Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 25, 2010

Flotilla 2: Where is Mariam?

I believe the Free Gaza movement deliberately tries to add confusion to their next Gaza mission. Either to try to mislead the Israeli authorities, or to hide the fact that they cannot find or afford a bigger ship and/or volunteers to go on these ships.

While searching the web for traces of a ship called Maryam, I encountered this article which sheds some light on the possible plans of the next Flotilla:

The voyage has been encumbered by bureaucratic and political obstacles from the start. UN resolution 1701 bars any attempts to enter Israeli territory directly from Lebanon, so Lebanon’s minister of transportation has only given permission to a French-registered ship, the Julia, to embark for Cyprus. But authorities in Nicosia have barred the ship from entering Cypriot waters, so the vessel – to be renamed the Naji al Ali after a famed Palestinian cartoonist – is expected to leave for Cyprus but change course for the Gaza Strip.

The organisers of the endeavour said they had been authorised to depart Lebanon immediately, but they were unwilling to announce the exact time of the departure, apparently in the hope of confusing the Israeli military about their intentions.

....

The exact time of the ship’s departure was not the only secret yesterday. Organisers of a group of women activists led by the wife of a former Lebanese general once held in an Israeli jail, Ali al Hajj, said they would be leaving Lebanon in a ship named the Mariam. This group claims it will have more than 50 women aboard, but it was not immediately clear that the ship even exists.

Lebanon’s transportation minister, Ghazi Aridi, emphatically denied the existence of a second ship and insisted that no permission had been requested or given for a second ship to join the Julia on the voyage. “There is a campaign called ‘Mariam’, and the organisers of the campaign to lift the Gaza blockade did not say there was a vessel carrying that name,” a local newspaper quoted Mr Aridi as saying. “I do not know anything about a second aid ship”, he added. Earlier, he was quoted as saying that the Julia and the Mariam were the same vessel.

Whether two ships or one, the Israel military has already declared that the Islamic militant group Hizbollah is behind the effort, and that the boats were likely to be filled with weapons intended to help Hamas, their allies in Gaza. Israeli officials have said that Lebanon is an especially unwelcome collaborator in the effort to break the siege because it remains hostile towards the Jewish state.

Hizbollah has denied any association with the effort, although Mr Hajj joined the group after his release from an Israeli prison in 2008.

The Lebanese government has responded to Israel’s warnings about aid ships leaving Lebanese shores with a warning of its own. The Associated Press quoted an unnamed Lebanese official as saying that the Lebanese government had sent Israel a letter saying it would hold Israel responsible for any violence befalling ships departing its shores, although it did not specify how it plans to do so.

Let there please be just a natural hot summer.

UNRWA annual report, 1952: The first signs of failure

As UNRWA passed its third year, it was starting to notice that the refugees were not quite cooperating with what UNRWA was trying to accomplish, and neither were their hosts:

13. Although they have been sheltered in their host countries, and in the notable instance of Jordan have been offered full citizenship, the refugees are people apart, lacking, for the most part, status, homes, land, assets, proper clothing and means of livelihood. Many cling to their only evidence of nationality--a worn, dogeared Palestine passport issued in Mandate days by a government that no longer legally exists. In Lebanon they cannot be issued working permits and by law cannot hold jobs; in Egypt, they cannot receive Agency relief and assistance unless they are physically located in the 5 by 25 mile Gaza strip; in Syria, although they are permitted to work when they can find jobs, they have not been offered citizenship...

Even though at this point UNRWA was still committed to reducing the numbers of refugees on its rolls, the Palestinian Arabs were not keen on losing their free services - and their host governments weren't, either:

16. The Agency has unceasingly endeavoured to limit the granting of relief only to those recipients who genuinely need it. Its field teams constantly investigate ration entitlement so as to eliminate forged ration cards and duplicate registrations, and to remove from ration rolls those fortunate individuals who have managed to obtain an income which approximates the average for the local inhabitant. Efforts along these lines have been frustrating and only moderately successful. The difficulty of obtaining accurate figures of income, when desperate measures are taken to conceal the income, is particularly unfortunate, so that the Agency's attempt to apply throughout its area of operations an "income scale" designed to eliminate from ration rolls refugees whose cash income, usually by reason of employment, is considered adequate to enable the refugee to be self-supporting has not been very effective. In addition, in Syria, Jordan and Gaza, the agreement of the government must be obtained to the removal of ration recipients for reason of income, but in these countries, due to government insistence, such a high scale has been established that seldom does removal for this reason occur. Indeed, there are numerous instances of fulltime government employees remaining on ration rolls because of the high "income scale". With sharply declining funds for relief, the Agency at the end of the year was making new plans for concentrating its limited resources on the most needy.

