Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, September 03, 2023

Book review: "(In)sights: Thirty Years of Peacemaking in the Oslo Process" by Gidi Grinstein

Diplomacy and peacemaking is not a smooth process. It requires a huge amount of preparation, planning and flexibility.

It is always illuminating to look behind the scenes of the Oslo process. Gidi Grinstein, the youngest person at Camp David in 2000, is releasing his account of the events that he witnessed as well as his opinions of what to do moving forward to mark the 30th anniversary of Oslo.

His book, "(In)sights: Thirty Years of Peacemaking in the Oslo Process" is his attempt to set the record straight after so many others gave their own versions of what happened at Camp David.

Grinstein writes from the perspective of someone who truly wants to see peace. No one can doubt his love of Israel and Zionism - he was part of the team that founded Birthright Israel - but his perspective is decidedly on the Israeli Left.

I found his account fascinating, but perhaps not for the reasons he intended.

Obviously Grinstein tries to spin the events towards his own politics. Instead of giving a straight chronological account of what happened, he spends a great deal of time on the "sausage" behind each negotiating point and then an overview of what has happened since then, along with his own opinions as to where things failed and what Israel should have done instead, in retrospect.

While Grinstein was the junior member at Camp David, he is perhaps the one person with the most knowledge of the big picture. He served as the Secretary and Coordinator of the Israeli Delegation for the Negotiations with the PLO from 1999-2001 under Ehud Barak.

Grinstein admires Barak a great deal, but his description of Barak is of someone who is cold and calculating, who is more than willing to throw his own people under the bus for his own ends. He keeps his own cards close to his vest, so no one working for him has a clear idea of what their goals are. Grinstein extols Barak as "the smartest man in the room" who keeps his people working in a "matrix" of smaller tasks, while only Barak knows his real plan. This means that Barak creates his own backchannels to undermine the people officially working for him when he deems it necessary, he bypasses the chain of command, and he ensures plausible deniability.

Which, when you think about it, is a lot like Yasir Arafat.

Before he worked for the Prime Minister's office, Grinstein worked for the Economic Cooperation Foundation. The ECF, founded in 1990, was itself one of those backchannels for creating relationships with, and building a peace plan with, the PLO. It was a power that helped bring about the Oslo Accords.

To me, one of the most jarring parts of the book was where Grinstein describes how the ECF helped end Bibi Netanyahu's first term as prime minister. The ECF, which worked hand in glove with Yitzchak Rabin, opposed Netanyahu - and this Israeli think-tank colluded with the PLO to bring him down. Netanyahu demanded more concessions from the PLO in order to keep the Oslo process going, and the ECF convinced their friends in the PLO to pretend to agree to Netanyahu's demands, prompting him to sign the Hebron Agreement and the Wye River Memorandum based on lies. This caused the right wing of his coalition to revolt and new elections were called that brought Barak into office, just as the ECF intended.

Grinstein seemingly has no compunction about Israelis collaborating with the US and PLO to bring down an Israeli prime minister. The cause of peace justifies all.

Even Grinstein admits that the peace negotiators never really seriously thought about the possibility that Arafat had no intention to really sign a permanent agreement that would end the conflict and what would follow. They became friends with the PLO negotiators, and he lovingly describes how well his team would be treated when they visited Bethlehem or Ramallah and the personal friendships they struck up with the Palestinian team. He mentions and is fully aware of the wave of terror attacks during the 1990s, Arafat's incendiary speeches in Arabic, his actions being fully consistent with his "phased plan" to destroy Israel, but all of that is brushed aside in the pursuit of peace, just as using underhanded methods to bring down an Israeli prime minister is framed as a positive thing.

The only person who predicted the failure of the Oslo process, and that it would lead into war, was US Ambassador to Egypt Daniel Kurtzer, who hosted the negotiators for a Shabbat dinner. He had better insight than the entire Israeli peace delegation, who didn't even consider this.

Barak bet everything on the idea that Arafat could be pressured into signing an agreement. He was wrong. But there is very little hand-wringing on that mistake that brought about the second intifada. In fact, Grinstein emphasizes that Arafat was not the direct instigator of the intifada - even as he admits that Arafat had planned for such an event months ahead of time, and that his own security forces, trained and armed by the US, turned their weapons against Israeli forces in the first days of the fighting. He emphasizes that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that supposedly triggered the war was fully coordinated with the PA but still doesn't blame the PA for its role - instead noting that the Jerusalem police response to the violence helped escalate it.

Again, Grinstein isn't blind. But he seems to purposely keep one eye closed.

Similarly, he emphasizes that, in retrospect, Barak should not have pushed for an all or nothing deal, and worked towards a provisional Palestinian state that could be further refined with later negotiations. This, of course, would have been a huge concession by Israel to recognize a Palestinian state up front. But while he praises the Quartet for employing that idea in their Road Map for Peace, he glosses over that the Palestinian leaders rejected the Road Map out of hand, and have consistently said that they do not want a provisional state.

Also jarring is that, as far as I can tell, the Israeli peace negotiating teams -- both Track I and Track II - apparently were exclusively made up of non-religious males, overwhelmingly if not exclusively Ashkenazic. He notes that the only Israeli woman at Camp David was a secretary. He never mentions that any of the participants in the many meals hosted in the West Bank or Europe had to make accommodations for kosher food. Most of Israeli society is not represented by these peacemakers, who all seem to believe that they are smarter than anyone else in how to look at the big picture, and not really self-critical when it comes to their miscalculations and false assumptions that led to the failure of the peace process. Diversity was not a priority for these liberals.

There is a lot of good information in this book, and it is illuminating - sometimes in ways that it is not meant to be. It is not edited well, unfortunately - for example, it talks extensively about the ECF without explaining what it is, and there are still numerous typos and misspellings (French Premier "Shirak"), it repeats the same anecdotes a couple of times. Hopefully these will be fixed by the time it goes to press.

The book is planned to be released in Israel in two weeks and in the US in December.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The increasingly deranged Zachary Foster, formerly a decent researcher, now blames 9/11 on...US support for Israel:

The US-Israel alliance was according to Al-Qaeda one of the reasons for 9/11. The US’s unconditional support for Israel is a massive security risk and endangers Americans.

