nations resolutions when it refused to veto Resolution 2334 and abstained instead. Biden was reportedly involved behind the scenes in pushing the resolution forward for approval, including purportedly pressuring Ukraine to vote for the resolution rather than abstain. Biden has not expressed any regret since then for his participation in the Obama-Biden administration’s decision to sell out Israel.

Resolution 2334 demands that “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Resolution 2334 also calls on all nations “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.” According to the resolution, “East Jerusalem” (including the Western Wall in the Old City) is specifically considered a part of the so-called Palestinian "territories occupied since 1967" that are supposed to be off limits for any nation's dealings involving Israelis. When it comes to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution refers elliptically to “both parties.”

As a 2017 Harvard Law Review article noted, “the resolution’s legal language vindicates the Palestinian story of dispossession and could facilitate prosecutions of Israeli officials at the ICC [International Criminal Court].” The article went on to say that “2334’s legal rhetoric entrenches the PA’s [Palestinian Authority] maximalism.”

Resolution 2334 remains in effect to this day. However, despite what the resolution’s supporters continuously assert, it is not legally binding under the UN Charter because it was not passed under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. The resolution is not self-enforcing and would require a further resolution to impose sanctions or other punitive measures, which the Trump administration would surely have vetoed.

The question now is whether Joe Biden as president will return to the Obama-Biden administration’s support of the anti-Israel resolution and its distancing from our closest ally in the Middle East. The answer is most likely yes, despite Biden’s claims of unwavering support for Israel’s security. Biden, his Secretary of State-designate Tony Blinken and incoming chief of staff Ron Klain are adamantly opposed to Israel’s settlement activities.

David Singer: Trump’s two-state solution should not be trashed

Kerry was at pains to point out that America had nothing to do with drafting Resolution 2334: "The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward. It was drafted by Egypt – it was drafted and I think introduced by Egypt, which is one of Israel’s closest friends in the region, in coordination with the Palestinians and others… In the end, we did not agree with every word in this resolution. There are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed or even addressed at all. But we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that condemns violence and incitement and reiterates what has been for a long time the overwhelming consensus and international view on settlements and calls for the parties to start taking constructive steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground."

Abstaining on - rather than vetoing - Resolution 2334 - when it did not address or sufficiently address important issues - was irresponsible.

Kerry showed how (intentionally?) out of touch the outgoing Obama-Biden administration was with President-elect Trump’s intentions: “President Obama and I know that the incoming administration has signaled that they may take a different path, and even suggested breaking from the longstanding U.S. policies on settlements, Jerusalem, and the possibility of a two-state solution. That is for them to decide. That’s how we work. But we cannot – in good conscience – do nothing, and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away… This is a time to stand up for what is right. We have long known what two states living side by side in peace and security looks like. We should not be afraid to say so.”

Kerry specifically recounted Israel’s former Prime Minister Peres telling him: “The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48 percent, now it’s down to 22 percent. I think 78 percent is enough for us.”

That was Revisionist history and pure rubbish: The original mandate gave the Arabs 78% – and that is what they have, 78% (Jordan) - and promised the Jews a national home in the remaining 22% - down to 17% (Israel until the Six Day War) The remaining only 5% comprised Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

Trump’s Peace Plan provides a detailed and comprehensive two-state solution, which was intended as a starting negotiation point: i>Israel: with its current borders extended to include sovereignty over 30% of Judea and Samaria immediately A demilitarised Palestinian Arab State comprising Gaza and 70% of Judea and Samaria on condition it renounces terror and is willing to make peace with the Jewish State, with a four year testing period before its establishment.

Trashing Trump’s Plan going forward and going back to square one would be the height of folly.