UNRWA at this point was still trying to find decent jobs for the refugees, but the welfare mentality was starting to strengthen:

26. The existence of vast numbers of able-bodied individuals who for four years have looked to the United Nations for the provision of all their basic needs--medical and health care, education, shelter, clothing and food--is a social and economic blight of incalculable dimensions.

And UNRWA also started to realize that its relief programs were having an adverse effect on the surrounding population, as Palestinian Arabs on the dole could afford to work for little money. In fact, they had incentive to work for low wages, because if it was found out that they were doing well they would risk losing free food, medicine and schooling for their kids:

27. The need for aggressive steps to be taken to terminate relief operations is not only emphasized by the psychologically debilitating effect of giving relief over long periods of time, with the consequent development of a professional refugee mentality, but also by the crushing economic burden--apart from the cost of the care of the individual, which the presence of the refugees has placed upon the host countries. In the absence of advanced plans for economic development, the presence of refugees has in many instances and in many areas glutted the labour market, thus depressing wages. With the assurance that his basic need for food and shelter will be met by the international community at no cost to himself, the refugee suffers less from the prevailing low wages for casual work than his indigenous neighbour. In Lebanon, despite the ban on refugee employment, much of the seasonal work in the fields is done by refugees, who are able to work for exceptionally low wages. In Jordan, the average wage level has fallen markedly in recent years, due to the presence of the refugees, who are there in such numbers that every third person in the entire country is an Agency ration recipient. In Egypt, where cultivable areas are overcrowded by Egypt's own nationals, the presence of 200,000 refugees in the Gaza strip has forced the Government not only to contribute heavily to the relief of the refugees, but also to provide relief to the non-refugee Gaza population of 80,000 who are in an even worse economic position than the refugees. Thus, in all countries where the refugees are concentrated, a heavy primary and secondary economic burden is placed upon the economy despite the fact that the basic costs of refugee care are met by the contributing governments.

No wonder the refugees would cheat to stay on the dole - they didn't want to end up as badly off as their non-refugee neighbors!

Meanwhile, UNRWA phased out its most "successful" works programs, again because they were being taken advantage of by the host countries. It's biggest success was a massive failure.

32. During the Agency's first year, work relief projects were vigorously planned and pushed forward by the Agency. Governments and refugees viewed the projects with suspicion, feared resettlement implications, and were slow in acceptance. Finally, a start was made because refugees wanted wages and governments wanted public works. At the peak of employment on those works programmes, more than 12,000 refugees were employed. As governments and refugees discovered advantages in the programme the Agency began to see liabilities. Local governments contributed no funds; the full burden of wages fell on the Agency; the cost was five times that of simple relief. The approved projects were typically roads and public structures, and when they were finished the refugees returned to tents and ration lines. In short the Agency found itself financing and operating labour camps to build public works which the governments themselves would have built the following year. There was no enduring benefit for the refugee nor financial relief for the Agency, and the programme was gradually brought to a conclusion as funds ran out.

So, UNRWA started a "new programme" that tried to eliminate the shortfalls of its earlier works program:

46. The objective is to be accomplished through the following activities:

(1) Helping refugees find employment where there is need for their services;
(2) Training refugees for occupations where there is a shortage of trained workers;
(3) Making loans or grants to refugees to enable them to establish small enterprises to improve their economic position;
(4) Building houses in or near urban areas where employment is available;
(5) Establishing rural villages in areas where land is available for cultivation;
(6) Developing agricultural lands through well drilling, irrigation works, access roads and similar activities;
(7) Generally, financing economic development and providing technical assistance where there are assurances of proportionate benefit to refugees.

The Arab countries looked upon this program as an opportunity for more free money without any commitment whatsoever to permanently improve the lives of the refugees, and they agreed to this new program.

Also in 1952, some refugees moved to Iraq, and Libya expressed interest in taking some of the highly-skilled workers.

UNRWA remained cautiously optimistic in this report, but made sure that they would assure the Arab countries that they would not pressure them to do anything they were not comfortable with:

78. (3) The Agency operates with the deepest respect for the sovereignties of the governments of the area. Through its trusteeship of large contributions, and with the acquiescence of governments, the Agency has present responsibilities which it is endeavouring to discharge with the help of a small international staff and thousands of Palestinians. The Agency is looking forward to, and preparing for, the day when it may transfer this responsibility. Meanwhile, there is much that can be done by governments to smooth the way for assistance to refugees. Privileges and immunities are not aims in themselves, nor challenges to sovereignty, but rather facilitating arrangements of benefit to refugees.

How about HRW's definition of "occupation"?

HRW also seems to contradict themselves about the definition of occupation, although not nearly as egregiously as Amnesty does.

