Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, September 04, 2018

09/04 Links Pt1: Glick: Trump's 'Peace Process' Starts by Ending the Fake One; The Oslo process is a proven failure; IDF: We carried out 200 strikes in Syria

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Trump's 'Peace Process' Starts by Ending the Fake One

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s moves have made upset the Palestinians. PLO chief and PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies insist that the U.S. has no right to end its welfare payments to pretend refugees.

They can be excused for being indignant.

After all, for 70 years, the U.S. refused to recognize reality on either Jerusalem or UNRWA. For 25 years, three administrations ignored PLO support for terrorism, political warfare against Israel, corruption, and embezzlement. And now, suddenly, Trump and his team are paying attention and basing U.S. policies on reality.

The Palestinians are not alone in their indignation. Over the past 25 years, as the fundamental lies at the heart of the failed peace process continued to inform the policies of successive U.S. administrations, the gamble of the peace process became the religion of the peace process. Israeli leftists, like European and American leftists, embraced the PLO’s anti-Israel narrative as an article of faith. It is all but impossible for them to walk away from it after all of these years.

Moreover, the peace process’s false assumptions didn’t perpetuate themselves. Over 25 years bureaucracies were spawned in Israel and across the world on the basis of the failed peace process and its false belief that, once empowered, terrorists become model citizens and pioneers. Trump’s moves expose these bureaucracies’ incompetence, strategic blindness, and corruption.

And just as Trump’s determination to ground U.S. policy in reality harms those dedicated to perpetuating fantasies, it empowers millions of people who have been marginalized and silenced for a quarter century. It gives them – Israelis, Palestinians Arabs, and Arabs in the wider Middle East – the possibility for the first time to build relations based on reality.

That may not lead to fancy signing ceremonies with doves and balloons on the White House lawn. But it does provide the first realistic basis for honest and cooperative relations between Israel and its neighbors since 1993.

Here’s What You Need To Know About Trump’s Decision To Cut Subsidies To Palestine

President Trump announced the United States is cutting $200 million in annual foreign subsidies to Palestine channeled through the United Nations, followed by an announcement last Friday that the United States willwithdraw all funding from UNRWA, the UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees.

Furious reactions accuse the White House of everything from “political blackmail” and “coercion” to “weaponizing” humanitarian subsidies. This week’s media coverage has generally bolstered those misleading claims by failing to adequately cover one of the primary reasons for the move: the Palestinian “Martyrs Fund.”

Though the White House may have eventually reduced Palestinian subsidies anyway (as a part of an upcoming overhaul of foreign subsidies in general), the significant size and timing of this particular cut tells another story, one that the media is failing to report.

The ‘Martyrs’ Fund
Palestine uses the Martyrs Fund to openly and proudly pay out $403 million per year, in large part to confirmed terrorists and their families. It’s known as the “pay-for-slay” law.

If Palestine redirected those funds, it would more than double the $200 million in subsidies the United States is withdrawing. Instead, Palestinian leaders choose to allocate this portion of their national budget for terror, instead of for the basic needs of their own people.

Some media briefly mentioned the Martyrs Fund with little or no explanation (Associated Press, The New York Times) while others, such as Reuters, didn’t mention it at all. Even worse, the media completely neglected to mention that the Palestinian government is also paying rewards to the killers of Americans, including to the killers of a young man named Taylor Force.

Evelyn Gordon: By Defending UNRWA, Israeli Defense Officials Put Short-Term Gains over Long-Term Strategy

On Friday, the State Department announced that it will cease providing funds to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the body responsible for caring for Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and that it is now working to shut down and replace it. Many current and former high-ranking IDF officers, while acknowledging UNRWA’s serious flaws, have been lobbying on the agency’s behalf, arguing that the benefits its humanitarian work outweigh its anti-Israel incitement, cooperation with Hamas, and mission of keeping its clients in a permanent state of refugeehood. Evelyn Gordon isn’t swayed:

First, U.S. cutbacks won’t actually cause a financial crisis. . . . UNRWA wouldn’t have any crisis at all if it weren’t outrageously overstaffed. It has almost three times as many employees as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, though the latter agency, which cares for all non-Palestinian refugees and displaced people worldwide, serves twelve times as many people. . . .

