I guess Fatah wants to see more Gazans killed.
Good to know how much they care about their people.
In all likelihood the next Israeli-Iranian confrontation will be a clash with Amidror’s half-threat: the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Iran’s most effective proxy in the Middle East and perhaps the best armed nonstate military force on earth. Amidror says another round of Israel-Hezbollah fighting is a “very-high-probability” event even if he doesn’t believe it’s inevitable. Israel’s war aims will be narrow. “We should neutralize the military capability of Hezbollah,” he said. “We should not destroy the organization as a political tool. If the Shiites want these people to represent them, it’s their problem.” He anticipates that because of Arab and Western antipathy toward Iran, Israel will have a relatively free hand to prosecute such a war and won’t become an international pariah as a result of the conflict. That’s pretty much where the good news ends.Laws of Armed Conflict in Gaza
“It will be a very nasty war,” Amidror said. “A very, very nasty war.” Hezbollah will fire “thousands and thousands” of long-range missiles of improved precision, speed, and range at Israeli population centers, a bombardment larger than Israel’s various layers of missile defense will be able to neutralize in full. “It will be very problematic for us. We don’t have tomorrow morning enough interceptors and they are enhancing their capabilities.”
This will be a blow Israel can withstand. “Israelis will be killed, no question,” Amidror said. “But it’s not going to be catastrophic.” He recalled that during the 2014 war in Gaza, the families of wounded soldiers called on the prime minister to continue the operation from beside their relatives’ hospital beds. “The cabinet didn’t know how to stop the IDF and tell them to retreat back after they destroyed the [Hamas] tunnels because the atmosphere was: Don’t stop, continue.” Amidror’s point was that the Israeli public is willing to withstand even heavy casualties during war if it’s clear the country’s battlefield aims are being achieved.
In Lebanon, the war will inflict unspeakable suffering. Because the interceptors won’t be able to stop the entirety of Hezbollah’s missile barrages, Israel will have to target rockets on the ground before they can be launched—Amidror pointed out that Israel destroyed many of Hezbollah’s Zelzal missiles during the 2006 conflict with the militant group; as a result, none of the rockets was fired at Israel during the war. “Think of about 120,000 rockets and missiles, 50 percent or 80 percent of them stored by the Iranians within populated areas in private houses. Areas will be evaporated. Think about a missile of half a ton, with all the fuel in it, and Israel hits it with only 100 grams of TNT. … Think about what will be damaged just by the stored missiles. Thousands and thousands of Lebanese will be killed and part of Lebanon will be destroyed.” That’s on top of whatever destruction Israel causes when targeting other Hezbollah bases and infrastructure.
Amidror recalled a meeting with Ban Ki-moon during one of the former U.N. secretary-general’s visits to Israel. He showed Ban photos of Hezbollah rockets stored in civilian areas. “Secretary, what should Israel do?” Amidror remembered asking. “These missiles will be launched into Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Afula, everywhere. What is your advice to Israel? And I’m telling you if we will hit these missiles, many Lebanese will be killed. Many of them even don’t know that they are neighboring a missile and are totally innocent. You are the secretary-general of the United Nations. What is your advice? He didn’t know what to say, and he said nothing.”
Israel’s adversaries are doubling down on their success, as I saw recently when I visited the Gaza-Israel border as part of a delegation with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. The night before, Hamas fired dozens of rockets into Israeli communities, including one that landed in front of a kindergarten. I also saw the widespread devastation to Israel in the form of mile after mile of cropland scorched by incendiaries launch from Gaza.PMW: The truth about Israeli prisons: Singing and dancing; TV and books
Yet, as with reporting of clashes since March, most headlines downplayed the indiscriminate use of incendiaries and rockets against Israel, in favor of portraying Israel’s retaliation against Hamas military targets as the largest “pummeling” of Gaza since 2014. As in weeks prior, no mention was made of Israel’s graduated responses to these provocations, including its prioritization of non-lethal force whenever possible.