When discussing whether Russia is occupying parts of Georgia in 2008, HRW writes:

Russia is bound by the law of occupation wherever it exercises effective control within the territory of Georgia without the consent of the Georgian state. Anywhere Georgian authorities are prevented from their full and free exercise of sovereignty - such as denying access for Georgian authorities including law enforcement and military forces - because of Russian presence, Russia is assuming the role of an occupying power for the purposes of international humanitarian law, and all its obligations towards the civilian population remain.

If Russia exercises effective control of access to an area, such as a so-called buffer zone, even if it grants access to some authorities, for example, Georgian police, it is still bound by its obligations to the civilian population to ensure public safety and welfare and permit humanitarian access.

The examples given in the first paragraph necessitate a presence of troops in the actual territory. The second paragraph, where such troops are not present, is ambiguous: HRW says accurately that there is a still an obligation for humanitarian access but it pointedly does not say that this is considered a legal occupation. The two issues are separate, as legal blockades (for example) must allow basic needs to get through but do no indicate an occupation.

However, in regards to Gaza, HRW has been explicit that Israel remains an occupier since Israel first announced the disengagement:

“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.

“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”

Again, this is not a direct contradiction, but the first source (written in 2008, after HRW was already committed to the definition about Gaza written in 2004) does imply that "effective occupation" means troops on the ground.

However, the ICRC is also explicit in its definition of occupation - and proves that HRW is wrong.

The ICRC has a document that describes belligerent occupation, and it says clearly:

Occupation ceases when the occupying forces are driven out of or evacuate the territory.

It would be interesting to hear whether any HRW official or Amnesty, for that matter) could be quoted as saying that they disagree with the ICRC.

By the way, the US Army and Navy Field Manual 27-5, Section 1-1b, has its own definition of occupied territory that is also at odds with HRW:

The term “occupied territory” is used to mean any area in which military government is cxerciscd by an armed force. It does not include territory in which an armed force is located but has not assumed supreme authority.

There is one thread of consistency throughout this research: by any definition of occupation that pre-dates Israel's disengagement, there is no way that Israel is legally occupying Gaza. Apparently, some NGOs have felt it necessary to redefine a very specific legal term to apply to Israel ex post facto.

This, of course, calls into question the objectivity of these NGOs altogether.

Rumor that US officials to meet Hamas next week

Al Quds al-Arabi quotes a Hamas source saying that US officials will unofficially meet with Hamas in an Arab country next week.

The story goes on to say that the Hamas officials were asked by the US to keep it quiet so that Jewish lobbying groups wouldn't find out.

Lower-level contacts between the State Department and Hamas were used to set up this meeting, according to the report.

It goes on to say that many European countries have been urging the US to open up a dialogue with Hamas.

George Mitchell is aware of and supportive of these contacts, the report says.

We have seen these claims before. In late May, Hamas spokesman Abu Marzouk claimed that there have been contacts between the organization and the State Department. It is plausible - diplomats itch to do diplomacy and dislike being told they cannot speak to major players - but it is equally plausible that Hamas is making this up.

News from the PalArabic press

There are rumors that Hamas plans to remove a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier that was erected by Egypt in Khan Younis, and replace it with something else. The monument is meant to commemorate those who died in the 1956 Sinai campaign. No hard evidence for this move is being reported, but there is concern that this could further erode the already strained relations between Egypt and Hamas.

An eight-year old child was shot in the head and killed in a "family dispute" in central Gaza.

The government of Turkey has supposedly asked Syria to take down the many posters that have popped up showing Turkish prime minister Erdogan together with Bashir Assad, Hassan Nesrollah, Khaled Meshal and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Erdogan is stressing that he is still in full solidarity with that gang, but now is not the time for the West to see these sorts of things. The Syrian government did as asked with impressive speed, and even arrested the printers of the posters for good measure, according to the article.

A "peace activist" wants to ethnically cleanse Israel of Jews

The person who is behind the "Free Palestine" movement that is the front for the Hezbollah-sponsored "Freedom Flotilla 2" from Lebanon describes his desire for a Jew-free Palestine: (from MEMRI):

"Whenever that criminal gang of Israeli pirates seizes a ship, I become more optimistic that the day will come when these ships will carry these dregs of European garbage back to their own countries.

"Let Gilad Shalit return to Paris. Let those murderers return to Poland. Once they are back there, we will hunt them down to the end of the world, and prosecute them for their massacres, from Deir Yassin to this day.

[...]

"I would like to say something to the Israeli people."

Interviewer: "To the settlers."

Yasser Qashlaq: "Yes, to that gang of criminal murderers. Board the ship we are sending you, and return to your countries. Don’t be misled by the Arab leaders or the moderate camp. You will never be able to make peace with us. Our children will return [to Palestine]. There is no reason for coexistence. Even if some of our leaders or regimes sign [peace] with you – we will never sign. Do not be misled by these regimes. Return to your countries."