The defense officials’ second fallacy is that for Hamas to be providing services in UNRWA’s stead would somehow be bad. In reality, if Hamas had to provide services to the people it governs, it would have less money to spend on its endless military build-up, which would improve Israel’s security.

That’s exactly what happened last year, when the Palestinian Authority, which had previously financed all civilian services in Hamas-run Gaza not provided by UNRWA, stopped doing so. For the first time, Hamas had to pay for civilian needs like fuel for Gaza’s only power plant out of its own pocket. Consequently, according to Israeli intelligence, it slashed its annual military budget from $200 million in 2014 (the year of the last Hamas-Israel war) to $50 million last year. . . .

The final fallacy is defense officials’ desire to postpone conflict at any cost. Obviously, preventing war is usually desirable. But war with Hamas isn’t an existential threat, and in any case, virtually all Israeli analysts consider it inevitable at some point. The refugee crisis, in contrast, remains a potentially existential threat. Should the Palestinians ever succeed in mobilizing international support behind their demand that all 5 million “refugees” relocate to Israel, this would eradicate the Jewish state.

Last week, Elder of Ziyon pointed out Jeremy Corbyn's ignorance of history:

Here is the text of what Corbyn said:

I was brought up at school being told, um, that Israel was founded on a piece of empty space, and that they managed to make the desert bloom, and they built things when there was nothing there before. Anybody that studies the history of the region would know, at the end of the Second World War – 1945 to 1948 period – Palestine had media, had industry, had education, had universities, had a relatively high standard of living for the whole region, and was a coherent society and a coherent state. It was a denigration of that which enabled Western opinion to be, um, put together in support of Israel.

Corbyn claims that the infrastructure already in place around 1945 to 1948 proves that Jews contributed little to the land.

But why 1945 to 1948?

Apparently, Corbyn assumes that Jews only started immigrating to then-Palestine starting in 1945 -- as refugees from the Holocaust.

The first major wave of Jewish immigration was during Aliyah Aleph from 1882-1903, followed by Aliyah Bet from 1934-1948, which was a reaction to Nazi Germany. Even Aliyah Bet is broken down into 2 stages: 1934 to 1942, which was an effort to help Jews trying to escape Nazi persecution and genocide; 1945-1949 (the dates Corbyn references), which was an effort to find homes for Jewish survivors.

But Jewish contributions to establishing the infrastructure of Palestine date from over a century earlier.

In his book, Jerusalem: A Biography, Simon Sebag Montefiore notes in passing the condition of the land over 100 years before 1948:

There were no carriages, just covered litters. She possessed virtually no hotels or banks; visitors stayed in the the monasteries, the most comfortable being the Armenian with its elegant, airy courtyards. However in 1843, a Russian Jew named Menachem Mendel founded the first hotel, the Kaminitz, which was soon followed by the English Hotel; and in 1848 a Sephardic family, the Valeros, opened the first European bank in a room up some stairs off David Street (emphasis added) p.360.

Let's take a look at these and other contributions Jews made to the Palestinian infrastructure, leading to the re-establishment of Israel.

Hotels

The Jerusalem Post has an article on Menachem Mendel Kaminitz's background:

He and his wife arrived in Haifa on the first day of Elul [in 1833] and continued on to Safed, where they joined a community of devout disciples of the Gaon of Vilna. This community was founded in 1810, two centuries ago this year [2010], and 138 years before the creation of the state of Israel.

...While in Europe [collecting funding for the Jewish community in Israel] he published what may have been the first guide book for immigrants and tourists to the Holy Land. Titled Korot Ha’Itim (Happenings of the Times), the book documents the hardships incurred by Jews living in the Holy Land, particularly during the Safed riots and the earthquake [1837]. But it also contains useful advice and many positive remarks about the country despite the hazards and the difficulties that Menachem Mendel endured. The book was published in Vilna in 1839. A Yiddish translation was published in Warsaw in 1841, for those people not sufficiently fluent in Hebrew.