Unsurprisingly, an end to this conflict does not appear close at hand. Indeed, such irresponsible coverage of Israel influences the strategy of terrorist groups, who increasingly buttress their illegal tactics with sophisticated information operations to hypocritically delegitimize Israeli actions.
Israel will survive misperceptions and ill-informed reporting, though at the cost of increased and unnecessary pressure from the outside world to terminate lawful operations in self-defense. But sadly the same prospects for survival will not apply for Arab civilians unless perspectives on the radical differences in how Israel and its adversaries operate become dramatically more objective.
Palestinian 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, who served eight months in Israeli prison for inciting suicide bombings and for striking Israeli soldiers, was asked by Russian RT TV how she passed the time.
Her descriptions of her daily routine for herself and the entire wing include singing, dancing, reading books, watching TV, even legal studies and matriculation exams, and refute the PA's ongoing lies about the conditions in Israeli prisons.
The following is part of a longer interview on RT TV:
RT TV reporter: "Tell us in detail how you passed the time; what did you do inside the prisons?"
Ahed Tamimi: "As I told you, I did a lot of things: a legal course, we spent a lot of time on that, and matriculation exam studies; I read books; we would sing; we even had joint breakfasts of the entire wing - we would go outside, every room would bring its things, and we would eat together. We also ate lunch together most of the time. We also had parties; we would sit and sing, and dance. There were a lot of things that we did to pass the time: We watched TV, for example we jumped around in the rooms and did silly things; we did a lot of things."
[Russian channel RT TV Arabic, Aug. 1, 2018]
Already a few years ago a released terrorist prisoner described the good life in the male side of prison:
President Trump signed into law [Monday] the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, the U.S. defense budget bill for the coming Fiscal Year.I admit to mixed feelings about much of the US security assistance to Israel, as we have seen the Obama administration use that as a set of "golden handcuffs" to stop Israel from acting in its own best interests. Israel should set a strategic goal of weaning itself off of much of that aid.
Included in this bill are provisions to authorize $500 million for U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation and up to $50 million for U.S.-Israel counter-tunnel cooperation. It authorizes funding for both R&D and procurement for the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 missile defense systems. These programs enable Israel to defend its citizens while advancing America’s own missile defense capabilities.
These funds are in addition to the $3.3 billion in security assistance as part of the U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018 (S. 2497) which passed in the full U.S. Senate two weeks ago.
In 1949, the Agency was given the task of supporting the Palestinian refugees, in addition to providing humanitarian services such as health, education and relief, coordinating with the host countries to integrate refugees into the economies of the region and working to settle those who do not wish to return and reside in host countries in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. These countries were forced to sign armistice agreements with the Israeli occupation between February and July 1949, creating a political climate suitable to begin the process of resettlement without the objection of the host countries and the exploitation of the deteriorating humanitarian situation of the refugees. The refugees themselves stopped this project and promoted awareness of what their perception was being plotted against them.It was the Arab countries and self-appointed Palestinian "leaders" who fought against UNRWA's original aims, not the refugees themselves, who would have gladly accepted being integrated into Arab countries.
On December 12, 1950, Resolution 393 was issued, under which the United Nations General Assembly entrusted UNRWA with the task of integrating Palestinian refugees into the economies of the region, In 1959, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld presented a paper to the United Nations General Assembly containing a proposal to expand refugee rehabilitation programs and strengthen their capacity to support themselves, dispense with UNRWA's assistance and settle them in their places of residence, while appealing to Arab countries hosting refugees to cooperate with the agency.From the start, the Arabs have politicized the Palestinian refugee issue, and that is the entire reason UNRWA exists today - not to solve the problem but to perpetuate and maximize it for the benefit of corrupt Palestinian Arab leaders at the expense of the actual stateless Palestinians.