Qashlaq's biography in his website says that he is "from Safed" - but he was born in Damascus in 1971. He says such peaceful statements as "tear down the so-called Temple of Solomon."

He also writes that he grieves when he sees Egypt confiscating weapons that are being smuggled to Gaza as if they are illegal drugs.

The sparse "Free Palestine Movement" website does not say a word about being against violence.

Four years of captivity for Gilad Shalit

Today is the fourth anniversary of Gilad Shalit's capture.

Bernard-Henri Levy writes::

Why so much emotion about the soldier Shalit ? Don't all conflicts produce prisoners of war, and isn't the young PFC from a tank crew, abducted in June, 2006, just a prisoner among others?

Well, actually, no. For there are, first of all, international conventions governing the status of prisoners of war, and the sole fact that this one has been sequestered for four years, the fact that the Red Cross, which regularly visits Palestinians in Israeli prisons, has never been granted access to him is a flagrant violation of the laws of war. But moreover and most of all, we must never tire of repeating this: Shalit was not captured in the fury of a battle but during a raid in Israel, when Israel, having evacuated Gaza, was at peace with its neighbor. In other words, calling him a prisoner of war is tantamount to judging that the fact that Israel occupies a territory or has ceased to occupy it changes nothing in terms of the hatred one believes it deserves. It means accepting the idea that Israel is at war even when it is at peace, or that we should make war against Israel because Israel is Israel. And if we do not accept that, if we refuse this logic that is Hamas's own logic and which, if words mean anything, is the logic of total war, we must begin by completely changing the rhetoric and the lexicon. Shalit is not a prisoner of war but a hostage. His fate is comparable to that of, not a Palestinian prisoner, but a kidnap victim being held for ransom. And he must then be defended as we defend the hostages of the FARC or the Libyans or the Iranians -- we must stand up for him with the same energy devoted to the defense of, say, Clotilde Reiss or Ingrid Betancourt.

Hostage or prisoner, no matter, why all the fuss over a single man? Why this focalisation on an individual "of no importance to the community," a man "made of all men, worth them all and of the same value as anybody" [Sartre]? Well, it is because Shalit is, precisely, not just anybody, and that he is going through what sometimes happens, in times of extreme tension in world history, to individuals in no way predisposed to play a part who suddenly become the captors of this tension, those who attract the resultant lightning, the points of impact of forces that, in a given situation, converge and clash. The dissidents of the era of communism were such, as are the persecuted of China or Myanmar today. Or, yesterday, this or that humble Bosnian figure an unparalleled concentration of adverse circumstances catapulted to prominence, turning him into a sort of a chosen one, in reverse. So it is with Gilad Shalit. Thus this man whose face is still that of a child incarnates, most unwillingly, the unending violence of Hamas; the mindless urge to exterminate of its supporters; the cynicism of those "humanitarians" who, like those of the Free Gaza flotilla, refused to take a letter from his family; or, once again, the double standard whereby he does not benefit from the same wealth of sympathy as, precisely, a Betancourt. Is a Franco-Israeli worth less than a Franco-Colombian? Is the signifiant Israel enough to degrade him? Exactly why hasn't his portrait been hung next to that of the heroic Colombian, on the facade of the Hotel de Ville in Paris? And how can one explain that, in the little park in the 12th arrondissement where it was finally displayed, it has been so regularly vandalized, and with such impunity? Shalit the symbol. Shalit, like a mirror.

One last question, that of the price the Israelis seem ready to pay for the liberation of the captive and the related question of hundreds, some mention a thousand, of potential assassins who will then be released. This is not the first time the problem has occurred. Already, in 1982, Israel freed 4,700 combatants being held in the camp of Ansar in exchange for eight of its own soldiers. In 1985, 1,150 of them (including the future founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassine) were set free in return for three of theirs. Not to mention the bodies, just the bodies, of Eldad Regec and Ehud Goldwasser, killed at the outset of the last war in Lebanon, traded, in 2008, for several leaders of Hezbollah, some of them sentenced for serious crimes. The idea, the double idea, is simple, and it is to Israel's credit. Against the cruelty, first of all, of the famous reasons of State, against the workings of the cold monsters and their terrible laziness, at the opposite of the glacial intransigence Italian writer Leonardo Sciascia was not afraid to decry in the wake of Aldo Moro's kidnapping by the Red Brigades and the way he was abandoned by his "friends," calling it another face of terrorism, this categorical and irrefutable imperative: between the individual and the State, always choose the individual. Between the suffering of only one and the turmoil of the Grand One, the one alone must prevail. A man may be worth nothing, but nothing -- and especially not the swaggering, chest-inflating pride of the Collective -- is worth the sacrifice of one man. And then, against a pseudo "sense of the Tragic" that serves as an alibi for so many instances of cowardice, in the face of the dime-store dialecticians rambling on ad infinitum about the possible perverse effects this action or that (the potential rescue, in this case, of a Daniel Pearl) might provoke in the distant future when faced with a situation of which we are presently unaware, this principle at the heart of Jewish wisdom, admirably summed up in Ecclesiastes (III: 23): do not concern yourself with that which goes beyond your works -- in your ignorance of the kingdom of ends and purposes and its ruses, just save the soldier Shalit.