Banks

Jacob Valero also immigrated to Israel, over a century before the re-establishment of Israel:

He was born in 1813 in Istanbul, and his family came to pre-state Israel from Turkey. He later became a moneychanger. In 1848, along with a number of other local businessmen, Valero established the bank in a small two-room apartment in the Old City of Jerusalem, near the Jaffa Gate.

...As the bank's operations expanded, it opened two more branches in Damascus and Jaffa.

...Valero became a local hero because of his connections with the Ottoman rulers in Jerusalem and Istanbul and with the global figures who used the services of his bank. He was a noble figure on the local scene, which blossomed in the final days of the Ottoman Empire and received a number of the honors the disintegrating Ottoman government passed out to local dignitaries in regions distant from its center.

Electricity

On the other hand, there is Pinhas Rutenberg, who immigrated in 1919. Rutenberg founded the Palestine Electric Company, which later became the Israel Electric Corporation. In 1921 the British gave him the electricity concessions for both Jaffa and later, Jordan. The Jaffa Electric Company, establish a grid in 1923 that eventually covered Jaffa, Tel-Aviv, the surrounding area and British military installations in Sarafend [located between Rishon LeZion and Be'er Ya'akov]. He received support from then-colonial secretary Winston Churchill.

The Palestine Electric Company Ltd in the early 1920s. Public Domain

Rutenberg also has the distinction of being the first Palestinian citizen under the British Mandate in 1925, when the British enacted a law creating Palestinian citizenship.

Air Travel

In addition, Rutenberg also founded Palestine Airways.

1934 5 seater airplane of the Palestine Airways
Note the name in Hebrew is 'Israel Airways,' similar to the coins and stamps
during the British Mandate that included the abbreviation for Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew

1937 The airline was taken over by Britain's Air Ministry in 1937 until 1940. with the intention of it eventually being transferred back into private hands. It operated from July 1937 until August 1940. Palestine Airways stopped operating then when its aircraft were taken over by the RAF for the war effort.

Potash

While Rutenberg was granted the electricity concession, Moshe Novomeysky - with difficulty - got permission from the British to mine in the Dead Sea area. He immigrated to Israel in 1920 and developed the Palestine Potash Company, which became the Dead Sea Works. Novomeysky made a point of developing good relations with the Arabs in the area. Because of his reputation, kibbutzim he helped established were spared from the anti-Jewish riots of 1936-39.

Monument commemorating Moshe Novomeysky at Dead Sea Works.
Credit: Dr. Avishai Teicher Pikiwiki Israel

Bakery

Angel's Bakery is not the first bakery in Israel - Salomon Angel bought out Trachtenberg Bakery in Bayit VeGan when it went bankrupt in 1927:

"There was a primitive oven, to which the whole neighborhood would come to leave their pots of hamin [a slow-cooked dish for the Sabbath, know by Ashkenazim as cholent], and then argue about which pot was whose," recalled Vicky Angel, Danny's widow, as she reminisced about the first days of the Angel Bakery.

Salomon Angel himself was a seventh-generation Jerusalemite, member of a Sephardi family that traces its lineage back to Jews who were expelled from Spain in 1492.

You can begin to get the idea how, according to historian Howard Sachar:

By 1930, 1,500 Jewish-operated factories and workshops were producing textiles, clothing, metal goods, lumber, chemicals, stone, and cement, with a total capital value of about PL [Palestinian Lira] 1 million.

But Jewish contributions did not stop in 1930.

Radio

The Institute for Palestine Studies has an article on Radio Jerusalem which started in 1936, "only two years after the founding of the first official Arab radio station in Cairo (mid-1934) and one year before the death of the renowned Italian physicist Marconi (1937)." It was established by the British Mandate authorities and broadcast in Arab, Hebrew and English. But 4 years earlier, in 1932, the British had given a license to Mendel Abramovitch. His broadcast became known as Radio Tel Aviv and continued until April 1935, when the British revoked his license in order to prepare for the Palestine Broadcasting Service.

Hospitals

According to an article, "Bedouin Health Services in Mandated Palestine", during Ottoman rule from 1516 to 1917, the Palestinian Arabs

relied mainly on traditional medicine including herbal medicine, bone-setting cauterization, blood-letting, leeching, cupping as well as amulet writers, midwives and male religious healers.