His Labour handlers claimed Corbyn was there to commemorate some four-dozen Palestinian militants killed in an Israeli air strike against a Tunisian PLO base. But hang on: “On a visit to the cemetery this week, the Daily Mail discovered that the monument to the air strike victims is 15 yards from where Mr. Corbyn is pictured—and in a different part of the complex. Instead, he was in front of a plaque that lies beside the graves of Black September members.”CNN Commentator Peter Beinart Consulted Soros-Funded Anti-Israel Group Prior to Being Questioned at Tel Aviv Airport
Corbyn himself has described the conference as one “searching for peace,” but the Daily Mail on Monday debunked that apologia, as well. The gabfest—titled the “International Conference on Monitoring the Palestinian Political and Legal Situation in the Light of Israeli Aggression”—featured leading members and ideologues for the Gaza-based terror outfit Hamas. One such leader, Oussama Hamdan, offered a “four-point vision to fight against Israel” and hailed Hamas’ “great success on the military and national levels.”
This comes on top of everything else we know about Corbyn’s Labour: the unreconstructed Stalinist party spokesman, the anti-Semitic outrages from local councilors and top MPs alike, the Labour leader’s stints as a broadcaster for state-run Iranian television, his invitations to Hamas and Hezbollah, which he has called “our friends.” And on and on and on. The noxious ideological fumes wafting from a once-honorable party of the center-left are suffocating.
There was a time when conservatives, including Americans like yours truly, took a certain pleasure in Labour’s Corbynite woes. Corbyn was so extreme, the thinking went, that his hostile takeover of Labour would ensure Tory ascendance for a generation. The man’s goofy manners—his tweed jackets and bad ties, his bicycling and gardening—only added to the fun. But the joke stopped being funny long ago. The Tories under Prime Minister Theresa May are in a shambolic state, Brexit has stalled, the pound sterling is in a downward spiral, and the electorate is deeply polarized. He really could pull it off.
To avert that dreadful prospect, Britons of good will should set aside quotidian policy differences and rally around the “Never Corbyn” standard. The outcome of Brexit, taxes and welfare, immigration and the National Health Service—none of these questions is more important than ensuring that the Jew-baiting, Black September-honoring, Hamas-befriending crank from the People’s Republic of Islington gets nowhere near No. 10 Downing Street.
For the love of all that is good and just.
Prior to his being questioned at Israel’s international airport on Sunday, CNN political commentator and Israel critic Peter Beinart admits to consulting a George Soros-funded radical anti-Israel organization about “what to do if I were detained” upon entering Israel.
Beinart seems to have anticipated that he may be questioned upon landing at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport, and claims that he was detained for about an hour and questioned over “my beliefs.”
Beinart wrote in a column at the liberal Forward newspaper that prior to his latest visit to Israel this week, he previously participated in a protest in the West Bank city of Hebron, and that he “become involved in the protest” through the Center for Jewish Nonviolence.
The Center seeks to “bring an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.” Israel refers to the West Bank, which houses ancient Jewish communities, as disputed and not occupied territory. Eastern Jerusalem includes the Temple Mount, Western Wall, and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City.
Liberal American-Jewish commentator Peter Beinart gave a provocative speech on Wednesday, in which he said Israel essentially deserved the wave of Arab terrorism targeting its citizens.Ben Shapiro to Peter Beinart: "Hamas Celebrates When You're on TV"
Beinart - who despite his regular attacks on the Jewish state insists he is "pro-Israel" - was speaking at "Beth Chayim Chadashim Progressive synagogue in Los Angeles, which was set up as a "gay-friendly" congregation.
His comments were recorded approvingly by the anti-Israel Mondoweiss website. (h/t steelraptor from Saturn)
Since the launching of the very first primitive rockets that our leaders dismissed as insignificant, our citizens in the southern area have suffered considerably and been transformed into refugees in their own country. After successive wars that temporarily created a deterrent effect, the situation has now eroded to the point where Hamas disregards our empty threats and bombings of empty buildings.
We have not learned from the past. We are again acting with restraint as the terrorists gauge our response and resolve. After the events of the past few weeks, we should demand that our government display leadership and strength and adjust its policy of restraint instead of accepting a situation where Hamas tactical considerations determine the quality of life for citizens in the south.
