Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, September 03, 2018

09/03 Link Pt1: Stabbing attack foiled near Hevron; PA mocks Belgium: Names two more schools after terrorist murderer; Iran admits to having 'worked closely' with Soros

From Ian:

IDF soldiers and Border Police foiled an attempted terrorist attack near Givat Ha'avot in Kiryat Arba Monday.

The terrorist attacked the IDF force stationed there. The soldiers reacted quickly and shot the attacker, killing him.

No one was injured.

Last night, terrorists threw an explosive device at the Gilboa crossing in the Jenin area. There were no casualties and no damage was reported.

Earlier, during an IDF search of weapons found in the El-Gaza refugee camp at the Etzion Military Base, Arab rioters threw stones and explosive devices at soldiers who responded with riot control measures. There are no casualties.

PMW: PA mocks Belgium: Names two more schools after terrorist murderer

The Palestinian Authority continues to defy and mock its donors. Although donors have repeatedly condemned the PA's policy of naming schools and community centers after terrorists and murderers and have refused to fund them, the PA continues to name schools after terrorists. Occasionally the PA pretends to comply with donor demands to stop terror glorification. This is one of those cases.

This is how the PA deceives Europe and keeps the funding flowing:

Sept. 27, 2017: PMW exposes that PA named a Belgium-funded school after a terrorist murderer: "The Martyr Dalal Mughrabi Elementary School"
Oct. 9, 2017: Belgium freezes funding of PA schools and demands name change
July 31, 2018: PMW notifies Belgium that the school is still named "The Martyr Dalal Mughrabi Elementary School"
Aug. 10, 2018: Belgium reiterates that it "unequivocally condemns the glorification of terrorist attacks," through PA schools
Two weeks later, Aug. 23, 2018: PA removes terrorist's name from school and renames it: "The Belgian School"
Same day: Aug. 23, 2018: PA changes name of nearby school, The Beit Awwa Elementary School for Girls to The Martyr Dalal Mughrabi Elementary School
Three days later, Aug. 26, 2018: PA adds insult to Belgium by naming a second school after the same terrorist murderer:
The Second Dalal Mughrabi Republic School

Summary of Belgium's sincere efforts:
Two schools - instead of one - in the Beit Awwa district of Hebron are now named after terrorist murderer Dalal Mughrabi

Ben-Dror Yemini: A step in the right direction

The State Department prepared the report as required by the amendment, but during the administration of John Kerry as secretary of state and Barack Obama as president, the report became classified.

It can be assumed that the top echelon of the American administration did not want to cause a commotion when the actual number of refugees became known.

The official number of refugees according to UNRWA is 5.3 million. The actual number, without descendents, is between 20 and 30,000 people at most, because some of them have already been granted citizenship, for example in Jordan, and others have become financially established, so according to the UN definition they are not refugees.

Therefore the actual number of refugees, according to the conventional definition, stands at a few thousand. In any case, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 deals with them, and only them, and not with second- and third-generation descendants.

The so-called "Palestinian refugee problem" would have been resolved if only standard refugees procedures been implemented with the Palestinians as well.

The fear by security officials of a vacuum, that would be filled by Hamas, if UNRWA leaves the Gaza Strip, is a little strange, because in any case, in the recent elections for UNRWA institutions, in which nearly 11,500 of the organization's employees voted, the Hamas associated "Professional List" won a crushing victory. Despite all the denials, education at UNRWA institutions primarily produces Hamas activists.

The United States could have made the change in a slightly more coordinated fashion, but the direction is right. After almost 70 years of the big refugee scam, the time has come for a change.

The cessation of US aid will not cause the refugee problem to disappear. The transition from the fostering of refugees to their rehabilitation must be a gradual, coordinated international effort. But it is absolutely clear that as long as the organization is the main instrument for perpetuating the refugee problem and nurturing the return fantasy — UNRWA is the problem. Not the solution.

At the UNRWA website, there is a document about the mandate of UNRWA. It says this about the difference between the mandates of UNRWA and UNHCR:

The role of UNRWA in relation to durable solutions for Palestine refugees is quite different from that of UNHCR relative to refugees within its mandate. UNHCR has two functions, not only providing international protection but also seeking “permanent solutions for the problem of refugees by assisting governments and, subject to the approval of the governments concerned, private organizations to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of such refugees, or their assimilation within new national communities”. In other words, as part of its mandate, UNHCR “strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally, or to resettle in a third country”.

And UNRWA does not.

Although...it once did, as this footnote mentions:

As to UNRWA’s mandate to engage in activities to promote reintegration, see UNGA res. 393 (V) of 2 Dec. 1950 where the General Assembly “Instruct[ed] the Agency to establish a reintegration fund which shall be utilized for projects requested by any government in the Near East and approved by the Agency for the permanent re-establishment of refugees and their removal from relief” (para. 5) after “Consider[ing] that, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the area” (para. 4). This part of the mandate probably ended by 1960 when reference to “reintegration” was dropped from General Assembly resolutions relating to UNRWA, reflecting some acknowledgment that this objective had been defeated: see W. Dale, “UNRWA – A Subsidiary Organ of the UN”, op. cit., 584–5.

