Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

08/14 Links Pt1: Isi Leibler: Deterrence against Hamas is evaporating; How will ICC view new evidence on Gaza beach war crimes dispute?; Where has all the flour gone? The fake humanitarian UNRWA crisis

From Ian:

Isi Leibler: Deterrence against Hamas is evaporating

Since the launching of the very first primitive rockets that our leaders dismissed as insignificant, our citizens in the southern area have suffered considerably and been transformed into refugees in their own country. After successive wars that temporarily created a deterrent effect, the situation has now eroded to the point where Hamas disregards our empty threats and bombings of empty buildings.

We have not learned from the past. We are again acting with restraint as the terrorists gauge our response and resolve. After the events of the past few weeks, we should demand that our government display leadership and strength and adjust its policy of restraint instead of accepting a situation where Hamas tactical considerations determine the quality of life for citizens in the south.
Appeasement only emboldens our enemies, who harbor genocidal ambitions against us as their goal. And the absence of deterrence will inevitably, as in the past, lead to war.

All Israelis are willing to make great sacrifices to achieve peace. They would dearly love to live side by side with Palestinians. But the road to peace is not paved with illusions.

We should inform our allies and warn our adversaries that we will no longer engage in restraint and limit our response. We will act like any other nation and employ the full might at our disposal to bring an immediate end to such assaults against our citizens.
We have one of the most powerful armies in the world. If Hamas will not unilaterally cease its terror activities, notwithstanding the difficulties and complications referred to above, we will have no choice but to destroy it.

Failure to act now virtually guarantees a full-scale conflict at a later stage when Hamas will probably be in a better position to inflict greater casualties upon us.

Trump should release secret report on the true number of Palestinian refugees

The Trump administration is supposedly considering declassifying a State Department report that tallies up the true number of Palestinian refugees.

If Trump does this, the repercussions could go a long way to settling the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, or UNRWA, classifies refugees unlike any other organization in the world, and in a way that contradicts common sense. Whereas the number of refugees from the original 1948 Arab/Israeli war would likely number in the tens of thousands, the UNRWA also counts people generations removed from the conflict, many of whom are citizens of new countries, in addition to everyone living in their internationally recognized homes of Gaza and the West Bank.

This politically motivated definition raises the number of "refugees" to an estimated 5.3 million. And that number is used by Palestinians to claim a “right of return” to Israel for a number greater than half of Israel's entire population.

Until today, there has been no official acknowledgment of the true number of refugees. Governments and international organizations around the world instead pay lip service to UNRWA’s fiction that the number of refugees has expanded many times over since the 1948 war.

This will change if the Trump administration releases the classified report.

A Palestinian attempt to oust Israel from the UN would be quixotic — and fail

After their failed efforts last year to get Israel booted from FIFA, the world soccer body, the Palestinians have now reportedly set their sights on an even bigger prize: kicking Israel out of the United Nations.

According to a brief report Sunday in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, Palestinian leaders are planning to argue that Israel is in violation of several UN Security Council resolutions and the UN charter. Ramallah will further argue, the report stated, that Israel’s recently passed nation-state law, which declares national rights to be exclusive to Jews, proved Israel is an apartheid state and must therefore be sanctioned.

Palestinian officials did not respond to several requests for comment by The Times of Israel.

Israeli officials were quick to denounce the ostensible plan, even though the chances that Israel would actually be expelled or suspended from the UN are close to zero.

The apartheid accusation, long leveled at Israel by its critics, is particularly noteworthy, because in 1974 South Africa — one of the UN’s 51 founding members in 1945 — was suspended from the UN General Assembly over its racist governing system.

After attempts to kick out South Africa failed due to vetoes by France, Britain and the US, the General Assembly voted to suspend the country, 91-22 with 19 abstentions. South Africa did not lose its seat at the GA but could not make speeches or participate in votes.

The US, the UK, Israel and other Western countries opposed the move, not defending apartheid but saying depriving the country of its seat at the General Assembly was illegal “and could set a dangerous precedent for the future,” The New York Times reported at the time.

It's hard to remember a time when antisemitism on college campuses was not a problem.

This week, I had an opportunity to discuss a different approach to understanding and addressing campus antisemitism with Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a co-founder of AMCHA, whose report "Zionists Off Our Campus! Campus Antisemitism in 2017" came out this month. AMCHA is a group dedicated solely to investigating, documenting, educating about, and combating antisemitism on college campuses.