Into this background, the Rothschild Hospital was founded in 1854 in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. When there were too many patients for the hospital to handle, a new hospital with more beds was built outside the Old City. The hospital was directed by Dr. Bernhard Neumann, a native of Warsaw who had studied in Cracow and Vienna. He had been in Jerusalem since 1847. It offered free treatment to all patients regardless of religion or nationality, and in 1918 it was taken over by Hadassah and became Israel's first Hadassah Hospital. The Rothschild Hospital was followed by two others in Jerusalem, Bikur Holim and Misgav Ladach. Another Rothschild-funded hospital was later set up in Zichron Yaakov for the farmers and laborers in the area.

Original Rothschild Hospital nameplate. Credit: Yoninah

Sachar rounds out the picture:

Hadassah’s dedicated mass membership by 1930 had established in Palestine four hospitals; a nurse’s training school; 50 clinics, laboratories, and pharmacies; and an excellent maternity and child hygiene service in most of the cities and in a number of the larger villages. The Women’s International Zionist Organization (WIZO) maintained three infant welfare centers in Tel Aviv

Railway

An article in Middle East Monitor almost sounds like it could have been a source for Corbyn's statement above about Jewish "denigration" of Arab accomplishments. Entitled Israel is gradually eroding both Palestinian infrastructure and any hope for statehood, it claims:

The Jaffa–Jerusalem railway, which opened in 1892 under Ottoman rule, was the first railway to be built in Palestine and one of the first to be constructed in the Middle East. An important economic and social development at the time, the line was operated in turn by the French, the Ottomans and, after World War I, the British who were mandated to administer Palestine. The railway administration was transferred in 1920 to Palestine Railways, a company owned by the British Mandate government.

Actually, while it was opened under Ottoman rule, the truth is that the Turks had little to do with making the railway possible, other than giving permission for others to build it for them. And it was more than merely operated by the French.

The person most responsible for the establishment of the Jaffa-Jerusalem railway was Yosef Navon, a Jewish entrepreneur from Jerusalem. He spent three years in Constantinople to promote the project and in 1888 received a permit from the Ottoman Empire, which included permission to extend the line to Gaza and Nablus. Because he did not have enough capital to move the project forward, Navon went to Europe in 1889 to find a buyer for the concession, and finally found one - in France. A French company, with Navon as a member of its board of directors, built the railway. It started running in 1892 and is considered the first Middle Eastern railway.

A train arriving at the Jerusalem railway station, on the first railway in the Middle East
in the 1890's. Public Domain

This is not an exhaustive list of Jewish businesses and projects, but it does given an idea of the extent of the Jewish contribution to Palestine during the hundred years or so leading up to the British Mandate and the re-establishment of Israel.

After all, as Sachar writes, in addition to the industrial and economic infrastructure,

It [The Yishuv] had developed its own quasi-government, its own largely autonomous agricultural and industrial economy, and its own public and social welfare institutions.

Apparently, one of the problems with Jeremy Corbyn hobnobbing with terrorists is that his statements about Jews and Israel become nothing more than a Corbyn-copy of their narratives and fabrications.

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.

I wrote about a Washington Post article about UNRWA, but one section needs to be analyzed a bit further.

As far as I know, no one has directly ever asked UNRWA why two millions full Jordanian citizens should still be considered "refugees" and why they should deserve some 40% of all UNRWA funds. But the question has been floating out there, and UNRWA spokeperson Chris Gunness indirectly addressed it in this quote:

“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.’ ”

Gunness is admitting that Jordanian Palestinians are not really refugees, but that UNRWA exists in Jordan in order to maintain the fiction that there is a "right of return" for Palestinians even if they are full citizens of any country worldwide.

Now, how much money does it cost to tell Palestinians that they have the right to "return" and destroy Israel (which is what "return" means to begin with)?

Not a whole lot.

But how much does it cost to keep the issue of "return" on the international agenda?

About $1.2 billion a year, which is UNRWA's budget.

Gunness is tacitly admitting here that the "refugee" issue is not the reason UNRWA exists. If it was, then the 80% of Palestinians who live in the borders of the British Mandate or are citizens of Jordan would not deserve a penny of international funds. (Neither would most of those in Syria and Lebanon, although they would deserve aid for being stateless, and UNHCR does provide support for stateless non-refugees.)