The US’s support for Israeli apartheid & ethnic cleansing is risking American lives.

First of all, this is an unbelievably stupid take. If you follow his logic, that means that US policy should adhere to whatever Islamic terrorists demand, because if they kill any Americans, it is America's fault for not doing what they say.

With that mindset, the US should insist that all American women wear the hijab and the US censor most TV shows, because Islamists have railed against the US exporting pornography and immorality to the world.

Secondly, even Bin Laden didn't prioritize the issue of Israel in his 1998 and 1996 fatwas.

His 1998 fatwa gives three grievances against the US: US troops in Saudi Arabia, the US war in Iraq, and US support for Israel was #3 - and his "proof" is that the US was destroying Iraq in order to help Israel, somehow.

In other words, Israel was just tacked on as an afterthought in his fatwa to appeal to Islamist antisemitism. We know that because his 1996 fatwa, which was much longer, mentioned the "Zionist-Crusader Alliance" a few times but had very little to actually say about Israel's supposed crimes considering its length. The target was America: "If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land [Saudi Arabia]." Bin Laden was complaining about attacks on Muslims by Israel but also "massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

After 9/11, Bin Laden again gave a bunch of reasons for 9/11 - and suddenly Israel was on the top of the list. OBL thought that he could attract more Muslims to join him with more antisemitism - anyone who actually believes his reasons for attacking the US in this missive really don't understand anything about Islamist terrorism. and Bin Laden added that the Jews were planning to destroy Al Aqsa. But he also complained about Bosnia, supposed US support for Russians in Chechnya and India in Kashmir, pro-US Arab governments, "stealing wealth," US "occupation" of Arab countries, and US "starvation" of 1.5 million Iraqi children due to sanctions. (Child mortality in Iraq in fact did not rise at all during the time of US sanctions, but some people apparently believe Bin Laden's letter as an accurate source of information.)

The Bin Laden letter was a recruitment letter for Muslims, not a real explanation of why he attacked the US.

Obviously, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda altogether have had an antisemitic philosophy. But no one can read the Bin Laden fatwas and think that he was obsessed with Israel - he was obsessed with the US. He would have attacked the US if Israel didn't exist.

At the same time, no one can read Zachary Foster's tweets and think he is anything but obsessed with Israel.

Not surprisingly, his claims have been getting lots of responses from 9/11 "truthers" - apparently they are now the audience he is attracting.

I try to spend my time only refuting intelligent arguments against Israel and pointing out their hidden bias and falsehoods, like the arguments given by the UN, or Amnesty or other NGOs. Their hate for Israel is masked behind sophisticated propaganda that takes effort to tease out and expose. However, this might be the last time I waste any time on Foster since his anti-Israel arguments have now descended into farce.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

09/02 Links: Zionism is a model for indigenous people; 50 years after forgotten Kiryat Shmona massacre; Hamas praises UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese

From Ian:

Zionism is a model for indigenous people

“Forget the Jews for a while and focus on your own backyard.”

This unsolicited morsel of advice left me taken aback. I had just spent two weeks at Oxford attending a course on Critical Contemporary Antisemitism by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy. Such a rebuke gave me cause for reflection. Why should an indigenous person from distant New Zealand care about what happens to Jews in the Middle East and elsewhere?

Oft-cited is the phrase “Jews are the canary in the coal mine”. In other words, rising antisemitism is an unmistakable sign that society is in deep trouble.

Antisemitism globally is displaying an alarming upward trend, a trend that is coincidental with – likely lubricated and accelerated by – increasing polarization within Western-style democracies. As is painfully obvious, the latter is a phenomenon from which Israel is not exempt.

Antisemitic incidents in the US reached their highest level last year since the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) began such records in 1979.

A 2021 survey on antisemitism in my own nation found that 63% of New Zealanders held at least one antisemitic view and some 6% held nine or more antisemitic views (based on 18 questions posed to expose antisemitic ideas.)

Further, antisemitism emerges from a bewildering range of divergent worldviews. If this means society is indeed desperately ill, perhaps we should all care about the Jews?

Another reason for my concern over Jewish issues is that there are many “in my backyard” who seem to think it’s noble to attack and demonize Israel. As a Christian, I cannot ignore nearly 2,000 years of persecution of Jews perpetrated in the name of Christ. While I can’t be held responsible for such attitudes and actions, it naturally and properly creates for me a deeply rooted connection to the issue.

Viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a settler colonialist lens
Many New Zealanders view Israel through the lens of our own settler colonialist history: the Jews, like the British, are seen as white European colonizers; the Palestinians, as akin to my own people, the indigenous Māori.

SUCH IS the narrative. But like so many narratives, it lacks even a passing resemblance to the facts of history.

The British were complete strangers to the land of Aotearoa New Zealand. In contrast, for the Jewish people, Israel is the ancestral homeland. It was here that a distinctive indigenous Jewish culture, language and religion began to develop more than 3,000 years ago. And despite multiple dispersions, there has always been a residual Jewish presence in the land; for Jews in the Diaspora, an inextinguishable longing for the land. Thus, as an indigenous person, it’s most natural for me to recognize in the Jewish experience and history the markers of indigeneity.

Of course, Arabs are indigenous too – to Arabia. They came to Palestine (so named by the Romans as an act of cultural erasure) many centuries later.

One of presenters at Oxford remarked that Zionism is about reclaiming the land. “We walk the land. We know every stone – we know the land”. (Yossi Shain, ISGAP 2023) This is very much an indigenous trait. The recovery of the Hebrew language is also an inspiration to other indigenous peoples seeking to revive their language.

Moreover, while many critical race theorists insist on defining Jews as white, with all the attendant oppressor class guilt associated with whiteness, Jews generally do not identify themselves as such. Indeed, only two generations ago Jews were hunted down and murdered by the millions, in large measure because they were not white.

The Land of Israel is ours, apply sovereignty and heal Oslo's damages

He writes that “In the Oslo process Israel recognized the PLO as per its self-definition, namely, “the representative of the Palestinian people,” while the PLO did not recognize Israel as a Jewish democratic state, as per its self-definition. Israel merely accepted the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s “right to exist in peace and security.” Even also notes: “Violence proved to be part of the Palestinian strategy and was intended to exert pressure on Israel.” The more terrorism has increased, the more Israeli support for the Oslo Accords has decreased.