The campus antisemitism we see today, Rossman-Benjamin points out, has its roots in the Durban Conference in South Africa in 2001. The Durban Declaration did more than claim that Israel was a racist state and provide the basis for the BDS movement - it also provided the impetus for the attacks on Jewish students on college campuses, which have spread and become more virulent. These attacks are not happening in a vacuum.

The ADL has also come out with a report, Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents: Year in Review 2017, which examines not just campus antisemitism, but also threats against K-12 schools, attacks on Jewish cemeteries and bomb threats.

Not All Antisemitism On Campus Is The Same

But a key difference between the 2 reports is the distinction the AMCHA report makes between 2 different kinds of campus harassment faced by Jewish students.

First of all, counting incidences of antisemitism on campus is not enough. A small swastika drawn in a bathroom stall creates a different emotional impact on a student than the same swastika when it is etched into that same Jewish student�s dorm room door. The former is an expression of an offensive opinion, while the latter implies a desire to harass and intimidate.

The harassment of Jewish students goes beyond swastikas. Another example given in the report is:

At University of Houston, protesters disrupted a student group�s event with chants of �Zionists off our campus...Zionists off our Campus...Free, Free, Free Palestine,� and one protester additionally shouted, �F*** Zionists, F*** all you Zionists!� The protesters continued their demonstration outside the event hall, loudly chanting, �Whose campus? Our campus!...Racists off our campus, Zionists off our campus, Islamophobes off our campus! Fists up, fight back!�

This is a different kind of harassment, directed at Jewish students not as Jews but rather as representatives and supporters of Israel. It is also antisemitism but is distinctive from classic antisemitism such as swastikas and anti-Jewish hate speech.

Such attacks tend to be carried out with the intent to suppress pro-Israel expression or to ostracize and exclude pro-Israel individuals from campus life. These kinds of incidents included:

shutting down, disrupting, defacing or other attempts to interfere with Israel-related events, displays, trips, or announcements on the one hand, and the targeting of individual students and student groups for vilification or attempts to exclude them from participating in campus activities, to boycott interaction with them, or even to expel them from campus altogether on the other.

According to Rossman-Benjamin, it is important to be able to distinguish the intentionality behind the attacks. Antisemitic attacks were not necessarily directed at a particular Jewish student on campus, but anti-Zionist incidents were virtually all directed particularly at Jewish students. It was those anti-Zionist attacks that were more likely to affect the campus climate.

While there were more antisemitic incidents (205) than Israel-related ones (71), far more of the Israel-related incidents (67 / 94% vs 48 / 23%) showed an intent to harm Jewish students and contributed more towards creating a hostile environment.

The Israel-related attacks were also more likely to be carried out by more than one person, and those people were more likely to be affiliated with a particular group or organization.

Israel-Related Attacks on Campus Are Bad -- And Getting Worse

While the report has a breakdown of both antisemitic and Israel-related harassment, let's focus on the report's findings related to the latter.

31 of Israel-related incidents (44%) were intended to impede or silence pro-Israel expression. For example:

At Columbia University, an event featuring Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon was disrupted seven times by student protesters, who loudly chanted anti-Israel slogans, including support for BDS, and blocked the entrance to the auditorium, physically preventing people from entering and intimidating those who were able to enter.
At the University of Maryland, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Political Alliance and other student organizations carried out a boycott protest of the Jewish Student Union-sponsored event "IsraelFest," at which they asked people "to turn away from the festival [IsraelFest] and not participate in any of the festivities."
At the University of Texas Austin, Jewish students attempting to table to raise funds for an Israeli non-profit called "Save a Child's Heart" were impeded when two other student groups moved their tables to flank them, began yelling, chanting and waving a flag over the Jewish students� heads, and drowned out their calls for donations. When the Jewish students relocated to another part of the campus square, the disruptors followed them and continued to impede their efforts for two days.