Appeasement only emboldens our enemies, who harbor genocidal ambitions against us as their goal. And the absence of deterrence will inevitably, as in the past, lead to war.
All Israelis are willing to make great sacrifices to achieve peace. They would dearly love to live side by side with Palestinians. But the road to peace is not paved with illusions.
We should inform our allies and warn our adversaries that we will no longer engage in restraint and limit our response. We will act like any other nation and employ the full might at our disposal to bring an immediate end to such assaults against our citizens.
We have one of the most powerful armies in the world. If Hamas will not unilaterally cease its terror activities, notwithstanding the difficulties and complications referred to above, we will have no choice but to destroy it.
Failure to act now virtually guarantees a full-scale conflict at a later stage when Hamas will probably be in a better position to inflict greater casualties upon us.
The Trump administration is supposedly considering declassifying a State Department report that tallies up the true number of Palestinian refugees.A Palestinian attempt to oust Israel from the UN would be quixotic — and fail
If Trump does this, the repercussions could go a long way to settling the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, or UNRWA, classifies refugees unlike any other organization in the world, and in a way that contradicts common sense. Whereas the number of refugees from the original 1948 Arab/Israeli war would likely number in the tens of thousands, the UNRWA also counts people generations removed from the conflict, many of whom are citizens of new countries, in addition to everyone living in their internationally recognized homes of Gaza and the West Bank.
This politically motivated definition raises the number of "refugees" to an estimated 5.3 million. And that number is used by Palestinians to claim a “right of return” to Israel for a number greater than half of Israel's entire population.
Until today, there has been no official acknowledgment of the true number of refugees. Governments and international organizations around the world instead pay lip service to UNRWA’s fiction that the number of refugees has expanded many times over since the 1948 war.
This will change if the Trump administration releases the classified report.
After their failed efforts last year to get Israel booted from FIFA, the world soccer body, the Palestinians have now reportedly set their sights on an even bigger prize: kicking Israel out of the United Nations.
According to a brief report Sunday in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, Palestinian leaders are planning to argue that Israel is in violation of several UN Security Council resolutions and the UN charter. Ramallah will further argue, the report stated, that Israel’s recently passed nation-state law, which declares national rights to be exclusive to Jews, proved Israel is an apartheid state and must therefore be sanctioned.
Palestinian officials did not respond to several requests for comment by The Times of Israel.
Israeli officials were quick to denounce the ostensible plan, even though the chances that Israel would actually be expelled or suspended from the UN are close to zero.
The apartheid accusation, long leveled at Israel by its critics, is particularly noteworthy, because in 1974 South Africa — one of the UN’s 51 founding members in 1945 — was suspended from the UN General Assembly over its racist governing system.
After attempts to kick out South Africa failed due to vetoes by France, Britain and the US, the General Assembly voted to suspend the country, 91-22 with 19 abstentions. South Africa did not lose its seat at the GA but could not make speeches or participate in votes.
The US, the UK, Israel and other Western countries opposed the move, not defending apartheid but saying depriving the country of its seat at the General Assembly was illegal “and could set a dangerous precedent for the future,” The New York Times reported at the time.
At University of Houston, protesters disrupted a student group�s event with chants of �Zionists off our campus...Zionists off our Campus...Free, Free, Free Palestine,� and one protester additionally shouted, �F*** Zionists, F*** all you Zionists!� The protesters continued their demonstration outside the event hall, loudly chanting, �Whose campus? Our campus!...Racists off our campus, Zionists off our campus, Islamophobes off our campus! Fists up, fight back!�This is a different kind of harassment, directed at Jewish students not as Jews but rather as representatives and supporters of Israel. It is also antisemitism but is distinctive from classic antisemitism such as swastikas and anti-Jewish hate speech.
shutting down, disrupting, defacing or other attempts to interfere with Israel-related events, displays, trips, or announcements on the one hand, and the targeting of individual students and student groups for vilification or attempts to exclude them from participating in campus activities, to boycott interaction with them, or even to expel them from campus altogether on the other.According to Rossman-Benjamin, it is important to be able to distinguish the intentionality behind the attacks. Antisemitic attacks were not necessarily directed at a particular Jewish student on campus, but anti-Zionist incidents were virtually all directed particularly at Jewish students. It was those anti-Zionist attacks that were more likely to affect the campus climate.