NOW WE are dealing with new agreements. Peace agreements with Arab states, currently being discussed, come at the price of sovereignty. Interestingly, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco are able to turn a blind eye to Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria but are unwilling to accept sovereignty. The reason is that the Arabs understand the value of the land, and they understand that when Israel imposes sovereignty over the areas of Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, it will finally determine that this is our land.

We are at a critical juncture in time. International pressure is growing, the youth do not remember Operation Defensive Shield and the reasons we staged it; and in the meantime, we are losing thousands of acres in Judea and Samaria to illegal Arab take-overs and are “partners” in the establishment of a de facto Palestinian state.

We are in the middle of a national emergency. The damage that the Oslo architects caused is tremendous. Israel must urgently return to the path of Zionism and build major cities and industrial zones in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, to spread out the Jewish population eastward and officially ensure massive aliyah from all over the world and security on all our borders.

First and foremost, the eastern border must urgently be secured through the application of sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, restoring governability and deterrence. There is broad consensus regarding the Jordan Valley from Yigal Allon, through Yitzhak Rabin, Benny Gantz, and many others who are concerned about the future of our land from across the entire political spectrum.

We call on the prime minister to step up and apply sovereignty, as this is the appropriate response to remedy the enormous damages of the Oslo Accords.

Why the Palestinian Arabs continue their war against Israel

Despite offers of statehood ever since the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995, amplified by then-PMs Ehud Barak and, even more by Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Arab leaders have consistently refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The question is, why? They insist that all of what was “Palestine” belongs to them, and that Israel must be destroyed; it’s explicit in the PLO Covenant and the Hamas Charter. Still, logically they could take whatever Israel offered, and do whatever they wanted later.

The answer is provided by Henry Kissinger’s perspective of the war in Vietnam.

"The North Vietnamese and Vietcong, fighting in their own country, needed merely to keep in being forces sufficiently strong to dominate the population after the United States tired of the war. We fought a military war; our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition, our opponents aimed for our psychological exhaustion. In the process we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win. "

That is the strategy of the PLO, Hamas, and Jihadists. As they see it, they are in a war of attrition which requires constant terrorism and no compromises.As long as Israel does not destroy them -- and instead negotiates with them -- they see this as wining. And, they continue to receive support.

Israeli Arab political parties, despite their alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, decided to become members of the Knesset not only for financial rewards, but to support Israeli concessions in the Oslo Accords, and to legitimize the arch terrorist, Yasser Arafat. Although criticized by Hamas, the PLO argued that they should take advantage of every opportunity to consolidate power as a tactical move, while continuing to support terrorism and promote anti-Semitism as a strategy.

In their view, the Arab population in Israel will increase and will become more powerful and influential in Israeli politics and society. They will continue to demand “ending the occupation of Palestine,” removing Jewish communities in the “West Bank” (“settlements”) as “illegal according to international law,” their “rights to self-determination” as a sovereign state, the two-state-solution,” (2SS), and the “Right of Return” (to Israel) for Arabs in UNRWA facilities in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. The PA/PLO continues its “pay-for-slay” policy, and all of this is supported by America, Canada, the EU and UN agencies, and others around the world.

09/01 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: Israelophobia is the newest form of the oldest hatred; California’s ethnic studies mandate cannot be fixed; David Miller’s Antisemitic Ideology

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Israelophobia is the newest form of the oldest hatred

Antisemitism is a rotten term for the “longest hatred” that targets the Jewish people. For a start, there is no such thing as “semitism” to be “anti.”

The word “antisemitism” was invented by a 19th-century Jew-hater, Wilhelm Marr, who wanted to invest this prejudice with the spurious characteristic of race in order to appeal to a society that increasingly defined itself in scientific terms.

Today, with Jew-hatred having reached unprecedented global levels, the inadequacies of “antisemitism” are becoming ever more manifest. Many wrongly believe that it’s just another form of racism. Few understand that it’s a uniquely paranoid, deranged and murderous mindset.

Because Judaism and the Jews are so poorly understood, few recognize that this unique people is victimized by a unique prejudice. And few acknowledge that the prejudice changes shape as societies change.

Used for the sake of convenience, “antisemitism” fosters further misunderstanding over the issue of Israel. People assume that prejudice against the Jewish people is against Jews as people. Few understand that Judaism isn’t a private confessional faith as the West understands religion to be.

They don’t realize that Jewish religious identity is rooted in the Land of Israel, where the Jews were historically the only people for whom it was ever their national kingdom. So they fail to grasp that Israel is at the very heart of Judaism. Denouncing the right of the Jews to the land is to attack Judaism itself.

But because “antisemitism” is associated with bigotry against Jews as people—and specifically with genocidal Nazism—people bridle when it’s used to describe their hostility to the State of Israel.

In other words, demonizing Jews and wishing they would disappear from the world may be beyond the pale, but demonizing Israel and wishing it would disappear from the world is just fine.

In his new book Israelophobia, published next week, Jake Wallis Simons takes this false distinction apart. The Jew-hatred that is now at epidemic levels throughout the West focuses overwhelmingly on the Jewish homeland

'75 Perspectives': Israel as a Jewish state - excerpt

Israel is not just a “Jewish state” in the demographic sense, it is also a “Jewish state” in terms of identity. But what is the significance of Israel’s Jewishness, and how does it mesh with its democratic nature?

These questions are at the core of a contentious debate that has been raging for decades. The book A Jewish State – 75 Perspectives was conceived by the Jewish People Policy Institute and includes 75 essays on the question of Jewish-Israeli identity by some of today’s leading thinkers: Jews and non-Jews, from Israel and around the world.

Published by Academic Studies Press and set for an October 3 release, this collection is a singular nexus of thought on nationality, religion, politics, culture, society, environment, economics, and security.

ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE Excerpted essay by Dennis Ross
What does Israel as a Jewish state mean to me? A Palestinian negotiator once privately asked me a similar question: “I understand why Israel being a Jewish state is important to Israelis. But why is it important to you, a Jewish American?” I wondered why he was asking – and he answered, “Look, in the abstract, a genuine binational, democratic state might be best for Israelis and Palestinians. But if both Israeli and non-Israeli Jews believe that there must be a Jewish state, it rules that out as an outcome.” I commented that I did not see how a binational state could be anything but a guarantee for enduring conflict: There were two national movements, with two national identities, competing for the same space. Both national identities needed expression. Denying their fulfillment would not suppress them, and, ultimately, neither side would accept giving up who they were in one state. Were Palestinians really willing to live in a state without a Palestinian identity? He answered, “Probably not, but I would still like to understand why a Jewish state is important to you and to non-Israeli Jews.”

My shorthand explanation was that Jewish history had exposed the horrific, tragic consequences of not having a state for the Jewish people. Jews living as outsiders would always be vulnerable. Antisemitism was the world’s oldest prejudice and it endured. Conspiracies against the Jews have never stopped even where there are no Jews. Jews had always been singled out, and tough economic times always triggered a resurgence of nativist populism – and the accompanying xenophobic nationalism always targeted Jews, the foremost other. Jews needed a place of refuge and only a state of the Jewish people could provide that with certainty. That, I said, explained the negative imperative of ensuring the safety and survival of the Jews. But there was also a positive imperative: Having a state in their historic homeland was necessary for the Jewish people – who were a people with a culture and a system of values – to fulfill their promise.

I could not help but recall this conversation as I contemplated the question of what the Jewish state means to me on the eve of Israel’s 75th birthday. I deeply believe what I said then. But that merely explains why a Jewish state must exist. It doesn’t capture what a Jewish state means to me. To be truly a Jewish state is not to be a state like any other. It must embody a set of values, a strong moral underpinning. Ahad Ha’am, one of the most compelling Zionist philosophers, argued that the Jewish state must lead a moral renaissance. David Ben-Gurion believed that Israel must be “a light unto the nations.”

Rick Richman: How Zionism and Americanism created a free, democratic Israel

At a time of such division, it has never been more timely to look back at the history of Zionism.

JNS editor-in-chief Jonathan Tobin is joined by author Rick Richman who discusses his new book, "And None Shall Make Them Afraid: Eight Stories of the Modern State of Israel".

They discuss
- how two compatible ideologies, Zionism and Americanism, helped create a free and democratic state of Israel.
- our misunderstanding of key figures like Theodor Herzl, Ze'ev Jabitinisky and others.
- why this history is so important for today.

This week I hit - and surpassed - 55,555 Twitter followers.

Here are my best posts of this week.

Teaching Israel to children, "warts and all"? No! Teaching the truth? Yes!

What does Israel gain from a Saudi normalization deal?

Human Rights Watch report on Palestinian "children" killed proves it prioritizes anti-Israel propaganda over real human rights

Harvard partners with Palestinian university that rewards and supports terrorism

Amnesty horrified at "settler violence." Palestinian violence, not at all.

Here's everything Golda Meir said about Palestinians. And she was quite correct.

The UN's latest anti-Israel legal argument is predicated on lies

UNRWA didn't get $75 million from the US by today's deadline. Let's see if the dire predictions come true.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Countries Full Of Pillaged Jewish Property Lukewarm On Jewish Homeland Reclamation (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Paris, August 31 - Numerous European nations where locals exploited the German-led removal of millions of Jews to seize the possessions of those Jews during the Second World War have so far expressed less than full-throated support for the endeavor to reestablish, defend, and develop a Jewish national home on the very land taken from Jews two thousand years ago.

Politicians and public figures across Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, Germany, Austria, France, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands, and several other states under Nazi rule during WWII continued this week to hedge their nominal support for a secure Israel with statements, and in many cases funding, for projects and organizations dedicated to destroying Israel - reflecting the ambivalence those countries express in their professions of regret over the treatment of their Jewish neighbors during WWII, even as those non-Jewish neighbors helped themselves to the furniture, dishes, artwork, jewelry, rugs, and even entire houses of the Jews that the Nazis and local collaborators deported and mass-murdered.

"Of course the Jews should control their own defense and security, and not remain at the mercy of any host culture," stated French politician Haleque Chalal. "It's of paramount importance that Jews not be deprived, certainly not by the exercise or threat of force, of what they possess or are trying to possess again. But that must not come at the expense of others, who have by various means come into possession of things Jews had a long time ago but do not anymore, if you catch what I am saying. Why are you looking at the silverware on my table? My grandmother picked that up during the war."

Similar sentiments echoed across Europe. Officials in Brussels, from which many important European Union decisions issue, repeated their longstanding lip-service in favor of Jewish security combined with their money-service in favor of groups with the raison d'être of depriving Jews of security. The dynamic mirrors the phenomenon of Europeans claiming status as victims of the Nazis, which in many cases dovetails with the facts, while taking advantage of any opportunity they had to loot their disappeared Jewish neighbors' property.

"It was war, and there was scarcity," explained Polish householder Ajma Wultur. "We all did what we could to survive. Sometimes that meant selling anything you could find. You can't fault us for that. The problem is that some Jews came back after the war and demanded their stuff back. Can you imagine? Now I know how the Arabs feel."

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

09/01 Links Pt1: There is no US aid to Israel, it's an investment and a debt; Israeli murdered in terror ramming was lone IDF soldier from Ukraine

From Ian:

There is no US aid to Israel, it's an investment and a debt

Israel’s contributions extend far beyond financial assistance; they are incalculable in terms of lives saved, disruption of terrorist activities, and overall stability and security. It is crucial to acknowledge the immense value that Israel’s assistance brings to the US – and not belittle or misunderstand this relationship.

The United States owes a debt of gratitude to Israel for its unwavering commitment to preserving America’s security, democracy, and the well-being of its citizens. To describe the $3b as aid is a distortion of reality. It is an investment, a service fee, and a mere fraction of the value that Israel provides in return. It is time to recognize and appreciate the immeasurable contributions of Israel to the United States and the world.

As mentioned before, the investment made by America in Afghanistan, for example, has yielded little success. Billions of dollars worth of ammunition were left behind and fell into the hands of the Taliban, effectively aiding America’s enemies. This represents a tremendous loss of resources, unlike the allocation provided to Israel, which serves as a great return on investment.