But we see from Gunness' statement that UNRWA is not a refugee agency. It is an agency that uses the refugee excuse to keep Palestinians' hope alive that they will one day destroy Israel.

It is easier for UNRWA to raise funds by calling its beneficiaries "refugees." Gunness has done us a service by admitting that the so-called refugee issue is a fig leaf for UNRWA's real aim, to educate generations of descendants of Palestinians that they will "return."

These millions of people are political pawns being kept in limbo because UNRWA exists. Every single Palestinian in Jordan, even when they are citizens, are reminded every day that they are not really fully Jordanian, by using a parallel education and infrastructure system separate from Jordan's. Every single Palestinian in an UNRWA camp in the West Bank and Gaza are reminded by this UN Agency that they are not permanent residents in the State of Palestine that the UNGA recognizes, but that they are really meant to live in Israel - and that until that day they are not receiving "justice."

Gunness cannot answer why UNRWA exists in Jordan without mentioning the fictional "right of return." But UNRWA cannot raise any money by emphasizing that aspect of its purpose, so all we hear about are "refugees." As this quote shows, UNRWA knows quite well that the people they take responsibility for are not refugees, but cannon fodder to destroy the Jewish state.

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.

Eugene Kontorovich tweeted about a Palestinian construction company that is offering homes for settlers in areas recognized by the UN and EU as being occupied territory. From Al Watan Voice in 2017:

Union Construction and Investment (UCI), a leading real estate developer in Palestine, has launched an exclusive collection of exquisite villas as part of the prestigious Cyprus Beach Homes development, nestled on the beautiful mountainside of the quaint and charming beach city of Kyrenia in the Turkish part of Cyprus (Northern Cyprus).

Cyprus Beach Homes enjoys unobstructed views of stunning mountains and pristine sandy beaches, and is just a 10-minute walk or 3-minute drive from a beautiful Mediterranean beach, along with major shops, restaurants, pharmacies, hotels and other public services.

The stylish development boasts a total of 39 super deluxe villas, with only 23 still available. These residences are ready for immediate occupancy and come in two styles: two-floor villas with areas of 197 – 228 m2 and terraces of 67 & 84 m2 on plot areas of 650 m2; and three-floor villas with areas of 268 and 320 m2 and terraces of 95 m2 on plots areas of 650 m2.

All villas are part of an exclusive community with fully integrated services. Each residence is characterized by an open concept which combines varied, modern spaces with attractive Mediterranean design. In addition, each villa enjoys its own independent plot of land and a private 4x8 meter swimming pool and allocated parking space. A one-year maintenance guarantee is also included with each residence.

In regards to selecting Kyrenia as the location for Cyprus Beach Homes, UCI’s Chairman, Dr. Mohamed Al Sabawi explained that UCI could not turn down an excellent opportunity to provide luxury residences on one of the most beautiful tourist islands in the world.

“Cyprus is an extremely favourable investment and tourism destination, and is somewhere that we are keeping an eye on as we continue to explore expansion opportunities there,” said Dr. Al Sabawi. “It presents an ideal mix of investment benefits that make it a very attractive place for developers looking to expand into the EU zone.”

Here's video showing the residences at the webpage of the development:

And a map of the new settlement, complete with the swimming pools:

Here is a settlement with infrastructure, swimming pools and luxury villas. And no one is the slightest bit bothered. No screaming headlines when the settlement was announced, no UN resolutions when it was built, no one noting the irony of Palestinians, who claim that occupation is a war crime on par with genocide, are complicit in illegally occupying Cyprus' lands. People asking for advice on visiting Kyrenia on TripAdvisor are not subjected to long harangues on how they would be supporting the illegal occupation. Artists aren't being pressured to boycott Turkey.

The day that Palestinians and Europeans protest outside the offices of UCI would be the day that one can begin to take their hysterical screaming about Israel's supposed crimes seriously.

(h/t Irene)

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.