UNRWA gave up on its original mandate to help solve the problem, and the UN went along with this change. Now UNRWA exists to continue existing.

Pierre Krähenbühl, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, also pretended that UNRWA is similar to UNHRC is an open letter he wrote to his employees this weekend:

There is sadly nothing unique in the protracted nature of the Palestine refugee crisis. Refugees in places like Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Congo and beyond have also experienced decades of displacement and lack of resolution. Their children and grand-children are similarly recognized as refugees and assisted by UNHCR. Enshrined in the principle of humanity and the international law norm of family unity is the commitment to continue serving communities affected by war until a political solution has been found. It is the failure to end conflicts that prolongs refugee situations and denies refugees the choice to define a dignified future of their own.

A look at the Afghanistan page on the UNHCR site shows that while there are 2.4 million "people of concern" only a small percentage are classified as refugees - only 75,000 who live in camps in Pakistan. Most of the rest are internally displaced persons in Afghanistan itself. As soon as those people establish a new home in another section of the country, they are no longer IDPs and no longer in need of aid.

With all the services that UNHCR provides to these people of concern - roughly half the number of "registered Palestine refugees" under UNRWA -the budget is a mere $125 million, 10% of UNRWA's $1.2 billion annual budget. And most of UNHCR's budget there - $75M - is meant to reintegrate the people into new homes so they can be self-sufficient, with only $38M meant to directly give medical or educational aid to them.

The difference is clear. UNRWA needs its money to perpetuate the problem and UNHCR needs it money to eliminate it.

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 the Teachers' Lounge website:

Teachers’ Lounge (in memory of Shira Banki) is an HUC-JIR professional development program for Muslim, Christian and Jewish teachers from all over Jerusalem.

We consider teachers to be key figures and cultural heroes that lead by example. They impact on their community and beyond.

The vision of the program is to promote a process of knowing “the other”. This foundation enables the formation a multicultural society with neighbors living together with mutual understanding in a shared society.

This sounds exactly like the type of program that the EU loves - sponsored by a liberal Jewish group for teaching coexistence between liberal Jews, religious Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem so they can fight bigotry and racism.

The Times of Israel notes that the EU won't fund it, though:

The program is seeking to expand to more cities with significant Arab and Jewish populations, such as Haifa and Tel Aviv-Jaffa, but it suffers from funding shortfalls since not all foundations supporting peace projects are willing to support it.

For example, the organizers say the European Union views them as “perpetuating the conflict” because it is is officially recognized as a seminar by Israel’s Education Ministry — a body, the EU believes, that shouldn’t be dealing with residents of East Jerusalem, many of whom aren’t Israeli citizens.

“So we are battling for the very existence of the project,” Cheftzy Uzan-Nachmani, the project’s manager, said.

Israel's Education Ministry is more interested in coexistence between Jews and Arabs than the EU is. .

Every single partner for this program is Israeli.

Israeli liberals, for all their faults, actually care about peace.

The refusal of EU foundations to support a program like this shows that they hate the idea of Jews having any connection to Jerusalem far more than they care about actual peace and coexistence. Which means that their talk about caring about peace and coexistence is just prattle. They'll happily work with Iran, but working with Israeli government ministries in Jerusalem is crossing the line.

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 Ma'an Arabic:

The Deputy Chairman of the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (PLO), Mahmud al-Alul, met on Thursday with Deputy Secretary General of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine Ziad Nakhla in the presence of the Ambassador of the State of Palestine in Lebanon Ashraf Dabour (along with other Fatah and Islamic Jihad officials in Lebanon.)

During the meeting, they discussed the issue of ending the Palestinian division.

One could find some justification for the PLO to meet with Hamas - after all, Hamas is the de facto ruler of Gaza and sometimes they would need to talk.

But Islamic Jihad is nothing but a terror group. It has no purpose except to kill Israeli Jews in an attempt to terrorize them and ultimately destroy Israel.

The PLO has far more in common with Islamic Jihad than it has with the governments of Israel or the US, which it refuses to meet with. It is more offended by Israel offers of peace than by Islamic Jihad's pledge of eternal holy war against the Jewish presence in the Middle East.

The PLO's tolerance for and support of terror are not impediments to western European countries falling over themselves to meet with them in European capitals.

The priorities of the PLO are crystal clear, and it is well past time that we pretend that the EU is a well-meaning but clueless player in the conflict. They have chosen their side - the side that happily supports terror.

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.