Let’s not forget that Israel is the leading creator of state-of-the-art ammunition and artillery, which enhances the safety of American soldiers at home and abroad. Additionally, Israel’s technological advancements, have been shared with the US and prove crucial in safeguarding civilians and military personnel.

If the US were to handle its own troops and intelligence in the Middle East, the costs would skyrocket to tens of billions of dollars annually, and efficiency would be diminished. Israel provides a more cost-effective and efficient solution, fighting battles on America’s behalf and protecting it from the threat of terrorism.

Moreover, Israel has shown its tremendous value by foiling planned attacks by terrorists in Europe, preventing potential economic and human losses. The value of this contribution far exceeds the $3 billion dollars provided annually by the United States.

Israel’s actions have also had long-lasting effects on global security. For instance, the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor brought 20 years of security to the West. Had Iraq possessed nuclear weapons during America’s intervention, the loss of life and destruction would have been catastrophic.

Therefore, it is time to acknowledge Israel’s vital role as America’s outsourced army and its contribution to keeping America, democracy, and the entire Western world safe.

Those who criticize Israel for receiving American aid need to recognize that it is a mutually beneficial relationship, with Israel providing essential services and tremendous value in return. It is not a gift, but rather an expense and service vital to American interests.

Let us unite to support and express gratitude to Israel for its unwavering commitment to our collective security.

Caroline Glick: Will Israeli democracy survive the court?

On Sept. 28, Israel’s Supreme Court is expected to rule in favor of a petition from the far-left Movement for Quality Government to overturn the Nov. 1, 2022 elections.

In January, MQG petitioned the Supreme Court asking the justices to ban newly sworn in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from serving in office. MQG argued that, with all due respect to the 2.4 million Israelis who voted for Netanyahu, as a criminal defendant, Netanyahu is legally “incapacitated” from performing his duties in office and, therefore, the Supreme Court should order Attorney General Gali Baharav Miara to declare Netanyahu “incapacitated” and oust him from power.

MQG’s petition was ridiculous on its face. The Supreme Court ruled in an 11-0 judgment in March 2020 that Netanyahu may serve as prime minister while standing trial.

Israel’s Basic Law: The Government stipulates that a prime minister can only be compelled to leave office if he has been convicted of criminal charges, and even then, only after he has exhausted all appeals.

Until the MQG submitted its petition, the incapacitation clause of the law was understood to refer only to physical or mental incapacitation. Moreover, no law empowers the attorney general to deem the prime minister incapacitated. That power was vested in Israel’s elected leaders in the government and Knesset. All the same, the justices agreed to adjudicate the petition.

Baharav Miara also didn’t reject the notion that she has the power to oust the prime minister. Instead, the attorney general installed by the previous government and still acting on its behalf to paralyze the Netanyahu government claimed that Netanyahu cannot be deemed incapacitated so long as he upholds the conflict-of-interest agreement he signed upon entering office. Baharav Miara insisted the agreement bars Netanyahu from dealing with judicial reform. By implication, Baharav Miara intimated that the converse was also true.

Security Council extends UNIFIL peacekeepers’ mandate, rejects Hezbollah demands

The United Nations Security Council voted on Thursday to extend the mandate of the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, hours before it was due to expire.

The vote was 13-0, with permanent members China and Russia both abstaining.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, has sought to maintain calm in southern Lebanon since its creation in 1978, and is currently tasked with enforcing a UN resolution barring armed operations by Lebanese terror group Hezbollah near the ceasefire line that forms the de facto border.

The resolution approved by the Security Council demands that the Lebanese military and Hezbollah stop blocking the movement of the UN peacekeeping force and guarantee its freedom to operate, “including by allowing announced and unannounced patrols.”

Lebanese officials had pushed to remove a provision in the resolution, first introduced last year, that allows the peacekeepers to patrol without giving prior notice to the Lebanese army.

Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, said in a speech Monday that the provision is a violation of Lebanese sovereignty, and that the United States wants the UN peacekeeping force “to be spies for the Israelis.”

But the council ignored the request, instead voting to strengthen last year’s text and reaffirming that under the agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese government, the peacekeeping force known as UNIFIL “does not require prior authorization or permission to undertake its mandated tasks.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry welcomed the mandate renewal, saying that the UNIFIL force “aids in maintaining stability in southern Lebanon.” The ministry called on the international community “to take a firm stand against the attempts of the terrorist organization Hezbollah to create provocations and cause an escalation.”

By Daled Amos

The Abraham Accords continue to be a success. September 15th will mark the 3rd anniversary of the peace agreement since its signing. More than that, the number of members has increased since the UAE and Bahrain joined and now there is talk of the US trying to get the Saudis added -- in time for Biden to get a Nobel Peace Prize going into the 2024 presidential election.

What a contrast to the Oslo Accords, the peace agreement that was supposed to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

It's not just that Oslo did not bring peace.
Even when people were talking up the idea of the accords, there were admissions behind the scenes that there were problems.

This week, JNS reported Israel declassifies minutes of Cabinet meeting that OK’d first Oslo Accord:

While Rabin would reject the warnings of Oslo’s detractors and defend the accords publicly, privately he admitted his fears at the meeting, which was attended by another 17 government members and then-IDF Chief of Staff Ehud Barak.

“This is a difficult deal,” said Rabin at the outset, according to the minutes. “Of course, had we been negotiating with ourselves, the wording would have been far better. Some of the phrasing is unsympathetic … but we must regard all of the different components from a much more comprehensive view.”

Rabin also noted that there was little demanded of the other side. “There is very little commitment on their part,” he said.

Peres was almost prescient at this 1993 meeting, saying “there is a possibility that the whole PLO business will fall apart and there will be a kind of Hamas-Iran here.”

There are more revelations to come, if you are willing to wait. More meeting minutes are supposed to be made public over the next 20 years and the rest in 60 years.

What a contrast to the Abraham Accords!
But what about the talk now going on about peace with Saudi Arabia?

The 2 elements most commonly associated with the accords is the common alliance against Iran and the economic opportunities -- and both of these elements seem applicable to the Saudis.