54 of Israel-related incidents (76%) personally targeted pro-Israel individuals or groups for ostracizing and/or exclusion. For example:

At Pomona College, an SJP member posted a photo on Snapchat and Twitter of the Claremont Progressive Jewish Alliance student president with the caption �Her name is Kate ______ and she is a proud racist.' The post was favorited and retweeted by SJP members.
At St. Olaf College, Oles for Justice in Palestine created a petition asking the College to remove an alumnus from the Advisory Board of the Institute for Freedom and Community at St. Olaf College, claiming, "Arne Christenson is a key member of the Apartheid lobby and an outspoken Christian Zionist. He ought to have no position at any institute for "freedom" or "community" and certainly no position at St. Olaf."
At Tufts University, a widely shared student activist-created handbook entitled "Tufts University Disorientation Guide" described Hillel as �an organization that supports a white supremacist state� that �exploit[s] black voices for their own pro-Israel agenda.� The handbook was posted by students on two official Class Facebook pages.

These incidents of ostracizing and excluding pro-Israel Jews have been successful and have been on the rise over the past few years in comparison to merely suppressing speech.

Furthermore, the ostracizing/exclusion is becoming more flagrant:

At New York University, 53 student groups pledged to boycott NYU�s pro-Israel clubs and refuse to co-sponsor events with them. The president of SJP at NYU was quoted in the student newspaper as saying, �Our point is to make being Zionists uncomfortable on the NYU campus.�
The Black Student Union and various other student organizations at California Polytechnic Institute San Luis Obispo issued a list of demands that included �an increase in ASI funding of ALL cultural clubs, with the exception of organizations that are aligned with Zionist ideology.�
The Director of a program at San Francisco State University posted to her program�s Facebook page a message stating that welcoming Zionists to campus is �a declaration of war against Arabs, Muslims, [and] Palestinians.� Soon after her message was posted, numerous flyers and graffiti messages showed up all over campus stating, �Zionists Not Welcome.�

When I spoke with Ms. Rossman-Benjamin, she pointed out that the AMCHA findings, by distinguishing between classic antisemitism and anti-Zionism, reveal a dual attitude on the part of the university campuses.

On the one hand, campuses tended to be more sympathetic to those subjected to antisemitic attacks, but on the other hand, they had little or no sympathy when it came to Israel-related attacks. As a result, many of places where Jewish students would look to for sympathy, such as peers, were actually themselves perpetuating this kind of harassment.

Furthermore, the University administrators did not feel compelled to act to protect Jewish students from Israel-related attacks, because they saw those incidents as political free speech and not as harassment.

Dealing With Anti-Zionism on Campus: A Paradigm Shift

In their report, the ADL's recommendations put the emphasis on taking legal action in order to protect Jews in general and on the education of university staff in particular to address the problem. Public officials would be expected to speak out against such incidents.

AMCHA's approach is different, and Rossman-Benjamin describes the approach as a paradigm shift.

True, one could try to get universities to recognize anti-Zionism harassment as a form of religious or ethnic discrimination. As it is, there are legislative efforts to get the federal government, especially the Department of Education, to see it that way, and make such harassment illegal under federal anti-discrimination law.

She suggests a different approach:

Instead of trying to get the anti-Zionism behavior recognized as discrimination, let's get the anti-Zionism behavior recognized as a behavior which takes away an individual�s freedom of expression and freedom to fully participate in campus life.

The effort to get anti-Zionism recognized on campus as an example of classic antisemitism or a form of discrimination against Jews would take a lot of work and would not necessarily successful. It will take a lot of effort to get anti-Zionism recognized as a special form of discrimination, and going the legal route is time-consuming and not a simple task.

The main concern must be the welfare and safety of Jewish students on college campuses.

If you have to argue that anti-Zionism is a form of classic antisemitism before you can get protection from what is legitimately hurting Jewish students, you are wasting time when you could be just going to the fact that Jew students are getting hurt -- and that is unacceptable, period.

So instead of going to the legislature, AMCHA advocates for going directly to the university itself, and in its report offers these suggestions:

o Issue a public statement assuring all students that they will be equally protected from intolerant behavior that violates their freedom of expression or their right to full participation in campus life;

o Amend university policies to include the prohibition of peer-on-peer harassment that suppresses any student�s freedom of speech, association or assembly, or unduly interferes with any student�s access to educational opportunities or benefits;

o Institute procedures for enforcing the amended policies equitably, without regard to the motivation of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim;

o Develop educational programs to teach about the importance of freedom of expression to university life and to encourage the expression of a wide range of views in a productive and respectful manner. [emphasis added]

The focus of these suggestions is not Jewish students, but rather all students.