09/02 Links: Bibi: UNRWA harms Palestinian refugees, should close down; On the Palestinian Refugee Issue, President Trump Is Magnificently Right; 'Yes Minister' writer skewers Corbyn in Times letter on irony

From Ian:

Lyn Julius: UNWRA and the Jews

From an early stage in the conflict, the UN was co-opted by the powerful Arab-Muslim voting bloc to skew its mandate and defend the rights of only one refugee population – the Palestinians. The UN dedicated an agency, UNWRA, to the exclusive care of Palestinian refugees.There are ten UN agencies solely concerned with Palestinian refugees. These even define refugee status for the Palestinians explicitly: one that stipulates that status depends on ‘two years’ residence’ in Palestine.The definition makes no mention of ‘fear of persecution’ nor of resettlement. Palestinian refugees are the only refugee population in the world, out of 65 million recognised refugees, permitted to pass on their refugee status to succeeding generations, even if they enjoy citizenship in their adoptive countries. It is estimated that the current population of Palestinian ‘refugees’ is 5,493, million. Instead of resettlement, they demand ‘repatriation’, an Israeli red line. (This begs the question: why would any Palestinian wish to return to an evil, ‘apartheid’ Israel?)

In contrast to the $17.7 billion allocated to the Palestinian refugees, no international aid has been earmarked for Jewish refugees. The exception was a $30,000 grant in 1957 which the UN, fearing protests from its Muslim members, did not want publicised. The grant was eventually converted into a loan and paid back by the American Joint Distribution Committee, the main agency caring for Jews in distress.

Yet on two occasions the UN did determine that Jews fleeing Egypt and North Africa were bona fide refugees. In 1957, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, August Lindt, declared that the Jews of Egypt who were ‘unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of the government of their nationality’ fell within his remit. In July 1967, the UNHCR recognised Jews fleeing Libya as refugees under the UNHCR mandate.

Needless to say, no Jew still defines himself as a refugee. Despite the initial hardships, they are now all full citizens of Israel and the West. As such, they are a model for the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in their host countries or in a putative state of Palestine alongside Israel.

For any peace process to be credible and enduring, the international community would be expected to address the rights of all Middle East refugees, including Jewish refugees displaced from Arab countries. Two victim populations arose out of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Arab leadership bears responsibility for needlessly causing both Nakbas – the Jewish and the Arab. As the human rights lawyer Irwin Cotler observes: ‘Put simply, if the Arab leadership had accepted the UN Partition Resolution of 1947, there would have been no refugees, Arab or Jewish.’

Ruthie Blum: Palestinian Refugees: Trump's Reality Check

The Trump administration's reported plan to overturn US policy on the issue of Palestinian refugees is long overdue. According, initially, to media reports, the new policy -- scheduled to be unveiled in early September and based on sealed classified information from the US State Department -- will reduce the number of Palestinians defined by the UN as "refugees" from five million to 500,000, thus refuting the figures claimed by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The UN figures include descendants (not only children, but grandchildren and great grandchildren) of Palestinians across the world who have never even set foot in Israel, the Gaza Strip or the Palestinian Authority (PA). The new plan will also apparently include a rejection of the Palestinians' so-called "right of return" to Israel of refugees and their descendants.

Washington also announced that it is cutting all US funding to UNRWA, and will reportedly "ask Israel to 'reconsider' the mandate it gives UNRWA to operate in the West Bank."

This reining in of UNRWA operations -- which began in January 2018, when President Donald Trump imposed a $65 million freeze on America's annual funding -- is significant, as it is the first time an American administration has actually sought out and acted upon evidence about the Palestinian refugee organization. Until now, the US has continued to provide billions of dollars to UNRWA, even as monitoring organizations – such as UN Watch, Palestinian Media Watch and NGO Monitor – have repeatedly exposed the complete and ongoing abuse of its mandate, which is already rather a marvel:

"A more precise working definition of a mandate is difficult but necessary to determine how UNRWA's mandate is derived. The Secretary-General recently discussed the meaning of the term for the purposes of identifying and analysing mandates originating from resolutions of the General Assembly and other organs. The Secretary-General referred to the nature and definition of mandates for the purpose of his exercise:

"...Mandates are both conceptual and specific; they can articulate newly developed international norms, provide strategic policy direction on substantive and administrative issues, or request specific conferences, activities, operations and reports.

"For this reason, mandates are not easily defined or quantifiable; a concrete legal definition of a mandate does not exist....

"Although the term "Palestine refugee" is central to UNRWA's mandate, the General Assembly has not expressly defined it. The General Assembly has tacitly approved the operational definition used in annual reports of the Commissioner- General setting out the definition. The operational definition has evolved slightly through Agency internal instructions but in practice there are political and institutional limits on the extent to which the Agency is able to develop the definition itself...."