The Biden Administration and the “War of Return” (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

Judging from the few public statements made so far and what is known about his appointees, the Biden Administration will take up the same stance toward Israel and the Palestinians as the last Democratic administration, led by Barack Obama.
That means that it will return to the idea of establishing a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria more or less on the pre-1967 lines. It will go back to financing the Palestinian Authority, which will find a way to pay terrorists and support their families while pretending not to, in order to circumvent the Taylor Force Act which requires the US to deduct such payments from aid to the PA. The administration will likely close its eyes to the subterfuge. It will go back to funding UNRWA, the agency that supports the exponential growth of a stateless population made up of the descendants of Arab refugees from the 1948 war, despite the fact that it exists to perpetuate the problem posed by this population, not to solve it.
I believe that it will return to the principle that the main reason the conflict has not ended is that Israel has not made enough concessions to the Palestinians, and that the way to end it is to pressure Israel to give in to Palestinian demands: for Jew-free land, for sovereignty without restrictions, for eastern Jerusalem, and perhaps even for the “return” of the refugee descendants. Although not directly part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will probably reduce pressure on Iran and possibly even return to the JCPOA, the nuclear deal.
It’s too early to tell if it will also adopt the open hostility to the Jewish state that characterized Obama’s reign. That will depend on who influences Biden, both among his official advisors as well as the numerous think tanks, lobbies, and pressure groups that have an interest in the conflict – including the one operated by Barack Obama himself.
I suspect that the administration will have its hands full with other matters and so will not immediately launch a new “peace” effort. But one never knows. Sometimes rationality goes out the window when the subject turns to the Jews and their state.
Although nothing can be done with those who take a position because they see it as a step in the direction of the ultimate elimination of our state, there are still “people of good faith” who believe that the Land for Peace paradigm that inspired the Oslo Accords does provide a path to ending the conflict. If the new administration is dominated by the latter type of people, there is hope that correcting their fundamental misapprehensions might lead to a more productive policy.
These misapprehensions are spelled out persuasively in a recent book, The War of Return, How Western Indulgence of the Palestinian Dream has Obstructed the Path to Peace, by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf (All Points Books, 2020). Schwartz and Wilf fall on the left of the Israeli political spectrum (Wilf was a Member of the Knesset for the Labor Party), and they still favor a two-state solution. But unlike most of their comrades, they have listened to the Palestinians, and understand their actual concerns and objectives. In their book, they explain why the traditional approach has failed and propose the initial steps that are necessary for any settlement of the conflict.
All previous Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have miscarried because Israelis and Western interlocutors have failed to realize the paramount importance of one issue – the “right of return” demanded by the Palestinians. This is possible because they have systematically misunderstood the language – whether English or Arabic – used by the Palestinians. The “constructive ambiguity” that often characterizes diplomatic language and allows parties that don’t quite agree with each other to nevertheless sign agreements has made it possible for the same words to have diametrically opposed meanings when uttered by Westerners or Palestinians.
The prime example of this is the phrase “a just solution to the refugee problem.” To an Israeli or Westerner, this can include the normalization of the refugees* in their countries of residence, their emigration to other countries, or their resettlement in a Palestinian state, should one be created. This has been the approach taken by the international community to the numerous refugee populations, including Germans living in Eastern Europe after WWII, Holocaust survivors, Jews who were forced out of Arab countries after 1948, and so on. But the Palestinian position is that there is only one “just solution”: anyone with refugee status has the inalienable right to “return” to his “home” in Israel if he wishes to do so, or to receive compensation if he prefers. And that is what this phrase means when they use it.
Naturally, given the numbers of Arabs who claim this “right,” such a mass return would change Israel into an Arab-majority state, even assuming Jews were prepared to leave their homes and peacefully give them to their “rightful owners.” The absurdity of the demand is evident. Yet Yasser Arafat walked away from Camp David precisely because Israel would not agree to it.
Another phrase whose ambiguity has prevented agreement is “two-state solution.” Virtually every Israeli that favors this understands it as “two states for two peoples.” But the Palestinians want one totally Jew-free Palestinian state, and one state in which the right of return for Arab refugees has been implemented (and which theoretically might contain Jews, at least for a while). They have never accepted the idea of any Jewish sovereignty between the river and the sea, and hence reject the formulation “two states for two peoples.”
Schwartz and Wilf explain that Western and Israeli negotiators have always assumed – perhaps because the demand is so extreme – that the right of return was a bargaining chip that the Palestinians would cash in for the currency of borders, the removal of settlements, or rights in Jerusalem. But they were wrong. The demand for “return” is the essence of the Palestinian movement.
Palestinian children learn about it, down to the particular locations to which each has the “right” to return, in UNRWA schools where they are taught by Palestinian teachers (99% of UNRWA’s employees are Palestinians). Someday, they are told over and over, they will return. Guaranteed.
Everything UNRWA does is geared toward increasing this population of angry people, convinced that a massive injustice has been done to them, and that the only solution will be for them to return, and through this return, wipe the Jews from the face of the land they are convinced we stole from them.
UNRWA was created after the 1948 war with the intention of providing temporary assistance to the refugees until they could be resettled and normalized the way all other groups of refugees had been. But the only country that cooperated was Jordan, which gave the Palestinians citizenship and allowed them to integrate into their own populations. In Lebanon there were especially harsh restrictions and poor conditions. Little by little, the Arab nations changed the temporary UNRWA into a permanent tool to mold a refugee army that they hoped would ultimately do what their conventional armies could not: eliminate the Jewish state.
Today UNRWA is the main obstacle to solving the refugee problem. But it need not be. Schwartz and Wilf provide a relatively detailed, step by step program for phasing out UNRWA in the various places that it operates, and providing solutions for the refugees from the host countries and other agencies. For example, in the Palestinian Authority areas, they propose shifting both the responsibility for the refugees, and the money that supports UNRWA, to the PA. Former refugees would study in PA schools, go to PA health clinics, and so on. There are similar programs for Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon where the remaining refugee “camps” (today mostly neighborhoods on the outskirts of cities) are located.
Real peace can only be achieved when the consciousness of the Palestinians changes and they understand that the dream of return will not be realized. This would be a long and difficult process that could only begin with the elimination of UNRWA. But it has to start before it can finish. It will require cooperation of all of the Western donor countries that have been supporting UNRWA. Perhaps the fact that from a financial standpoint UNRWA will soon be unsustainable (after all, the number of “refugees” is growing exponentially) will encourage them to cooperate.
In the short term, it’s essential that everyone involved in relations between Israel and the Palestinians understand the real issues that underlie the conflict. And it would be a good thing if all parties could agree to use words the same way. Schwartz and Wilf say that “constructive ambiguity” should be replaced by “constructive specificity.” If the European Union, for example, believes that the State of Israel should be replaced by a Palestinian state, it should say so. Otherwise, it should unambiguously oppose a right of return, and work to dismantle UNRWA as quickly as is practical.
Back to the incoming Biden Administration. I hope it will resist the attempts of the anti-Israel Left to revive the hostility of the Obama days, and instead choose to be a force for real peace.
To that end, I will be sending Joe Biden a copy of this book, with a suggestion that he read it and pass it around among his foreign policy team.
________________________
*From here on, I use the word “refugees” by itself, although it refers to those descendants of the approximately 550-700,000 original refugees who have been granted this status by UNRWA. There are more than 5 million of them today, and the number grows every day. No such refugee status has been granted to any other population; the UNHCR agency which takes care of all non-Palestinian refugees, grants refugee status to those individuals who cannot return to their country of origin due to well-founded fear of persecution (see the full definition here), and to their children. Unlike UNRWA’s refugee status, it is not hereditary.