And that is the key: Jewish students need to be protected because all students need to be protected from any kind of harassment that takes away from their right to express themselves. Instead of concentrating on the motivation of the perpetrators -- target the behavior and the make the issue freedom of expression.

This is important for all students - not just Jewish students - because it is not just Jewish students who are having this problem now. For Jews, we must have our basic right to speak protected, before we can speak out effectively about classic antisemitism.

In this way, we avoid the quagmire of having to define what qualifies as classic antisemitism and what is political free speech - by not getting into the quagmire to begin with. As a result, we do not have to tangle with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace who claim to know what qualifies as antisemitism when it comes to Israel.

However, that means that everyone gets to express themselves, and that is going to require a certain amount of tolerance. But keep in mind, it is not as if this allows a group like JVP to say what they want, when they want and where they want. Let's

How Do We Get The Universities To Take These Proposals Seriously?

If need be, pressure can be applied to the universities to put these policies into place.

o Students need to call for it
o Outside groups need to call for it
o Communities need to call for it - and not just Jewish communities either.

There is already movement in state legislatures to ensure that free speech is assured for all students.

Legislative muscle helps, but the first step is to get the universities to say this is important and pledge they are going to do something about it. If they will not put in place policies that guarantee equal rights to free speech, only then bring legislative muscle to bear.

Getting those policies in place would be a huge step forward.

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.

PA minister who calls for Jihad against Israel represents Palestine at "World Peace Forum"

Mahmoud Habbash, who is the Chief Justice of Palestine and President's Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations, is heading a delegation of Palestinian officials to the 7th session of the World Peace Forum (WPF), held in Jakarta, Indonesia in October.

Al-Habbash said that he will discuss ways to protect world peace from collapse and to examine the reasons that threaten the world peace, "especially the occupation that wreaks havoc on the land, and the aggressors to reach the holy sites and the cancerous expansion of settlements and the confiscation of land and the murder of an unarmed people longing for freedom and freedom from the last occupation on earth."

More than once, on TV, Habbash has called for Jihad against Israel.

War is peace.

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.

J-Street lies for @UNRWA - and says that Palestinians have a "right to return"

J-Street has a "Myths and Facts" page about UNRWA where they deliberately switch the myths and the facts.

Once again, the "pro-Israel" J-Street can find nothing bad to say about an organization that teaches its students that they must remain stateless until they "return" to destroy Israel.

Their "myths and facts" could have been written by UNRWA itself, and I think there is a good chance that this was in fact the case.

Literally everything they say in the first section is a lie:

“UNRWA applies a unique standard to refugees, making refugees of their descendants”

A more accurate way of saying what J-Street considers a "myth" would be to re-word it "“UNRWA applies a unique standard to Palestinians, automatically giving refugee status to their descendants with no mechanism to remove them from that status forever."

Here are J-Street's/UNRWA's responses:

● Palestinian refugees are not distinct from other protracted refugee situations in this regard. Under international law, the children of refugees, whether or not the parents are stateless or lacking citizenship in another country, are also considered refugees.

Wrong. Children of refugees under UNHCR have "derivative" status and are absolutely not considered refugees.

● In fact, the majority of the world’s refugees live in protracted refugee situations. UNHCR also registers descending generational refugees including those from: Afghanistan, Angola, Bhutan, Burma, Burundi, Congo/DRC, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Tibet and Western Sahara.

Half-truth. The derivative status is not automatically inherited. And if the parent is no longer classified as a refugee according to UNHCR's many cessation clauses, the children lose that status as well. Refugees are re-evaluated under UNHCR's procedures - but UNRWA has no means to take a refugee off its rolls of "registered Palestine refugees."

● The principle of family unity and keeping families united and together is the reason that refugee parents provide refugee status to their children.

And this should happen automatically, forever? It sure doesn't for any other refugee situation in the world.

● In fact, UNRWA’s definition of a Palestinian refugee is narrower than UNHCR’s definition of a refugee. Under UNHCR’s definition, both women and men can pass on refugee status to their descendants, whereas only male refugees can pass on their status as refugees under UNRWA’s definition. Under UNHCR’s definition, many more Palestinians, located all over the world, would qualify as refugees.

That is complete garbage. Under UNHCR's definition, none of the Palestinians who live in the West Bank or Gaza or most of them in Jordan would be considered refugees, and none of the rest would be considered refugees either unless they are over 70 years old.