On the Palestinian Refugee Issue, President Trump Is Magnificently Right

This is long overdue. The 1948 War led to one of the many exchanges of populations during the 20th century -- 1.5 million Greeks were expelled from Turkey and 1 million Turks expelled from Greece in 1923, for example. After World War II, 12 million Germans were expelled from the Czech Republic, Poland, and other parts of Eastern Europe, many of whom had lived there for centuries. Millions of Hindus and Muslims moved across the border when Pakistan separated from India upon independence in 1947. None of the transferred populations are treated as refugees, except for the Palestinians.

Roughly equal numbers of Arabs and Jews were displaced as Arab states expelled Jewish populations that in some cases, e.g. Iraq, had lived there for 2,500 years, long before the Arabs. The young Jewish state absorbed almost a million Jewish refugees from Muslim countries while the displaced Arabs were kept in permanent refugee status as a bargaining chip. "Right of return" simply meant Muslim refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state. The so-called peace process in the Middle East always has failed due to the asymmetry of demands: as the Israeli cartoon Dry Bones put it, land for peace means the Arabs want land and the Jews want peace. As long as the Western nations humored the Arab delusion that the Jewish state could be eliminated, the Arab side had no incentive to negotiate. The Arab side refused to accept its defeat in 1948. It is the loser who decides when the war is over, and the message from Washington is, "You lost. Deal with it."

I wonder what my never-Trump conservative Jewish friends and ex-friends will say now. I say, "God bless Donald J. Trump."

Julia Salazar and the Jews

Michael Lumish

NY State Senate candidate
Julia Salazar

New York State Senate candidate Julia Salazar has the pro-Jewish / pro-Israel world vaguely annoyed... while we are having a sandwich for lunch. Others in recent weeks have occasionally noted her existence with a raised eyebrow over their Wheat Chex.

There have been a few notes concerning this person including, for example, the Tablet piece by Armin Rosen.

She is a new figure on the scene, coming on the heels of Uncle Bernie, following other self-righteous political "women of color" who despise Israel.

There are, at least, three reasons why many of us find her vaguely annoying.

These are:

1) Her apparently untrue claims to be Jewish.

2) Her antisemitic anti-Zionism.

and

3) Her anti-democratic socialism.

The first two reasons combined represent her cocky, devil-may-care, progressive-left, anti-Zionism "as-a-Jew" anti-Israel schtick. There are few things that pro-Israel Jews enjoy more, after all, than semi-maybe-Jews using their sorta Jewishness to urinate all over the Jewish state of Israel.

The third reason is her socialism. It amazes me that after so many examples of failed twentieth-century socialist states -- not to mention the current Venezuelan misery -- that socialism is back in fashion among twenty-something hipster politicians like Julia Salazar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who describe themselves as "Democratic Socialist."

I think that we need to be cognizant of the difference between regulatory capitalism and socialism. And I recognize that these terms have different political resonances between North Americans and Europeans and Israelis. Sometimes when people in the US talk about the need for "socialism" what we are referring to is the need for a sound economic social safety-net and basic rules concerning racism and sexism in hiring and firing, as well as environmental and industrial safety rules, and so forth.

When I was a younger man this meant "social justice" and it essentially referred to the ideological liberalism of people like Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am a liberal, but we need to stop confusing the hard American-Left with liberalism.

They are not the same thing.

Given the fact that Salazar is running for a significant public office, when she refers to herself as a "socialist" we must assume that she means it in the formal definition of that term. That is Julia Salazar, who is running for a seat on the New York State Senate, believes -- according to the very definition of the word socialism -- that the workers should own the means of production.

What this requires is the government obtaining ownership of private property through violence and/or the threat of violence. There is no possible way to bring about socialism by democratic means, despite the most well-meaning claims of the Democratic Socialists of America. Theft can only be obtained through force because it is only through force that the "bourgeoisie" will simply hand over their property to the government.

My problem with Salazar is not her semi-who-cares claims to Jewishness. I honestly have no reason to doubt that she has ancestry of Jewish heritage or that her interest in Judaism as an undergraduate at Columbia University was genuine. And I have no reason to doubt that she has a sense of "Jewishness" within her own heart. And, in truth, there are not very many of us who are qualified to draw the hard theological or ethnic distinctions, anyway.

{How many of us here are rabbis or priests?}

But it seems obvious to me that if we oppose this candidate we should do so not on religious grounds, but political ones. She is a member of the New York branch of the Democratic Socialists of America.

As scholar Paul Berman tells us in Tablet on August 7, 2017:

The national convention of the Democratic Socialists of America voted the other day in favor of the boycott-Israel movement, or BDS, and the success of the pro-BDS resolution caused the assembled delegates to break out into a rousing chant of “From the river to the sea/Palestine will be free!”

The issue is not Salazar's Jewishness. It is the antisemitic anti-Zionism embedded within the progressive-left and, thus, also within the Democratic Party.

The best grounds to oppose Salazar should have nothing to do with her personal religious or ethnic claims but on her antisemitic anti-Zionism.