Amnesty's hypocrisy, part 2 (Zvi)

Zvi commented on my last Amnesty post, and elaborated on it:

Amnesty has created its own contorted definition of the term "occupation," which it applies exclusively to Israel. Where Israel is concerned, Amnesty abandons the definition of occupation as defined under international law - which it applies to every other country and conflict - and uses its own contorted definition instead.

Amnesty does not apply this contorted definition to any other country or conflict, anywhere in the world.For example, Amnesty does not apply the same definition to Azerbaijan, despite the fact that Azerbaijan completely surrounds the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Amnesty does not claim that Azerbaijan is "occupying" Nagorno-Karabakh. Amnesty did not and does not apply this definition in the Balkans, or in Yemen (where the Saudis are blockading part of the country and cutting off land borders as well) or in Iraq.

Most importantly, Amnesty has never applied this definition to Israel's Arab neighbors. in 1967, the Arab powers (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) cut off Israel's access to the Red Sea in a deliberate attempt to choke Israel to death. At this time, nearly the entire Israeli border was controlled and absolutely closed by Arab armies. Nobody has ever been insane enough to claim that at this point, Israel was "occupied" by the Arabs.

In addition, the definition is bizarrely illogical. As long as a power does not close all of a region's borders, it has no control over what comes in or goes out. It might as well have no control over any border whatsoever.

Israel cannot control Gaza's border with Egypt at all, as is clearly demonstrated by the profusion of weapons-smuggling tunnels that run across this border and the occasional demolition of the Egyptian border fence. In other words, the closure of Gaza relies in equal parts on Israeli and Egyptian actions. Amnesty's definition must therefore be applied equally to Israel and Egypt, since there can be no closure of a territory without a complete encirclement. Thus, either Amnesty must lay responsibility for Gaza at the feet of an international anti-Hamas coalition consisting of two equal partners - Israel and Egypt - or Amnesty's bizarre definition of "occupation" is simply another example of arrogant hypocrisy.

Elder, you are absolutely right. Israel cannot fulfill the responsibilities of an "occupying power" because Israel cannot control anything that happens in Gaza. Gaza is controlled exclusively and entirely by the Hamas regime, a bloodthirsty jihadi regime that is at war with Israel and whose ambition is not freedom but rather the genocidal slaughter of the Jews. This regime has exclusive control over all activities in Gaza.

It is categorically impossible for Israel to "ensuring the welfare of the inhabitants of Gaza" - people who live under the boot of Hamas and whom Hamas holds hostage to its war against Israel - without sending in the army, occupying Gaza, and crushing Hamas. Only by occupying Gaza could Israel fulfill Amnesty's demands. But if Israel did that, Amnesty, and every other critic of Israel, would go absolutely berserk.

Amnesty is putting Israel in a position in which Amnesty will attack Israel no matter what Israel does, short of allowing its citizens to be bombed and mortared and doing nothing about it. Amnesty is doing this by fabricating a special definition for a term that has a very different legal definition. Amnesty then uses its private definition in the context of international law, where only the real legal definition may be used. In doing so, Amnesty appears to me to be guilty not only of hypocrisy and malicious mischief, but of fraud. If Amnesty's lawyers agreed to this fabrication, then perhaps they should be disbarred.

Of course, it is not only Amnesty. The UN has also called Gaza "occupied" - and "proved" it by offering an obscure footnote that, when researched, proved the exact opposite! The commission apparently felt that no one would bother looking up the footnoted case.

What we see is that even respected international agencies will subsume logic to their own bias. They "know" that Gaza is occupied, and they therefore must find - or make up - reasons after they already made that determination in their minds.

More light shed on Lebanese mistreatment of PalArabs

The law of unintentional consequences seems to be unbroken...

Last week, the Lebanese parliament debated whether to give Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon a smattering of rights. Of course, no citizenship or anything crazy like that, just whether they should be able to buy property. Christians were against it, Sunni Muslims were for it, and the idea was tabled for now.

The incentive for the sudden interest in improving the lives of Arabs with Palestinian ancestry in Lebanon? It was the realization that if the world cared about PalArab rights in Gaza because of the flotilla, they might wake up to sixty years of abuse by the Lebanese.