Yet a few days ago, Elder of Ziyon openly questioned What does Israel gain from a Saudi normalization deal? Among his points:

o There is already a cold peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and it is unlikely to get that much warmer with an agreement.

o  It isn't as if the Saudis would start suddenly voting against anti-Israel resolutions at the UN

o  If Iran started a war in the region that threatened the Saudis, Israel would help them out regardless of the Abraham Accords

o  Joint projects and investments would benefit the Saudis more than the Israelis.

Read the whole thing.

But what is the likelihood that the Saudi leadership can enter a peace agreement with Israel?

The Kingdom zealously protects its image as a leader in the Muslim world and guardian of Mecca. It is hesitant to be seen as turning its back on the Palestinian Arabs. But at the same time, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has applied some pressure on the Palestinian Authority as well:

If Abbas can get security under control, the crown prince offered assurances that the kingdom would eventually resume its funding for the Palestinian Authority and that Saudi Arabia wouldn’t accept any deal with Israel that undermines efforts to create an independent Palestinian state, the officials said.

Saudi funding to the PA sank to zero in 2021 from $174 million a year in 2019.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is using the issue of Saudi Arabia to pressure Israel. Last week Axios reported

The Biden administration told the Israeli government last week that it would have to make significant concessions to the Palestinians as part of any possible mega-deal with Saudi Arabia that includes normalization between the kingdom and Israel, four U.S. officials and a source briefed on the issue told Axios.

As part of this narrative, Secretary of State Blinken told Israel's minister of strategic affairs Ron Dermer that Israel is "misreading the situation" if it thinks it will not have to make any such concessions. Blinken also made a point of stressing that the Saudis have to show the Arab world that it got major concessions from Israel on the Palestinians in order for it to sell the idea of normalization.

At least there are indications that MBS is requiring some kind of action from Abbas. As far as Biden is concerned there is only a need for Israel to make concessions, raising the question: is Biden really looking to add the Saudis to the Abraham Accord, or is he just trying to leverage this into a way to drag Israel into a two-state solution?

Aryeh Lightstone, former advisor to Ambassador David Friedman and special envoy to the Abraham Accords, sees the addition of Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords as important in itself, and not solely for the benefit of Israel. It helps to counter the influence that China is trying to build in the region, especially after mediating between the Saudis and Iran.

But Biden seems more focused on succeeding where Obama failed, in pushing for a Palestinian state -- just as he is single-minded in appeasing Iran.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

UNRWA didn't get $75 million from the US by today's deadline. Let's see if the dire predictions come true.

Khaled Elgindy senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, issues a dire warning at The Hill:

One wouldn’t know it from the headlines, but the next violent eruption in the Gaza Strip may be just around the corner. As most of Washington remains mired in its traditional August doldrums, yet another a potential crisis is brewing in the already isolated and impoverished Gaza Strip. For the past several months, $75 million in badly needed food assistance for Palestinians has been held up in Congress, not because of any bureaucratic or logistical impediments but for purely political reasons. Moreover, if the Biden administration does not act by the end of August, it will likely lead to a further deterioration in the already dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza — with potentially serious security implications for Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

The $75 million, approved by Congress and the State Department earlier this year, is being held up by Idaho Sen. James Risch, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He wants assurances that the funds will not go to terror groups.

Let's look at this a little closer.

Here are the top national donors to UNRWA as of 2021:

Notice anything missing? Yes, the Arab nations are nowhere to be found, and in fact Arab nations provide only a tiny percentage of UNRWA's budget. The top Arab donor, Qatar, gives a mere 5% of what the USA gave in 2021.

The US already provides more aid to UNRWA than anyone else, over $300 million a year. Why is it obligated to give an additional $75 million, which is more than the entire Arab world combined gives to UNRWA? Where are the angry op-eds demanding that Saudi Arabia or China give tens of millions to UNRWA?

Is this all going to be "food aid"? While the original bill says the $75M was for "food assistance to vulnerable Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza" it cannot be earmarked; UNRWA will simply redirect other moneys to more problematic programs like their schools that teach the beauty of "martyrdom."

A little more context: People have been warning of starving Palestinians for many years now. In 2008 Jimmy Carter said that Gazans were literally "starving to death" and in 2009 he said they were "literally starving."

Nine million people die of starvation every year. Not one of them is Palestinian.

Interestingly, USAID will provide direct food aid - US food products - and food vouchers to countries where cash might go to terrorists. If there is such a looming food crisis, the US can contribute....food. This would also help US farmers and food producers, and it would be more difficult for Hamas to steal the food and resell it, as it does today with UNRWA products. (Obviously there are logistics involved to set up a direct food program, and it takes months to ramp a program like that up, but it could be done for next year.)

Here is the best part of Elgindy's article:

Despite appeals from the State Department, UNRWA and several Arab governments, Risch shows no sign of budging. “The administration has all the authority they need to provide emergency food assistance to UNRWA,” observed a spokesperson for the senator, adding that Risch “will continue to hold them until his long-term concern about UNRWA are addressed.”

On this, at least, Risch is correct. Biden does indeed have the authority he needs to disburse the funds over Risch’s objections. But this will require taking a stand and expending at least some political capital on an issue—the Palestinians—that has not been a political priority for the administration thus far.

So when a Republican holds up the aid, he is responsible for a looming escalating crisis that may lead to starvation, instability and war. But when Biden chooses not to override the senator, he is merely reluctant to expend political capital.

We are at September 1. Biden didn't override Risch. Let's see if the dire warnings come true.

The reality is that UNRWA is unsustainable as it stands right now. Its unique and bizarre definition of "Palestine refugee" ensures that it will need more funds every year forever. Clearly the world is sick of paying for this: in June a pledging conference for UNRWA netted a mere $107 million of the $300 million they wanted.

The solution is simple. Take 2 million Palestinians who are Jordanian citizens off the rolls. (Provide additional funding for the Kingdom of Jordan for a few years so that government can do its job and take responsibility for its own citizens' education, medical and housing needs.) That slashes UNRWA's budget by some 35%.

Later, do the same for Palestinians who live in the area of British Mandate Palestine, who are not "refugees" by any measure. They are the proper responsibility of the Palestinian Authority which provides schooling and medical services for its citizens - except for the "refugees," an absurd discrimination that the world doesn't seem to mind. That's about 40% more of its budget.