Instead of trying to get the anti-Zionism behavior recognized as discrimination, let's get the anti-Zionism behavior recognized as a behavior which takes away an individual�s freedom of expression and freedom to fully participate in campus life.The effort to get anti-Zionism recognized on campus as an example of classic antisemitism or a form of discrimination against Jews would take a lot of work and would not necessarily successful. It will take a lot of effort to get anti-Zionism recognized as a special form of discrimination, and going the legal route is time-consuming and not a simple task.
If you have to argue that anti-Zionism is a form of classic antisemitism before you can get protection from what is legitimately hurting Jewish students, you are wasting time when you could be just going to the fact that Jew students are getting hurt -- and that is unacceptable, period.So instead of going to the legislature, AMCHA advocates for going directly to the university itself, and in its report offers these suggestions:
o Issue a public statement assuring all students that they will be equally protected from intolerant behavior that violates their freedom of expression or their right to full participation in campus life;
o Amend university policies to include the prohibition of peer-on-peer harassment that suppresses any student�s freedom of speech, association or assembly, or unduly interferes with any student�s access to educational opportunities or benefits;
o Institute procedures for enforcing the amended policies equitably, without regard to the motivation of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim;
o Develop educational programs to teach about the importance of freedom of expression to university life and to encourage the expression of a wide range of views in a productive and respectful manner. [emphasis added]
o Students need to call for it
o Outside groups need to call for it
o Communities need to call for it - and not just Jewish communities either.
“UNRWA applies a unique standard to refugees, making refugees of their descendants”A more accurate way of saying what J-Street considers a "myth" would be to re-word it "“UNRWA applies a unique standard to Palestinians, automatically giving refugee status to their descendants with no mechanism to remove them from that status forever."
Wrong. Children of refugees under UNHCR have "derivative" status and are absolutely not considered refugees.
● Palestinian refugees are not distinct from other protracted refugee situations in this regard. Under international law, the children of refugees, whether or not the parents are stateless or lacking citizenship in another country, are also considered refugees.
Half-truth. The derivative status is not automatically inherited. And if the parent is no longer classified as a refugee according to UNHCR's many cessation clauses, the children lose that status as well. Refugees are re-evaluated under UNHCR's procedures - but UNRWA has no means to take a refugee off its rolls of "registered Palestine refugees."
● In fact, the majority of the world’s refugees live in protracted refugee situations. UNHCR also registers descending generational refugees including those from: Afghanistan, Angola, Bhutan, Burma, Burundi, Congo/DRC, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Tibet and Western Sahara.
And this should happen automatically, forever? It sure doesn't for any other refugee situation in the world.
● The principle of family unity and keeping families united and together is the reason that refugee parents provide refugee status to their children.
That is complete garbage. Under UNHCR's definition, none of the Palestinians who live in the West Bank or Gaza or most of them in Jordan would be considered refugees, and none of the rest would be considered refugees either unless they are over 70 years old.
● In fact, UNRWA’s definition of a Palestinian refugee is narrower than UNHCR’s definition of a refugee. Under UNHCR’s definition, both women and men can pass on refugee status to their descendants, whereas only male refugees can pass on their status as refugees under UNRWA’s definition. Under UNHCR’s definition, many more Palestinians, located all over the world, would qualify as refugees.
Again, this is a lie. The UNRWA definition is an "operational definition" of refugee to determine who gets aid. UNRWA alone decided on this definition, not the UN General Assembly.
● UNRWA’s refugee definition is determined only by the UN General Assembly and cannot be changed by UNRWA.
● The “right of return” is a fundamental, internationally-recognized human right afforded to ALL refugees everywhere.