(For example, Lebanon forbade Palestinian Arabs in the Lebanese camps to do any construction altogether - even nails were banned - from the mid-90s to a few years ago.)

Even though some have known about how Lebanon mistreats its Palestinian Arab population for years, this realization never quite reached the mainstream Western world, as any complaints were always drowned out by the much louder war chants against Israel coming from that same vicinity of the planet.

But now that the Lebanese parliament has broached the subject, Comment is Free teaches its readers that Israel is not the only evil nation in the area:

The Arab world is rife with hypocrisy when it comes to the Palestinian issue. Arab leaders frequently and rightly cite the chronic human rights violations in which Israel engages, but fail to address the marginalisation of Palestinians within their own societies. Historically, Lebanese citizens have declared that naturalising Palestinians will act as a disincentive to their eventual repatriation and the exercise of their inviolable right of return. But this is a specious and cynical misrepresentation of the issue.

First, many diaspora Palestinians who have been naturalised in foreign countries, including myself, still seek to return to Palestine. Second, an individual ought to have the right to lead a complete and fulfilling life in his/her country of birth, irrespective of national or racial identity; it is not up to the Arab leaders to safeguard the Palestinian right of return against the prospect of a meaningful life lived outside Palestine.

Sounds like stuff I've been saying for years! Arab leaders, in the name of "unity," take away the free will of every Palestinian Arab to choose to become a citizen of other countries. As I mentioned earlier this year,

In the 1950s, Lebanon offered citizenship to many Christian Palestinians as well as Muslims who could prove Lebanese ancestry, and some 50,000 people jumped at the offer. A loophole that opened up in 1994 that offered citizenship was equally pounced upon and tens of thousands more became Lebanese citizens - many even falsifying papers - before that loophole was closed.

This is proof that the leaders are not conforming to the wishes of the people whose rights they are pretending to protect.

If you want to make a "pro-Palestinian activist" nervous, ask her one simple question: "Do you publicly support the right of Palestinians to become citizens of Arab countries if they choose to?" If you hear a sputtering response about "unity" and "compromising the right of return," you know that you are dealing with someone who doesn't give a damn about Palestinian Arabs.

The hypocrisy of those who pretend to love Palestinian Arabs is stark. It is sad that it takes a Palestinian Arab from America to notice exactly how much the Arab world discriminates against their Palestinian brethren - and how no one says a word.

(h/t bc)

Amnesty contradicts itself on definition of "occupation"

Amnesty International consistently refers to the Gaza Strip as "occupied" and Israel as the "occupying power." For example, in a recent press release, it says

After Hamas took control in Gaza in June 2007, the existing Israeli policy of closure was tightened to a blockade restricting the entry of food, fuel, and other basic goods....

As the occupying power, Israel bears the foremost responsibility for ensuring the welfare of the inhabitants of Gaza.

So in the case of Israel, Amnesty (and others) consider a closure of a territory over most of its borders to be "occupation."

Yet after the US and UK invaded Iraq, Amnesty in 2003 published a guide about the definition and legalities of a belligerent occupation. See how that definition, based on the Hague conventions, apply to Gaza:

The definition of belligerent occupation is given in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations:

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own. It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

The question may arise whether the law on occupation still applies if new civilian authorities set up by the occupying power from among nationals of the occupied territories are running the occupied territory’s daily affairs. The answer is affirmative, as long as the occupying forces are still present in that territory and exercise final control over the acts of the local authorities.

In the first quote from Amnesty above, it is clear that they recognize that Hamas has taken over Gaza. By their own definitions, which are very clear in the case of Iraq, "occupation" occurs only is when the outside army has physical control of the territory on the ground, and when it can override the decisions taken by the local authorities.

Any way you look at it, Gaza is not under the "authority" of the IDF and such authority over Gaza cannot be exercised by the IDF without a return of a physical presence. If Gaza is considered occupied because Israel has the ability to control its own border with a hostile territory, then Israel must have been "occupied" by its neighbors before 1977 because they also controlled their own borders and stopped any trade with Israel. The idea is absurd, and has no basis in international law.

In fact, Amnesty goes on in its 2003 guide to demand specific responsibilities of the US and UK in Iraq, responsibilities that it would be loathe to request Israel perform in Gaza. These include maintaining law and order, protecting civilians from being tortured or coerced, and other provisions that necessitate an actual physical presence in the territory. (Goldstone's legal arguments were even more bizarre.)

Amnesty's definition of occupation given in 2003 is quite accurate and fully in agreement with the Hague definitions. When it changes that definition concerning Israel in Gaza, it is engaging in blatant hypocrisy.