The Palestinians who are still in real need - the ones in Lebanon and Syria - really do deserve funding even though they aren't refugees either, but they have no government on their side. However, political pressure should be put on those countries to allow the Palestinians who have lived there for seven decades to become naturalized like any other Arabs can.

People who care about Palestinians should not object to any of these ideas. But, as we know, the world doesn't care about Palestinians unless they can be used as propaganda tools - "refugees" - to damage Israel.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Libya says it will quit international energy organizations that have Israel as a member. (They won't.)

The fallout in Libya of the discovery that Israeli and Libyan officials have been meeting secretly for years, and those officials denials, has prompted many other Libyans to pledge that they will never, ever, ever do anything that could be considered the slightest bit of normalization with Israel.

For example, the mayors of Libyan towns felt it was necessary to issue a statement that they "expressed their complete rejection of establishing any relationship of any kind with the criminal Zionist entity."

But perhaps the strangest announcement of people trying to out-Arab the Palestinians - who do indeed speak to Israeli officials - comes from the Libyan Ministry of Oil and Gas, which said

The Ministry of Oil and Gas announces its rejection of state officials calling joining organizations or forums attended by the Zionist entity or in which it is a member, especially in areas related to the oil and gas sector.

I don't know how many international energy organizations Israel is a member of, but Israel certainly has been a member of the World Petroleum Council for decades - and so is Libya, and Iran,.

All three are also members of the International Gas Union.

Is it really going to quit those organizations now? A Libyan boycott of these, and probably many more, international organizations that include Israel would only hurt Libya - it wouldn't affect Israel at all.

Moreover, Israel and Libya have both been members of these organizations for quite a while, and Libya never said a word against it - even though Libya's official laws rejecting normalization of Israel have been in force since 1957.

Just like the announcement of the mayors, this is all posturing. Libya was shamed by the foreign minister's meeting with her Israeli counterpart, and now they are scrambling to regain their "honor." Honor has nothing to do with reality - public declarations of solidarity with Palestinians mean much more than privately insulting them, or privately accpeting Israel's membership in these international organizations.

Put it this way - none of Israel's enemies have quit the UN yet despite Israel being a member.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

08/31 Links Pt2: HRW's Jihad Against Israel; ‘Israel Lobby’ Author Takes Cash from ‘Putin-Approved’ Think Tank; History and revisionism about the Oslo Accords

From Ian:

Rabbi Leo Dee: Our Arab neighbors are being abused by their own governments – they need our help

I have recently been reading Natan Sharansky’s excellent autobiography, “Never Alone,” where he recounts how Communist Russia used demonization of the United States as a technique to justify its abuse of the human rights of its citizens. Because of this experience, Sharansky has been the consistent voice of common sense in peace negotiations with Israel's Arab neighbors, urging that peace cannot be made with nations that abuse the human rights of their own citizens. His logic: the abusive regime will always need an external “enemy” in order to continue its subjugation of its own population – just like the Turpins. And in the case of the Arabs, that enemy is Israel.

There are few nations as abusive to their own citizens as the 12 Arab nations that surround us in the Middle East, including the Hamas regime in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority within our borders. According to Freedom House, the international standard for monitoring human rights, we are surrounded by some of the most abusive nations in the world. Syria, on our northern border, has a human rights score of 1%, the lowest on this planet. And it is terrifying to consider that over half a million people have been massacred there by the government and civil war in the past 10 years.

Iran has a score of 13% with women and gays being persecuted daily while dissidents are rounded up and never seen again. And so, too, for the other Arab countries in the Middle East.

The Palestinian Authority has a score of 22% and Gaza 11% signaling societies where citizens are not free to protest about their leaders, nor vote in free elections. Israel, meanwhile, scores 77% for human rights. Not the 90% of the US or the 80%+ of the UK, but certainly free and democratic.

We are currently witnessing the ability of the Israeli populace to campaign publicly about the government and we should be proud of that. Out of the 100 million Muslims in our region, the only Muslims who are “free” are Israel’s 2 million Arab citizens.

As Sharansky points out in his book, human rights abuse is not just an internal issue for those unfortunate citizens, but a global threat to peace. The Cold War, that stretched from 1947 until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, almost led the world to nuclear obliteration.

Today, the threat of a nuclear Iran, with its abusive human rights record, is real and imminent. In fact, if one were to consider the current threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of Russia, China and North Korea, one might reconsider allowing nations with no human rights from acquiring technology for “nuclear power."

Bassam Tawil: Human Rights Watch's Jihad Against Israel

[T]he report fails to mention that during this period Israel has faced a massive wave of terrorism sponsored and funded by the Iranian regime and its Palestinian terror proxies, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

One of the cases "investigated" by HRW is that of Mahmoud al-Sadi, 17, reportedly killed by Israeli security forces as he walked to school near the Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank on November 21, 2022. Notably, the HRW report does not mention why Israeli troops had entered the refugee camp.

The Jenin Battalion terrorists, who are heavily armed, are mostly affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an extremist Islamist organization responsible for countless terrorist attacks that have killed and injured hundreds of Israelis in the past few decades. There is no mention of this militia or its activities in the HRW report. Evidently, HRW does not want to the facts to spoil its effort to slander Israelis by depicting them as child-killers.

While HRW presents al-Sadi as an unarmed teenage boy, Palestinians posted a photo of him carrying a M-16 rifle. Apparently, for HRW such photos, where Palestinian teenagers are featured brandishing weapons and dressed in military outfits, are irrelevant because they do not serve its anti-Israeli propaganda.

Bizarrely, HRW does admit that the remaining three "children" allegedly killed by Israel were involved in terrorist attacks. Yet, as far as HRW is concerned, Israeli soldiers or police have no right to defend themselves when they are attacked with stones, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks. Why? According to the logic of HRW, the perpetrators are "only" teenagers.

Does HRW really expect Israeli soldiers and policemen to ask someone who shoots or throws a Molotov cocktail at them how old they are before firing back to defend themselves?

Instead of denouncing the Palestinians for using children as combatants, HRW is condemning Israel for defending itself against terrorism.