Ironically, the loudest critics of the law are those that are most eager to infringe on individual rights in the name of Jewish statehood. They expelled thousands of Jews from their homes because they said we need to do so to have a Jewish state. They wish to expel hundreds of thousands more – because they say they we want a Jewish state. What is the meaning of a Jewish self-determination if it cannot be articulated as a positive value, only as an excuse for expulsion?
Some critics object to the law not because of what is in it, but because of what is not. But their argument is disingenuous. Indeed, Meretz has challenged the Basic Law in court based on the existing protection of equality – and then turn around and say there is no constitutional protection of equality.
People talk broadly of “equality,” but no one knows what “equality” means. Does it mean the Law of Return is unconstitutional? Does it mean that those who serve the nation in the Army, such as our brothers the Druze, are not eligible for veterans’ benefits? Does it mean that the exemption of Arabs from compulsory from military service is unconstitutional? It can mean all of those things – and none of them. Without an agreement on what equality means in Knesset and society, including such a provision is simply writing a blank check to the Supreme Court to decide the most contentious social issues based purely on their opinion. That is undemocratic, and that is why it was not done.
Nothing imperils the status quo for Israel’s minorities than the suggestions cynically tossed around by the law’s opponents.
I must say a terrible word, because the critics have cynically used it in relation to the law: Apartheid. This debases the meaning and memory of Apartheid, and is as disgusting as Nazi analogies, which we know have no place in political discussions. The law does not give any group special access to public facilities. It does not change the full political and electoral rights of Israeli citizens of all ethnic groups. If this is apartheid, the word is meaningless. Indeed, the same “right-wing” parties that supported this law passed a historic 10- to 15-billion-shekel development plan for Arab communities.
Israel properly does not compare itself to neighboring regimes. But we know that the constitution adopted by the Palestinian Authority declares their entity to be Palestinian in character; with Arabic as the official language, and Islam as the official religion. If this is apartheid, why are the opponents of the law so eager to create an apartheid state?
The site of the rally was a message in itself. The Palestinian flags were not being raised in an Israeli Arab town such as Umm el-Fahm or Sakhnin, or even in a mixed city like Haifa. They were fluttering in the bastion of secular Israel.Ben-Dror Yemini: Shooting themselves in the flag
The calls were not to amend the Nation-State Law or to cancel it and turn the Declaration of Independence into law instead. The slogans were negating Israel’s very existence as the Jewish state.
This was not a rally of solidarity with the state, like the Druze held. It was a demonstration against the Zionist entity and enterprise.
The protest was organized by the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, a self-appointed non-governmental umbrella organization that is meant to coordinate representation of Israel’s Arab community. Arab parliamentarians, including Ayman Odeh, Ahmad Tibi and Yousef Jabareen, were present. It showed yet again that the Arab MKs do not always best serve the interests of the public they are meant to represent.
Jabareen, who earlier this year submitted a counter bill dubbed “The Palestinian-State Law,” was quoted by Israel Hayom as demanding the complete abolition of the new Nation-State Law. “Adding the word ‘equality’ won’t save it and it will sow the seeds of racism in any form. Those who would be satisfied with amending the law want to mask it. No less.”
Arabs comprise some 20% of Israel’s population and have enjoyed full citizenship rights, both before and after the passage of the Nation-State Law. The rally was not aimed at achieving certain socio-economic goals, such as improved housing, education, employment or infrastructure in the Arab sector; it was aimed at taking away the right of the Jewish majority to say that Israel is a Jewish state. The call to turn Israel into a “state for all its citizens” sounds innocent and politically correct – but the underlying meaning is the end of the world’s only Jewish state.
The Nation-State Law defined the Blue-and-White stripes and Star of David as the Israeli flag. Despite the rhetoric, even after the law passed, it is not illegal to raise the Palestinian flag in Israel. But as Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid tweeted, “It’s interesting what would happen were someone to try to march in central Ramallah carrying the Israeli flag.”