"The One About the UN"

From No Laughing Matter, the people who brought you videos about Hamas and Iran, comes their dig at the UN:

(h/t Silke)

UNRWA's 1951 report: The beginnings of a welfare culture

As a follow-up to my post on the 1950 UNRWA report, here are some highlights from the 1951 report.

5.... In the large towns such as Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, there was, in addition, a fairly large floating population of unskilled labourers, working in the ports, or for the oil companies, who had migrated from the country owing to the pressure on the land. Since the last census under the Mandate was taken, as far back as 1931, such persons were mostly registered in their village of origin, although for many years they had lived and worked in the large towns. The effect of this unrecorded movement of population has been to introduce a double source of error into any estimates of the number of persons who could have become refugees; since more people came out of towns in Israeli-held territory than were registered there and fewer people were actually living in the villages of the area which was later annexed to Jordan.

Here is another source of error of counting the numbers of refugees: People who really lived in Jordan and the West Bank would work in the coastal cities for much of the year. They fled along with the other Arabs, but they had homes to go to. Even so, they seem to have been counted as "refugees" anyway.

15. Today, after nearly three years, the refugees are still scattered over 100,000 square miles of territory in five different countries; still dependent on relief and without knowledge of the future; the victims of circumstances they are unable to grasp. Legally, humanly and economically speaking, they are little better off than they were when they first left Palestine, since against the sporadic and low-paid work that some of them have found must be set the exhaustion of the resources that others managed to bring out. No government, except in Jordan, has proclaimed their right to stay.

28. The number of refugees housed in UNRWAPRNE camps has risen by some twenty per cent since May 1950, and is still rising. Many thousands of new applications are received each month. These originate from (I) families who have hitherto managed to maintain themselves in lodgings but are now too poor to pay the rent however small; (II) new arrivals from Israel; (III) refugees who have been evicted for quarrelling with the villagers or for cutting down the fruit trees for fuel; and, lately (IV), some considerable movement of the population in the search of water, particularly in Jordan, as a result of the severe drought that has dried up wells and cisterns.

Why were there new arrivals from Israel in 1950 and 1951? I am not aware of any expulsions or mass flight during that time period; on the contrary, as I showed in the previous post, Israel bent over backwards to accommodate the refugees and displaced persons. My only guess is that some Arabs either wanted to go to the same camps as their families; they were disgusted at the idea of living in a Jewish state; or they decided that it would be better to move to a camp with free lodging, education and medical care than to try to find jobs in Israel.

This next section is probably the most accurate description of how Palestinian Arab refugees thought, written before UNRWA became hopelessly corrupt:

(c) The morale of the refugee

32. Owing to his intense individualism, the refugee has little sense of solidarity with his fellows. The concept of giving increased relief to the very needy is incomprehensible to him, making it very difficult for the Agency to distribute welfare goods to special cases. In the same way, much persuasion is necessary before he is willing to contribute labour for the greater good of the camp, or even for mending his own tent, unless he is paid for it.

In 1951, Arabs from Palestine exhibited zero sense of nationalism or unity. The idea that they self-identified with a nation called Palestine is a joke. To be sure, they were attached to their homes, but these ties were familial and tribal, not national. As we saw during the 1948 war, Palestinian Arabs would not fight for any other villages besides their own.

33. To his natural individualistic tendencies has now been added the characteristics of the typical refugee mentality, and its passive expectation of continued benefits. In the crowded and abnormal existence that the refugee leads, moral values tend to deteriorate and the authority of the head of the family, which would formerly have kept such behaviour in check, has seriously declined; yet, in spite of this, he has retained his inherent dignity to a remarkable degree.

A welfare state generates laziness. To be sure, many Palestinian Arabs took the initiative and started finding jobs; tens of thousands moved to Gulf states in the 1950s and helped build countries there from scratch. However, the camps tended to attract the ones who felt a sense of entitlement, and they in turn bred more of the same. This mentality infested UNRWA itself over the years, as the agency lost interest in finding jobs for the PalArabs.

34. It is probably true to say that the refugees are physically better off than the poorest levels of the population of the host countries; and in some cases better off, in the way of social services, than they were in Palestine; but, in their minds, the overwhelming fact of being uprooted from their homes, dependent and yet insecure, is more than enough to cancel out these benefits.

The mentality can be understood in 1951, but the fact that it has become institutionalized today is one of the greatest failings of UNRWA. The report mentions a number of times how its services were very attractive to neighboring Arabs who were not directly affected by the war.

35. The United Nations, in particular certain of the great Powers, are considered by the refugee to be entirely responsible for both his past and present misfortunes, and for his future fate. They say that they have lost faith in United Nations action since, after more than thirty months, the General Assembly resolution recommending their return home, although not revoked, has never been implemented and no progress has been made towards compensation.