‘Israel Lobby’ Author Takes Cash from ‘Putin-Approved’ Think Tank

The realist scholar John Mearsheimer, best known for his tome The Israel Lobby, has a curious acknowledgment in the preface of his latest book, How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy.

Mearsheimer expresses gratitude to the Valdai Discussion Club for a grant that funded his research. What is the Valdai Discussion Group? The Moscow-based think tank, which has been described as a "Putin-approved" organization, hosts the Russian equivalent of Davos, gathering global elites to hear the latest talking points from the Kremlin.

The Valdai Discussion Club, which says its goal is to "promote dialogue between Russian and international intellectual elite," is staffed by former Russian state media figures and regularly hosts Russian president Vladimir Putin, as well as other high-ranking government officials. The group was founded by the Russian International Affairs Council, a think tank launched by Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mearsheimer is a University of Chicago professor and the co-author of The Israel Lobby, a 2007 book that argues pro-Israel forces in the United States control American foreign policy, to the country's detriment.

Mearsheimer's grant from the Valdai Discussion Club is notable given his contention that one particular foreign government exerts too much influence in the United States. In The Israel Lobby, published in 2007, Mearsheimer argued that pro-Israel forces in the United States control American foreign policy, to the country's detriment. He has since been a mainstay in the anti-Israel advocacy world, even endorsing the work of an alleged "Hitler apologist and Holocaust revisionist."

But Russia appears to be more than just another nation-state for Mearsheimer, a non-resident fellow at the anti-interventionist Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His work blaming the West for Russia's aggression toward Ukraine has been highly influential in the United States. After Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation last year, Mearsheimer's 2014 Foreign Affairs paper, "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault," was widely cited by those who sought to limit U.S. involvement in the war. Updated versions of his argument—that NATO's expansion into Russia's sphere of influence directly caused the invasion—appeared in Foreign Affairs, the Economist, and the New Yorker and were favorably cited in left-leaning publications like Current Affairs, the Nation, and the Atlantic.

Mearsheimer has long enjoyed ties to the Valdai Discussion Club and participated in its annual gatherings that take aim at American leadership across the globe. Mearsheimer, for instance, traveled to Sochi in 2016 to hob-knob with Russian oligarchs at the Discussion Club’s yearly confab, which featured Putin as a speaker that year.

During the conference, Mearsheimer argued that the United States had "foolishly driven Russia in the arms of the Chinese."

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

The UN Security Council passed a resolution extending the mandate of UNIFIL in southern Lebanon for another year.

There were some points of contention during the debates. The major issue was that the original proposed language from France copied language from last year's resolution that Hezbollah and Lebanon opposed that gives freedom of movement to UNIFIL and allows it to travel without coordination with the Lebanese Armed Forces. This is of course necessary for UNIFIL to be able to restrict Hezbollah activities there. As the US UN Ambassador Linda said after the vote:

We know UNIFIL has been unable to access a range of troubling sites across the Blue Line, including illegal firing ranges, Green Without Borders sites, rocket launch sites, and tunnel sites. It is clear the main purpose of these sites is to facilitate Hizballah’s operations in southern Lebanon along the Blue Line. This constrains the Mission from fully achieving the directives set forth in the mandate and hinders the Mission’s ability to reduce the likelihood of conflict.

The political drama between China and Russia, taking Hezbollah's side, and the US and UAE taking the anti-Hezbollah side, was interesting:

A key point of contention was language introduced by resolution 2650 saying that, pursuant to the Agreement on the Status of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (SOFA), which was signed between Lebanon and the UN in 1995, “UNIFIL does not require prior authorization or permission to undertake its mandated tasks” and that it “is authorized to conduct its operation independently”.

...During the negotiations, China and Russia apparently supported Lebanon’s position and requested the removal of language introduced in resolution 2650 on UNIFIL not needing prior authorisation to undertake its tasks and demanding that the parties guarantee UNIFIL’s freedom of movement, “including by allowing announced and unannounced patrols”. These members demanded the replacement of this text with language saying that “UNIFIL shall benefit from freedom of movement in coordination with the government of Lebanon”. While recognising that coordination between UNIFIL and the LAF is a valuable factor, it seems that the penholder and several other members held the view that coordination is not a precondition for UNIFIL to carry out its mandated functions.

The draft resolution placed in blue on 29 August attempted to bridge these diverging positions. Although it retained language reaffirming that, pursuant to the SOFA, UNIFIL does not require prior authorisation to undertake its tasks and that it is authorised to conduct its operations independently, the phrase “while continuing to coordinate with the Government of Lebanon, as per the SOFA” was added and the reference to “announced and unannounced patrols” was removed. However, it seems that the UAE was particularly unhappy with these changes, apparently leading France to reinsert the language on “announced and unannounced patrols” in the revised draft resolution put in blue yesterday. The reference to coordination with the Lebanese government “as per the SOFA” still appears in the revised text.

So the UAE was more hawkish on Hezbollah than France was. Good to know.

Northern Ghajar is Syrian territory, not Lebanese, and Israel intended to withdraw but then the Syrian civil war broke out. Also the residents do not want to have their town divided again. Most are Israeli citizens.

But then the UAE turned around and tried to insert language condemning Israel for "occupying" a tiny part of southern Lebanon:

The first draft text included a new preambular reference “expressing concern at the continued occupation of northern Ghajar,” a village which straddles the Blue Line, “and an adjacent area north of the Blue Line”. This is in addition to operative language already contained in resolution 2650 urging Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar. Although the UAE proposed “condemning” the occupation, it appears that this change was not made, while the term “occupation” was replaced by “the continued Israeli presence” to accommodate the US’ position on this issue.

Following requests by some members—including China, Russia, and the UAE—both references to northern Ghajar were changed during the negotiations to “northern Ghajar and an adjacent area north of the Blue Line, in the outskirts of the town of Al-Mari”, to reflect more closely the language preferred by Lebanon to refer to this area. While this language still appeared in the draft that was put in blue on 29 August, the reference to “the outskirts of the town of Al-Mari” was removed from the amended draft that was put in blue yesterday in a likely concession to the US, which had consistently opposed this language during the negotiations.

The UAE is pushing its weight at the Security Council.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!