The red, green, black and white flags waved at Saturday night’s rally were all red flags for the Jewish state.
There wasn't one protest on Saturday night, but two. One was of those who waved the Palestine flag, mostly in defiance. They are not seeking equality or coexistence, but the rejection of Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The second protest was of those protesting the discrimination and fighting for equality, and they think the Nation-State Law is going to make their situation worse. The first group wants to deepen the conflict; the second group wants change through legitimate protest.
The great majority of Israeli Arabs vote for the Joint List, whose leadership supports the former group. This leadership provokes. This leadership rejects Israel's right to exist. This leadership's comments and actions lead to slogans being shouted such as: "In spirit and in blood we'll save you Palestine." And on Saturday night—what a shame—these slogans were being shouted at Rabin Square.
On the other hand, all of the polls conducted in recent years indicate that 50-53 percent of Joint List voters support the definition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. They don't support every foolish thing the party's leadership does, just like Likud voters don't support every irksome declaration of constructions outside the main settlement blocs and/or outside the separation barrier. Voting for a party is about identity, not about agreeing with every statement.
The protest organizers asked not to wave Palestinian flags. They wanted to appeal to the Israeli public. It was a worthy decision. Because anyone who waves the Palestine flag at this protest is there to show defiance against Israeli flags, supports Palestinian nationalism and opposes Jewish nationalism.
How many of the young people protesting Friday at the Gaza border fence hoped the soldiers facing them would pull the trigger and end their lives?What Amira Hass isn't saying is that the ones who want to die will do acts to ensure success - cutting the fence, throwing firebombs at soldiers, whatever.
Many. Many more than is reported or than the Palestinians are prepared to or can admit publicly.
“A person who was shot in the leg and had his leg amputated weeps. Not because his leg is gone, but because the soldier didn’t kill him,” said someone who came out of the Gaza Strip for a few days. He told of a 30-year-old man who went up to the fence a few times, was wounded a few times, until he got lucky and the soldier on the other side finally killed him.
What is the ratio between the number of those seeking to continue protecting the principles of the Palestinian struggle – by protesting at the border fence – and the number of those using the patriotic-nationalistic mantle to commit suicide, knowing that Islam prohibits “ordinary” suicide?
Many of them are young people who go to the fence to be wounded, thinking that Hamas will pay them, and then they can pay their debts at the grocery store or pay their rent for two months. It’s true: Hamas pays the injured a one-time payment of $200, I’m told. But only if the injury was serious.
Someone who was slightly injured and went to a Hamas office to ask for money was turned away. Someone else was fortunate – his injury was worth compensation, then he went to the fence to be wounded again, and received compensation again.
Some people deluded themselves that their family would receive large compensation if they were killed, or that payment for injury would come on a monthly basis. They still think it’s like the second intifada, when Saddam Hussein and Iran sent money for these purposes and the Palestinian Authority bore the burden. Those days are gone forever. ....
And now to the women protesters: Since they are few, this could seem like an accusation, or scorn, which will draw protests. But a Palestinian woman who spoke with women who go to the fence says she believes that few of them do it for national reasons, or that gradually the national reasons gave way to personal-economic reasons. Some of them went to be wounded and receive compensation. One went to be close to her son who was protesting. And many went to die – one whose husband refused to give her a divorce, another who was unmarried and felt that society considered her damaged goods, a third who was a victim of family violence ...We are familiar with the phenomenon of women in the West Bank who committed suicide-by-soldier.
ENSURE THAT NO CHILD IS BORN STATELESSDoes the UN's other "refugee agency," UNRWA, adhere to these goals?
Goal: No reported cases of childhood statelessness.
Goal: All States have a provision in their nationality laws to grant nationality to stateless children born in their territory.
PREVENT DENIAL , LOSS OR DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY ON
DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS
Goal: No States have nationality laws which permit denial, loss or deprivation of
nationality on discriminatory grounds.
ACCEDE TO THE UN STATELESSNESS CONVENTIONS
Goal: 140 States are party to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
Goal: 130 States are party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!