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.

Ma'an has an article with the title “Dangerous precedent – the occupation interferes in tribal customs in Jerusalem.”

This "dangerous precedent" is that Israeli police in East Jerusalem wanted to stop a family from murdering a member of another family.

Two prominent and bloodthirsty Arab families, the Abu Tirs and the Amiras, have a feud. A man from one of the families killed a woman from the other family. As it is customary in such cases, there were negotiations between the families, conducted by respected noble elders from Jerusalem, in order to avoid revenge killings, which would bring more bloodshed.

They eventually reached an agreement. The agreement seemed to include a sentence that says that it is OK to kill the murderer - apparently the agreement allowed the victim’s family to avenge by killing only the killer, and not other members of his family, or something like that.

The Israeli police brought some people from both families and also some of the arbiters in for questioning, and eventually forced them to drop this one sentence from the agreement. A tape from the questioning was leaked, and in the tape some of the elders can be heard reading an announcement in both Hebrew and Arabic, in which they cancel that part of the agreement.

Many people are angry that Israel dared to enforce its laws in East Jerusalem.

One prominent sheikh who was interviewed said that after Trump’s decision (about Jerusalem), the occupation has begun to stick its nose in everything.

The end of the Ma'an article says that this sheikh named Salameh denounced Israel's "detention" of the family members, "most of them elderly and honored tribal figures known for their integrity and keenness to safeguard the security of the community and maintain its safety and civil peace."

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas did exactly the same thing to end a family feud near Jenin where a married couple was killed recently, and forced the parties to sign an agreement allowing the murderer to go to PA prison. No one is saying anything bad about him in that article.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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.

In the Washington Post, journalists Karen DeYoung and Ruth Eglash make a flatly wrong statement without a scintilla of evidence:

Many UNRWA critics appear to believe incorrectly that UNHCR does not recognize descendants of registered refugees as genuine refugees themselves. The two organizations have the same definition — giving assistance to those driven from their countries because of a well-founded fear of persecution, war or violence and to their descendants for as long as that status continues.

The goal, according to both agencies, is to repatriate refugees, integrate them into countries where they have fled or resettle them in third countries. But the decision not to go home is up to the refugees themselves.

While in some very specific situations UNHCR will give protection to children of refugees, they do not define them as refugees, but as "derivative refugees." The definition of "refugee" at the UNHCR website is clear and it does not include descendants: it says "A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group."

It does not say "and to their descendants for as long as that status continues." That is purely UNRWA. The Washington Post must publish a correction.

There is only one definition of refugee under international law. UNRWA's definition isn't a legal definition but an administrative one.

The next paragraph is incorrect as well. UNRWA's goal in the 1950s was indeed to integrate the Palestinians into countries where they have fled or to facilitate them being resettled into third countries, but it has not had that goal since 1960. UNRWA has taught every one of its students since the 1950s that "return" is the only acceptable solution, which is exactly why the agency needs to be dismantled - it has strayed from its original mandate and ensured that its "refugees" remain in that state forever, or as long as Israel refuses to allow millions of hostile Arabs to become citizens.

Even Chris Gunness contradicts the WaPo's definition in that very article, by saying that Jordanian Palestinians are citizens - and therefore would not be considered refugees under UNHCR - but they still deserve UNRWA services because of this mythical "right to return."

“They have to decide,” said UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness. “We couldn’t say to you, ‘You’re a citizen now’ ” — as Jordan has declared some 2 million Palestinians in that country — “ ‘you have to give up the right of return.’ ”

That is exactly what UNHCR does say to the people who get its benefits! There is no "right to return" in international law, period, but certainly someone who gains citizenship does not have the right to claim UNHCR services the way Palestinians in Jordan can.

Too bad the WaPo writers didn't point this out.

In addition to those in Jordan, about 800,000 Palestinians are registered as refugees in the West Bank, 1.3 million in Gaza, 534,000 in Syria and 464,000 in Lebanon. “You cannot wish away 5.4 million people,” Gunness said. “There has to be a settlement based on international law and on U.N. resolutions.”

UNHCR also would not consider the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to be "refugees" because they live in the same land they claim is their homeland. So if UNRWA really had the same definition of "refugee" that UNHCR has - forgetting the descendant issue, which is misrepresented - then according to these figures, 4.1 million out of 5.1 million people that UNRWA considers refugees - aren't.

Jordan should take care of Jordanian citizens, the Palestinian Authority should provide services to all of their people and not just some of them, and UNRWA has no reason to exist in those areas. Eglash and de Young should have mentioned that - but they didn't, and chose to lie instead.

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.

09/01 Links: 25 Years after Oslo Accords: Why Did Rabin Fall for Them?; U.S. Muslims Increasingly Harassed for Working With Jewish Groups; Until It Reforms, UNRWA Remains an Obstacle to Peace

From Ian:

Efraim Karsh: Israel 25 Years after the Oslo Accords: Why Did Rabin Fall for Them?