Cartoon of the Day: Tikkun Olam is the ubermitzvah

Continuing my series of recaptioning cartoons....

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

12/23 Links Pt1: Israel's Peace Deals Show How Abnormal Israel's Treatment Has Been; Israel calls 4th election in 2 years as Netanyahu-Gantz coalition collapses

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: Israel's Peace Deals Show How Abnormal Israel's Treatment Has Been

Acceptance of the isolation of Israel and erasure of Jewish history in the Middle East has been an open wound afflicting the whole region. It should never have happened. Israel and some Arab countries fought a war in 1948, and there are legitimate reasons that Palestinians and their supporters opposed Israel's policies. But similar terrible wars, such as that between India and Pakistan in 1948, didn't result in dozens of countries not recognizing India or pretending that Hindus don't exist. Normalization and the presence of diplomatic relations are the most basic geopolitical norms throughout the world. Yet so many politicians, like former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who pushed for engagement with Iran, blindly accepted the fact that so many countries did not normalize ties with Israel.

The whole nature of the conversation about Israel over the last decades has been tainted by accepting as normal a situation that was inherently abnormal. It became normal in Western universities to debate the very existence of Israel, and to advocate for a "one-state" solution without even consulting the eight million people in Israel and millions of Palestinians. In no other instance in the world do American college students blithely decide that they will erase countries and shoehorn them into new "one-state" solutions, like recreating Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia without first asking people in Slovakia and Kosovo. Only when it comes to Israel was it taken for granted that people will debate its very existence itself. This semi-genocidal debate, like the erasure of Jewish history in countries like Iraq, places from which the Talmud was created, is a brutal assault on both history and international norms.

