On the 25th anniversary of the Oslo Accords
For its initiators, the agreement served as leverage to gradually build trust between the sides. It was designed so that both sides would profit from the agreement and receive compensation that would make continuing the negotiations worthwhile, and in this manner, was aimed at accustoming both the Israeli and Palestinian public to a path to a resolution of the conflict, as envisioned by its authors.
But the experiment failed. As could be expected, the Palestinian leadership found it difficult – and quite possibly never even intended – to meet the commitments it took upon itself. The PA never tried to prepare the Palestinian public for the concessions that would be necessary in order to make peace. Worse still, it refused to abandon the use of violence and terrorism as a means to achieving its goals, leaving many Israelis skeptical of the plan.
An interview that Mohammed Dahlan, seen by many as a possible successor to Abbas, gave at the height of the Second Intifada illustrates this point quite well. When asked whether the Oslo Accords had been a mistake, Dahlan replied that the agreement had laid the groundwork for the struggle against Israel. As proof, he said hyperbolically, the number of Israelis killed in the Second Intifada was "100 times higher" than the number of Israelis killed in the first. (In fact, it was about three and a half times higher.)
This is all water under the bridge, but from Israel's standpoint, the problem lies in the reality created by the accord; a reality that, while meant to be temporary in nature, has become permanent. The Palestinian Authority and the Hamas regime in Gaza have become faits accomplis and bones in Israel's throat it can neither throw up nor swallow. This is a problematic reality, which continues to present endless political and security challenges for Israel.
A quarter of a century after the signing of the Oslo Accords, it seems it would be fitting for Israel to look for out-of-the-box solutions and find a way to escape the uncomfortable reality it has since found itself in.
Top 70 Moments of BDS FAILS in 2018
On August 8, 2018 the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) published a list of what is claimed were the “Top 70 Moments of Solidarity & BDS for Palestine in 2018” and stated that “together, we grow it stronger every day”. The list can be found here – https://bdsmovement.net/news/top-70-moments-solidarity-bds-palestine-2018UNRWA Has Changed the Definition of Refugee
North West Friends of Israelhas put together a BDS FAIL list of our Top 70 Moments, showing that Israel remains as strong as ever and that right minded people understand the need to support the ONLY democracy in the Middle East. The BDS movement, as can be seen below, is failing economically to hurt Israel. The danger with BDS lies in its inherent antisemitism, which seeks NOT to help the Palestinians but to delegitimise and ultimately destroy the only Jewish state in the world – Israel. That is why they must be opposed and exposed.
1 On May 14, 2018, the US Embassy in Israel officially moved to, and opened, its new embassy in Jerusalem, declaring that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel.
2 On May 17, 2018 the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign LOST its case against the UK government. The Court of Appeal ruled that it was indeed illegal for local councils & their pension funds to pursue boycott, divestment and sanctions against foreign nations. The PSC was left with £100,000 of costs to pay.
3 On May 21, 2018, Paraguay opened its new embassy in Jerusalem. The Paraguayan leader Horacio Cartes called it a “historic event,” adding, that this occasion “is of special significance because it expresses the sincere friendship and brave solidarity between Paraguay and Israel.” rHe continued “From the depth of my heart, I appreciate this country that courageously defends its right to live in peace and it is building a praiseworthy, economically prosperous state that ensures its future and that of its children.”
4 On May 16, 2018 Guatemala opened its new embassy in Jerusalem. President Morales said his country, Israel and the United States “share friendship, courage and loyalty”.
5 On May 23, 2018 the State of Louisiana issued an executive order preventing the state to do business with entities boycotting Israel. They became the 25th state -- 50% of the U.S. – who have now said NO to the antisemitic BDS campaign.
Last week, Foreign Policy published a story about Palestinian refugees that claimed I am among the “activists trying to strip Palestinians of their status.” The article obscured basic facts about the matters at hand—both my own role as a policy advocate and the questions that lawmakers in Congress are presently considering that pertain to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). I feel compelled to correct the record on both points.
This requires first understanding the legal facts. UNRWA was founded in 1949 through U.N. General Assembly Resolution 302 at the conclusion of the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948, aiming for “the alleviation of the conditions of starvation and distress among the Palestine refugees” from that conflict. The agency defines Palestinian refugees as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”
In 1965, UNRWA changed the eligibility requirements to be a Palestinian refugee to include third-generation descendants, and in 1982, it extended it again, to include all descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, regardless of whether they had been granted citizenship elsewhere. This classification process is inconsistent with how all other refugees in the world are classified, including the definition used by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the laws concerning refugees in the United States.
Under Article I(c)(3) of the 1951 U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, a person is no longer a refugee if, for example, he or she has “acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality.” UNRWA’s definition of a Palestinian refugee, which is not anchored in treaty, includes no such provision.
Last month, members of Congress introduced a bill asking that with respect to refugees under UNRWA the policy of the United States should be consistent with the definition of a refugee in the Immigration and Nationality Act, such that “derivative refugee status may only be extended to the spouse or minor child of such a refugee” and “an alien who was firmly resettled in any country is not eligible to retain refugee status.”
Foreign Policy’s article includes a claim that deserves closer scrutiny and reflects the sleight of hand often performed by UNRWA.


