Conclusion

It is a historical irony that it was Benjamin Netanyahu, who had vehemently opposed the Oslo process from the outset, who publicly announced Israel’s support for the creation of a Palestinian state, both in his June 2009 Bar-Ilan speech and May 2011 address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress. [43] In doing so, he went further not only from Rabin’s “Palestinian entity short of a state” but also from Peres’s preferred vision of peace. For, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Peres did not consider the creation of a Palestinian state an automatic, or even desirable, consequence of the Oslo process. Rather he subscribed to Labor’s old formula of a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, which he sought to sell to Rabin, Arafat, King Hussein, presidents Bill Clinton and Egypt’s Husni Mubarak, and Morocco’s King Hassan II, among others. [44]

It was thus Beilin who shrewdly steered his two superiors towards a path they had not planned to take despite his keen awareness of the untrustworthiness of the “peace” partner. As he put it on one occasion:

"I never had any illusions regarding Arafat. I never considered him an important world leader. I think he has committed numerous follies. He could have achieved a lot for his people many years ago, and his personal record includes almost every possible mistake … But since I have only Arafat, despite all the stupidities he utters, I must negotiate with him." [45]

This approach probably makes the Oslo process the only case in diplomatic history where a party to a peace accord was a priori amenable to its wholesale violation by its cosignatory. There have, of course, been numerous agreements where one or both parties acted in bad faith. The September 1938 Munich agreement, to give a prime example, was conceived by Hitler as a “Trojan Horse” for the destruction of Czechoslovakia, a strategy emulated by Arafat fifty-five years later with the Oslo process. But while there was little Czechoslovakia could do given its marked military inferiority and betrayal by the international community, in Oslo, it was the stronger party that allowed its far weaker counterpart to flaunt the agreement with impunity—with devastating consequences that would haunt both sides for decades to come.

Daniel Pipes: Israel 25 Years after the Oslo Accords: Why Israelis Shy from Victory

One day, imagine, a U.S. president tells an Israeli prime minister: “Palestinian extremism damages American security. We need you to end it by achieving victory over the Palestinians. Do what it takes within legal, moral, and practical boundaries.” The president continues: “Impose your will on them; induce a sense of defeat, so they give up their 70- year-old dream of eliminating Israel. Win your war.”

How might the prime minister respond? Would he seize the moment and punish the incitement and violence sponsored by the Palestinian Authority (PA)? Would he inform Hamas that every aggression would temporarily stop all shipments of water, food, medicine, and electricity? Or would he decline the offer?

The answer? After intense consultations with Israel’s security services and heated cabinet meetings, the prime minister would reply to the president with, “No thanks. We prefer things as they are.”

Really? That’s not what one expects, given how the PA and Hamas seek to eliminate the Jewish state, the persistent violence against Israelis, and how Palestinian propaganda hurts Israel’s international standing. But why? For four reasons: a widespread Israeli belief that prosperity undermines ideology; awe of Palestinian resolve; Jewish guilt, and timid security services. Each of these views can be readily refuted.

Prosperity Doesn’t End Hatred
Many Israelis assume that if Palestinians gain sufficiently from the economic, medical, legal, and other benefits that Zionism brings them, they will relent and accept the Jewish presence. Based on a Marxist assumption that money matters more than ideas, this outlook holds that fine schools, late-model cars, and handsome apartments are the antidote to Palestinian nationalist dreams. Like Atlantans, prosperous Palestinians will be too busy to hate.

Haaretz: U.S. Muslims Increasingly Harassed for Working With Jewish Groups, Activists Say

Zainab Chaudry got pushback as soon as the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom began circulating a flyer about its upcoming conference.

She was slated to give a workshop on how to translate passion for social justice into activism. But then, she says, an onslaught of emails, calls and social media messages arrived, telling her the conference’s funders are Zionist organizations supporting settlement construction in the West Bank.

Chaudry’s “trusted sources” warned her about the Charles H. Revson Foundation, which has supported SoSS for the past few years. But they were wrong. The Revson Foundation does not fund anything like building in the West Bank. In fact, it funds myriad groups that do the opposite, working to strengthen Jewish-Muslim relations, including between Palestinians and Israelis.

The Maryland spokeswoman and director of outreach for the Council on American-Islamic Relations – which describes itself as America’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization – Chaudry withdrew from the SoSS conference set for November. She posted on Facebook on August 15: “Faith-washing apartheid and sanitizing oppression to make the oppressor appear more like the oppressed is a disservice to this critical work. I want no part of it.”

She told Haaretz that while she supports the idea of Muslim-Jewish dialogue, she won’t participate in organizations if "they are santiizing the Israeli agenda against Palestinians" and "if they accept funding from sources that do not actively resist the occupation and they bill themselves as apolitical then that's a red flag.”