Now, long years of this abuse are being corrected with the new era of relations between Israel, Morocco, the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan. The usual predictions of doom and gloom have not come true. Israelis can be safe in these countries. Instead of the ingrained anti-Semitism and ways in which Jewish holidays have been made to seem controversial if celebrated in most countries across the region, we now see how countries are embracing Jewish culture and history. The Crossroad of Civilizations Museum in Dubai, for instance, now has brochures in Hebrew. Kosher food is now offered at the Ritz-Carlton in Manama. These are symbolic changes that speak volumes about a new normal that is banishing the intolerance of the past. It feels like a revolution is happening in the Middle East.

Understanding the Abraham Accords inside and out - opinion

The Abraham Accords signify a potential paradigm shift in the Middle East, one that moves away from rejectionism and toward normalization. In a historic pivot, Arab states, once committed to an ideology embodied by the 1967 Khartoum Conference and its “three No’s,” have normalized relations and moved to a paradigm where country after country – the United Arab Emirates, then Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco – have shifted toward the “three Yeses,” declaring yes to recognition, yes to negotiation, and yes to peace.

While “negotiation” and “peace” are perhaps more intuitive to understand, the fundamental step of “recognition” is the most essential; without it, the additional processes are impossible to embark upon. To understand the precondition of recognition, we must identify what it was, or is, that is being rejected. Indeed, the very legitimacy of the State of Israel as Jewish and democratic to exist was, and remains, the hurdle for some. Only when Israel as both Jewish and democratic is recognized by its neighbors is it possible to move toward negotiation, ultimately enabling peace.

The imperative for recognition must be acknowledged, even and especially in the euphoria surrounding the Abraham Accords. While headlines focusing on business opportunities and transactions dominate the press, and though this is part of the historic process, it is secondary to the monumental acceptance of a Jewish and democratic Israel as an equal and legitimate partner by the UAE. In this regard, the fact that the UAE inculcated its children with “tolerance” of religious differences for years is far more ground-breaking than what military technology may be sold or shared.

Similarly, Israeli business leaders and tourists flocking to the UAE, anxious to grab a piece of this peace, must not take for granted the fundamental step of recognition. By focusing solely on interests and implications, we might miss the monumental potential of applying the transformative framework of “three Yeses” internally, to achieve internal recognition, internal negotiation and internal peace.

Israel calls 4th election in 2 years as Netanyahu-Gantz coalition collapses

The 23rd Knesset officially dispersed as the clock struck midnight on Tuesday night and the deadline to approve a 2020 budget expired, sending Israelis to the polls for the fourth time in less than two years. Elections were automatically called for 90 days from now, namely March 23, 2021, though that date could yet be changed by vote.

The failure to pass a budget came just seven months after the swearing-in of the “unity government” between Likud and Blue and White. The two parties, which had fought each other bitterly in three indecisive elections, agreed to form a power-sharing government with a rotating premiership between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz in May.

But despite pledges to put aside their differences in order to fight the coronavirus pandemic, the political turmoil followed them into government, with both leaders soon claiming the other was breaking their coalition agreements.

Unlike the previous three elections, when Netanyahu’s chief rival was Gantz and his centrist Blue and White alliance, the prime minister’s main challengers this time are set to come from his own right wing of the political spectrum. A former Likud minister, Gideon Sa’ar, has set up a new party, New Hope, dedicated to ousting Netanyahu, and the right-wing/Orthodox Yamina party leader Naftali Bennett is also aiming to try to supplant him. Both Sa’ar and Bennett are seen as more hawkish than Netanyahu on issues relating to the Palestinians and the settlements.

Netanyahu, 71, has held power uninterrupted since 2009, and also served a term as prime minister from 1996-1999, making him Israel’s longest-serving leader. He remains in office as head of the transitional government until the elections are held and a new coalition is formed.

#Israel might be going into our 4th election in two years, but Mahmoud Abbas of the #Palestinian Authority is going into the 16th year of his 4 year term.

At least the Israeli people have a say in free and fair elections. pic.twitter.com/2ogMRZ1ocy
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) December 23, 2020