36. The relief given by the Agency is therefore considered as a right, and as such is regarded as inadequate. Individual efforts to explain the situation to them are usually in vain; the refugee will listen politely but in the end remains convinced both of the bitter injustice done to him, and the fact that little or nothing is being done to rectify it.

37. The desire to go back to their homes is general among all classes; it is proclaimed orally at all meetings and organized demonstrations, and, in writing, in all letters addressed to the Agency and all complaints handed in to the area officers. Many refugees are ceasing to believe in a possible return, yet this does not prevent them from insisting on it, since they feel that to agree to consider any other solution would be to show their weakness and to relinquish their fundamental right, acknowledged even by the General Assembly. They are, moreover, sceptical of the promised payment of compensation.

38. This sense of injustice, frustration and disappointment has made the refugee irritable and unstable. There are occasional strikes, demonstrations and small riots. There have been demonstrations over the census operation, strikes against the medical and welfare services, strikes for cash payment instead of relief, strikes against making any improvements, such as school buildings, in camps in case this might mean permanent resettlement; experimental houses to replace tents, erected by the Agency, have been torn down; and for many months, in Syria and Lebanon, there was widespread refusal to work on agency road-building and afforestation schemes.

This mentality became institutionalized, and eventually accepted by the UN. The nadir of the same counterproductive thinking that caused the 1951 refugees to tear down houses may have occurred in 1977, with UN Resolution 32/90, in response to Israel's having built permanent housing for Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip. The resolution called on Israel to return the Arabs to the camps rather than let them have real homes, thus showing how important the perpetuation of the "refugee" problem had become to the UN itself thirty years after it had started.

39. This then is rich and tempting soil for exploitation by those with other motives than the welfare of the refugee. Happily, there are defences that blunt this effort. There are enduring religious defences and there still exist resistant strengths of communal ties and leadership. There are sustaining services of food, shelter, health and education from many sources. There are refugees who left no assets in Palestine. There are refugees who wish to live in Arab countries. There are refugees who have sought and found new roots.

The refugees who no longer needed to be on the UN dole were therefore ignored in future reports, and the idea that all Palestinian Arabs are needy refugees became the conventional wisdom in part since UNRWA had no responsibility for the many who actually took control of their lives.

A car accident. A woman injured. Medics must transport her in an ambulance to a more modern facility to properly treat her. Then, they return back to their home hospital, knowing that they have done a good job in helping a human being become whole again.

But before the medics can resume their jobs, the ambulance is stopped by a higher authority.

Our Saudi heroes at the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice notice the ambulance, and when they see red, it is not from the flashing lights.

They see nurses sitting in the front seat.

Female nurses!

As everyone knows, this is an illegal mixing of the sexes, known as "khulwa."

Our heroes chased the ambulance and overtook it, forcing the driver and passengers to exit while they could interrogate them.

For an hour and a half.

After explaining the heinousness of their crime, the Muttawa/Hai'a allowed the medical workers to go on their way. Of course, the women were forced to sit in the rear.

The perpetrators were lucky, though. Firas Press reports that our heroes at the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice uncovered another case of khulwa recently - a party where there were 11 men and 4 women together in the same room.

A Saudi court sentenced the party-goers, aged in their 20s and 30s, to 1-2 years of prison time and up to 80 lashes.

Jewish dance group attacked in Germany

Not by neo-nazis, but:

A group of mainly Muslim children and young people of Lebanese, Palestinian and Iranian origin threw stones at dance group of the liberal Jewish congregation at a party in the district Sahlkamp in Hannover last Saturday. So far the police identified two suspects: a 14 year old German and a 19 year old North African.

They link the attack and anti-Semitic tendencies in Germany by these groups directly to the flotilla incident. But why do Iranians, Lebanese and North-Africans actually care? Don't tell me that they actually are just anti-Semitic? And the left buys their hatred when they misinterpret it for sincere criticism against Israel.

But did the Left ever ask themselves why these Muslim children and young people of Lebanese, Palestinian, Iranian and North African origin do not care about NEDA, e.g.? Because they don't care about freedom, tolerance, (real!) human rights, and peace. And THAT should actually concern the Left.

Jordanians aghast at "Made in Israel" graduation gowns

Firas Press reports that students at Hashemite University in Jordan were upset when they saw the words "Made in Israel" on the outside of their graduation gowns.

The university investigated and claims that maybe the plastic bags the gowns were in were made in Israel, but not the robes, as Israeli clothing is much more expensive than Jordanian. The investigation continues.

This is the second blow that the university has suffered vis a vis Israel in the past year. It was also accused of cooperating with Ben Gurion University on a water desalination project. University officials defended themselves, saying that it was really a Cornell University project and that they never met with their Ben Gurion counterparts, and it was merely a technical project and not political.