SoSS organizers wanted to keep her withdrawal and statements out of the news. A prominent Sisterhood supporter contacted this reporter, asking me not to damage “the fragile field” by writing about it.

But Chaudry’s position and statement are not isolated ones. Those in the field say that pressure is increasing on Muslims who engage in Muslim-Jewish relations, and that sentiments like Chaudry’s are a growing obstacle for those committed to building connections between the two communities in the United States. (h/t Zvi)

08/31 Links Pt2: US announces it’s cutting all funding to UNRWA; Deborah Lipstadt: Jeremy Corbyn’s Ironically Ahistorical Anti-Semitism; Peres remembered as visionary who strived to unite nation

From Ian:

US announces it’s cutting all funding to Palestinian refugee agency

The Trump administration announced Friday it is cutting nearly $300 million in planned funding for the UN agency that aids Palestinian refugees, ending decades of support.

The State Department announced in a written statement Friday that the United States “will no longer commit further funding to this irredeemably flawed operation.”

“The fundamental business model and fiscal practices that have marked UNRWA for years – tied to UNRWA’s endlessly and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries – is simply unsustainable and has been in crisis mode for many years,” the statement said, a reference to the fact that the agency grants refugee status to all the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees, something not granted to those from any other places.

However, the statement said the US would look for other ways to aid the Palestinians.

“We are very mindful of and deeply concerned regarding the impact upon innocent Palestinians, especially school children, of the failure of UNRWA and key members of the regional and international donor community to reform and reset the UNRWA way of doing business,” it said, adding that “Palestinians, wherever they live, deserve better than an endlessly crisis-driven service provision model. They deserve to be able to plan for the future.”

The US will now work together with other international groups to find a better model to assist the Palestinians, the statement said.

Reports had circulated throughout the week that the US was planning the move.

Palestinians clash with IDF on Gaza border; 180 said wounded

Some 5,000 Palestinians protested Friday along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, with some 180 wounded, according to Palestinian reports.

The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza said some 180 demonstrators were wounded in clashes with IDF troops, including several who were hit by live fire. Among the wounded were a ten-year-old boy and a female paramedic, identified as Horouq Abu Masamah, the ministry said.

The IDF had no immediate comment.

The Ynet news site said that a hand-grenade was thrown at IDF troops and that Palestinians also managed to down an IDF drone used to disperse tear gas on the protesters. There were no IDF injuries, Ynet said.

One incendiary balloon sent over the border from the Strip caused a fire near Kibbutz Be’eri. Fire fighters extinguished it before it could spread.

The clashes came despite reports that Israel is in advanced indirect talks with Hamas, via UN and Egyptian mediation, for a long-term truce in the Strip.

Gaza has seen a surge of violence since the start of the “March of Return” protests along the border in March. The clashes, which Gaza’s Hamas rulers have orchestrated, have included rock and Molotov cocktail attacks on troops, as well as attempts to breach the border fence and attack Israeli soldiers.

The Anti-Jewish Jews

Anti-Israel activist Peter Beinart had spent years arguing that Hamas was a potentially moderate organization. Then when he was questioned at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, he played victim.

But as Caroline Glick notes, there was every reason for Israeli authorities to question Beinart’s visit, because the anti-Israel BDS activist had participated in anti-Israel protests in Israel. Beinart was not, despite his claims, detained. He was asked about his participation in that protest by the Center for Jewish Nonviolence. The Center, despite its name, is used by Jewish Voice for Peace members, a BDS hate group, which also, despite its name, advocates for and supports terrorists who attack Israel.

JVP members are on the banned list. Beinart had participated in a protest organized by a group that it used as a vehicle. So it’s completely normal that he was asked about it just as visitors to this country are asked about their membership in prohibited organizations such as the Nazi, Communist and other totalitarian parties. The BDS blacklist that bigots like Beinart rave about is no different than the United States blacklist on anyone who “has used a position of prominence to endorse terrorism.”

That’s the BDS movement.

JVP declared that it was proud to host Rasmea Odeh. Odeh had been convicted of a supermarket bombing in Israel that killed Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner: two Hebrew University students. It called the terrorist an “inspiration” and used the hashtag, #HonorRasmea. That’s using “a position of prominence to endorse terrorism” which gets you banned from both the United States and Israel.

Beinart writes for The Forward, a paper notorious for attacks on Israel and Jews that veer into the anti-Semitic. Typically anti-Semitic Forward headlines include, "3 Jewish Moguls Among Eight Who Own as Much as Half the Human Race” and "Why We Should Applaud The Politician Who Said Jews Control The Weather."

Beinart, an anti-Jewish activist of Jewish descent, is the perfect fit for an anti-Jewish tabloid of Jewish descent. The Forward's rebranding dropped the "Jewish" part of its name in 2015. That was also the year that Beinart accused Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel of a “tendency, to whitewash Jewish behavior.”

