Khaled Abu Toameh: EU Gives Hamas Green Light to Attack Israel
The EU court's decision represents a "severe blow to the Palestinian Authority and Egypt," according to Palestinian political analyst Raed Abu Dayer.Europe doesn't care about dead Jews
Any victory for Hamas, albeit a small and symbolic one, is a victory for the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups, and causes tremendous damage to those Muslims who are opposed to radical Islam.
Hours before the EU court's decision was made public, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar announced that his movement would never recognize Israel, and that Hamas seeks to overthrow the Palestinian Authority and seize control of the West Bank.
The EU court's decision also coincided with a rapprochement between Hamas and Iran. Now, the Iranians and other countries, such as Turkey and Qatar, are likely to interpret the EU court's decision as a green light to resume financial and military aid, including rockets and missiles, to Hamas — not only to Gaza but to the West Bank as well — to support those Palestinians whose aim it is to eliminate Israel.
As long as Europe maintains its prejudice against Israel, Israelis will have little reason to believe that further concessions will win them Europe’s favor.How the State Department Annually Perpetuates Palestinian Misery
Instead, they will continue to shrug their shoulders and rightfully recall that the “goyim” are always against us and will remain so despite the Palestinian terrorism that will inevitably follow the next concession.
At the same time, Europe’s obsession with Israel leads Palestinians to view Europe and the international community, their institutions, and the various pro-Palestinian non-governmental organizations they fund as tools and forums which can be utilized to force Israel to meet their demands outside of a negotiated peace. With Europe as their advocate, they can win concessions – as they did with the 2005 disengagement, the 2010 settlement freeze and the recent release of 78 terrorists – before negotiations even begin or merely for participating in negotiations. There is no need for them to relinquish their quest for Israel’s ultimate destruction, or cease acts of terrorism and indoctrination, incitement and funding of terrorism.
Even more disturbing than the negative consequences for the prospects for true peace is the unspoken, but readily apparent disregard for Jewish life implied by these European resolutions and actions.
Israel’s security concerns are real. A century of Palestinian violence against Jews is not a mere excuse that Israel conjures to avoid Palestinian statehood or other concessions. Europeans, however, are unfazed. Even as Palestinians plow their cars into pedestrians with encouragement from Palestinian Authority institutions, European officials do not even attempt to explain why Israelis shouldn’t worry about the concessions they demand. They want Israel to give the Palestinians what they believe the Palestinians deserve, even if unaccompanied by a termination of violence on the part of the Palestinians. If that results in more dead Jews, that is none of their concern.
This constitutes an UNRWA commitment to update its human resources manuals, nothing more. There is no mention of UNRWA's refusal to use U.S. or Israeli terror watch lists to ensure any commitment to combat terrorism.
The unreality is compounded by the still more ludicrous statement that the U.S. "notes with appreciation efforts taken by UNRWA during the course of 2014 to strengthen the Agency's neutrality compliance, including but not limited to the development of social media guidelines for official UNRWA communications…"
Whether the UNRWA spokesman crying on camera while being interviewed constitutes "neutrality compliance" is unclear, as is the celebration of the recent Jerusalem murders of rabbis on the Facebook pages of UNRWA teachers [EOZ link]. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect UNRWA employees, the vast majority of whom are Palestinian, to express neutrality. But if that is the case, then the Framework's endorsement of "UNRWA's human rights, conflict resolution, and tolerance education program" may also be questioned, or at least its implementation.
But a deeper look at the document and the background of the American commitment to UNRWA suggests another vast disconnect. The framework states "All U.S. foreign assistance programs are required to demonstrate performance and accountability, and clearly link programming and funding directly to U.S. policy goals." How prolonging the Palestinian "refugee" issue through the permanent institutionalizing of UNRWA serves U.S. policy goals is mystifying.
Beyond that, UNRWA officials at the top continue to defend the Palestinian "right of return," in speeches as well as on official web pages, not to mention its pervasive promotion in UNRWA schools. How does promoting the Palestinian ideology that they are entitled to return to places once occupied by parents, grandparents and great-grandparents which are now in Israel, and in the process transform Israel into a Jewish minority state, serve U.S. policy, much less the cause of peace?