09/03 Link Pt2: A salute to Joan Peters; Netanyahu is tragically right – the world fails to protect the weak; Jewish Leaders Outraged Over ‘Black Hitler’ Farrakhan’s Appearance at Aretha Franklin’s Funeral

From Ian:

A salute to Joan Peters

Joan Peters is sorely missed right now. Four years after her death and 34 years after the publication of her bestselling book "From Time Immemorial," the U.S. administration is recognizing her claims about so-called Palestinian refugeeism.

Through her thorough research, Peters was the first to expose the lie that is Palestinian refugeeism. Now, when UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, is trying to fool the world into believing there are 5.2 million Palestinian refugees, is the perfect time to return to Peters and her grand opus.

In her 1984 book, Peters exposed for the first time how the United Nations altered the criteria for Palestinians to gain refugee status, thereby exacerbating the problem far beyond its actual scope. She discovered that by changing the definition and allowing the descents of Palestinian refugees to inherit refugee status, Palestinian refugees in large part did not fit the U.N.'s own definition of who is a refugee.

Peters exposed the very document in which the U.N. decided to invent another form of refugeeism, one unlike anything else the world had ever known. She interpreted a series of data and by doing so convinced quite a few people that many of the Palestinians who were afforded refugee status were not residents of the country "from time immemorial," as they had claimed, but were, in fact, migrant workers who had recently arrived in the country. Others would follow in Peters' footsteps, and while they may have corrected her data a bit, she was still the first. Peters' groundbreaking research slaughtered a sacred cow the academic world had avoided at all costs.

Seth Frantzman: Netanyahu is tragically right – the world fails to protect the weak

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was excoriated over the weekend on social media for giving a speech in which he extolled the tragic reality of the world. “The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive.” This is “fascism” people shouted on social media.

“It left me speechless,” tweeted Julia Ioffe. His comments echo Hitler, claimed one article. Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder claimed Netanyahu was channeling the Athenian maxim from Thucydides “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.” But the Athenians lost the Peloponnesian war Daalder wrote. He forgot to add who they lost it to. Sparta. A city-state that was obsessed with being strong even more than the Athenians were.

For all of those who are outraged about Netanyahu’s statement, I have a question. Where were they in August 2014 when Islamic State launched its attack on the weak, peaceful, defenseless and vulnerable Yazidis in northern Iraq? When ISIS overran their villages and separated men and women, and then systematically machine-gunned the men into mass graves like the Einsatzgruppen did in 1941, where were they? Did they go to Sinjar to help in the fight against ISIS? The wealthy and the strong from the West who are today outraged and offended, were they there to help in the defense of Sinjar? And what have they done since for the 6,000 women and children kidnapped and sold into slavery? For four years now, more than 3,000 women are still missing, enslaved in the years 2014-2018.

These are the weak. Who helped them? Well, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) helped them in 2014. Who was it that formed a human wall against ISIS in 2014 at the gates of Erbil and Baghdad? It was Kurdish Peshmerga and Shi’ite militias aided by US air power. It was the strong. When ISIS came knocking it was tens of thousands of young men from southern Iraq, imbued with religious devotion and flags of Hussein and Ali who went to fight and die, their names never recorded or known in the places where people are offended by the word “strong.” It was poor Kurdish men, underpaid and having to buy their own uniforms, rifles and boots, who went to stop ISIS.

Who joined ISIS? 50,000 people from all over the world, including 5,000 mostly middle class, strong, people from Europe. Did the strongest nations prevent the 5,000 from Europe from joining? No. They let them join. They let them book tickets to Turkey. They even let them return.

IsraellyCool: MUST WATCH: Palestinians Answer the Question “When Was Palestine Established”

Palestinian Arabs are asked when Palestine was established, as well as follow-up questions like: What was the ancient capital? Who was the ruler? What was the currency? What was the flag?

The answers are as illuminating as they are varied.

Form your own conclusions. For me it is clear: a separate palestinian identity was only formed in recent times, after World War I, as a response to the increasing Jewish presence in the land (See my history series for more proof of this). And they are making up their history as they go along.

In contrast, if you ask Israelis similar questions regarding the history of the Jewish people in Israel, they will know, and there will be consistent answers.

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:

Stabbing attack foiled near Hevron

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)