"He is largely blind to the harm Jews cause," Beinart railed against Wiesel in terms ominously similar to those used by anti-Semites. Israel, he claimed, "leads gentiles of goodwill to fear that if they criticize Israel they’ll be called anti-Semites." Peter Beinart or Richard Spencer: who wore the bigotry best?

But the gauzy line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is if anything even thinner among obsessive Israel bashers of Jewish origin like Beinart or The Forward’s Jane Eisner, its radical editor who stripped the lefty tabloid of its Jewishness, but not of its poisonous hatred of Jews. On the cocktail party circuit, Beinart is misleadingly billed as a ‘liberal Zionist.’ Like the Holy Roman Empire, he’s neither a liberal nor a Zionist. Neither liberals nor Zionists excuse Hamas or blame the victims of terror for their own deaths.

Terrorism is a "response to Israel’s denial of basic Palestinian rights," Beinart has insisted. It’s “the Israeli government is reaping what it has sowed.” His vicious hatred of the Jewish State is matched by his crush on Hamas. "Hamas is the final frontier," Beinart bloviated in 2009. “A shift in US and Israeli policy towards Hamas is long overdue,” he insisted in 2011. And seven years later, it’s still overdue.

08/31 Links Pt1: Palestinians Step Up Verbal Attacks on U.S. and Israel; Why are Palestinian refugees different from all other refugees?; Abrams: What is the role of UNIFIL?

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians Step Up Verbal Attacks on U.S. and Israel

Palestinian officials in Ramallah on Thursday stepped up their verbal attacks on the US administration and its representatives, and again vowed to thwart President Donald Trump’s yet-to-be-announced plan for peace in the Middle East.

The officials accused the US administration of meddling in the internal affairs of the Palestinians and exploiting the “suffering” of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to create a separate Palestinian state there.

They also warned that any Palestinian who cooperates with the US and Israeli “conspiracies” would be considered a traitor.

The latest Palestinian condemnations of the US administration were triggered by a statement released on Thursday by Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s Special Representative for International Negotiations, concerning Egypt’s effort to bring calm to the Gaza Strip.

In his statement, Greenblatt said that the Palestinian Authority “should be part of the solution for the Palestinians of Gaza and Palestinians as a whole.” However, he warned that if the PA does not want to be part of the solution, “others will fill that void.” He added: “Leadership is about making hard choices. The people of Gaza, and Israelis in the area around Gaza, have suffered for far too long. It is time for the Palestinian Authority to lead the Palestinian people - all Palestinians - to a better future.”

PA presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh said in response that the Palestinians alone, and not the US or any other party, “could decide on their fate and elect their legitimate leadership.”

Accusing the US and Israel of being behind “conspiracies to eliminate the Palestinian cause,” Abu Rudaineh said that there was no alternative to the PLO as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

Caroline Glick: The generals’ revolt

On Sunday, Hadashot News revealed that a “senior security official” warned against the Trump administration’s reported intention to defund UNRWA. The unnamed general said that if implemented, the move would destabilize the security situation.

President Donald Trump reportedly is poised to adopt a policy that reduces the number of so-called “Palestine refugees” by 90%, from five million to 500,000 to reflect the fact that under international law, refugee status is not hereditary. The US similarly reportedly intends to end all US funding for UNRWA activities in Judea and Samaria.

Reasonably, the government has heralded the reports. UNRWA was formed to prevent the resettlement of Arabs who left Israel during the pan-Arab invasion of the nascent Jewish state in 1948-1949. As such, UNRWA has arguably done more to prevent a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict than any other single actor. Its operations are predicated on the view that Israel should be annihilated both physically and demographically through the open immigration of millions of hostile, foreign-born Arabs whom UNRWA have indoctrinated for 70 years to hate Israel and seek its destruction.

UNRWA facilities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, like its facilities in Lebanon, have been used openly as terrorist bases. Its personnel overwhelmingly support terrorist groups including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Fatah. It is unquestionably in Israel’s interest to see the organization shut down and the fake refugees it has cultivated for four generations finally given the rights of all other refugee groups and resettled permanently.

And yet, despite this, the IDF opposes this move in defiance not only of the government, but in contempt of the Trump administration.

This is not surprising. After all, “senior military officials” also warned that moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem would destabilize the security situation.

The candidacy of Golan and Alon for chief of General Staff, along with the military’s open subversion of the government and the US administration, need to serve as an urgent warning to the government. The time has come to finally clean house in the General Staff. If this requires bringing in a retired general to take over or promoting more junior generals to lead, then so be it.

The General Staff’s actions to undermine the moral standing of the country while subverting the government – and the US government – have gone too far. It is time for the government to stand up to the generals and defend Israel’s democracy and national honor against its radicalized General Staff.