● UNRWA’s refugee definition is determined only by the UN General Assembly and cannot be changed by UNRWA.

Again, this is a lie. The UNRWA definition is an "operational definition" of refugee to determine who gets aid. UNRWA alone decided on this definition, not the UN General Assembly.

Later in the document, J-Street says:

● The “right of return” is a fundamental, internationally-recognized human right afforded to ALL refugees everywhere.

Even if this is true, as we have shown nearly none of the UNRWA "refugees" are real refugees. Descendants do not have an automatic right to return. Even the UNGA resolution that is the source for the Palestinian "right to return" does not say this as being automatic - they can accept compensation, they can be integrated into neighboring countries, and the ones who would be allowed to "return" at the time it was written would have had to accept Israel.

There's lots more in J-Street's list of myths, but it is obvious that an organization that states flatly that over 5 million Palestinians have a "right" to "return" to destroy Israel is not a pro-Israel organization.

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.

08/13 Links Pt2: Kontorovich: Basic truths about the Basic Law; Netanyahu slams Corbyn for honoring Munich terrorists, comparing Israel to Nazis; Humanitarian aid is just a ruse

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: Basic truths about the Basic Law

Ironically, the loudest critics of the law are those that are most eager to infringe on individual rights in the name of Jewish statehood. They expelled thousands of Jews from their homes because they said we need to do so to have a Jewish state. They wish to expel hundreds of thousands more – because they say they we want a Jewish state. What is the meaning of a Jewish self-determination if it cannot be articulated as a positive value, only as an excuse for expulsion?

Some critics object to the law not because of what is in it, but because of what is not. But their argument is disingenuous. Indeed, Meretz has challenged the Basic Law in court based on the existing protection of equality – and then turn around and say there is no constitutional protection of equality.

People talk broadly of “equality,” but no one knows what “equality” means. Does it mean the Law of Return is unconstitutional? Does it mean that those who serve the nation in the Army, such as our brothers the Druze, are not eligible for veterans’ benefits? Does it mean that the exemption of Arabs from compulsory from military service is unconstitutional? It can mean all of those things – and none of them. Without an agreement on what equality means in Knesset and society, including such a provision is simply writing a blank check to the Supreme Court to decide the most contentious social issues based purely on their opinion. That is undemocratic, and that is why it was not done.

Nothing imperils the status quo for Israel’s minorities than the suggestions cynically tossed around by the law’s opponents.

I must say a terrible word, because the critics have cynically used it in relation to the law: Apartheid. This debases the meaning and memory of Apartheid, and is as disgusting as Nazi analogies, which we know have no place in political discussions. The law does not give any group special access to public facilities. It does not change the full political and electoral rights of Israeli citizens of all ethnic groups. If this is apartheid, the word is meaningless. Indeed, the same “right-wing” parties that supported this law passed a historic 10- to 15-billion-shekel development plan for Arab communities.

Israel properly does not compare itself to neighboring regimes. But we know that the constitution adopted by the Palestinian Authority declares their entity to be Palestinian in character; with Arabic as the official language, and Islam as the official religion. If this is apartheid, why are the opponents of the law so eager to create an apartheid state?

JPost Editorial: Red Flags

The site of the rally was a message in itself. The Palestinian flags were not being raised in an Israeli Arab town such as Umm el-Fahm or Sakhnin, or even in a mixed city like Haifa. They were fluttering in the bastion of secular Israel.

The calls were not to amend the Nation-State Law or to cancel it and turn the Declaration of Independence into law instead. The slogans were negating Israel’s very existence as the Jewish state.

This was not a rally of solidarity with the state, like the Druze held. It was a demonstration against the Zionist entity and enterprise.

The protest was organized by the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, a self-appointed non-governmental umbrella organization that is meant to coordinate representation of Israel’s Arab community. Arab parliamentarians, including Ayman Odeh, Ahmad Tibi and Yousef Jabareen, were present. It showed yet again that the Arab MKs do not always best serve the interests of the public they are meant to represent.

Jabareen, who earlier this year submitted a counter bill dubbed “The Palestinian-State Law,” was quoted by Israel Hayom as demanding the complete abolition of the new Nation-State Law. “Adding the word ‘equality’ won’t save it and it will sow the seeds of racism in any form. Those who would be satisfied with amending the law want to mask it. No less.”

Arabs comprise some 20% of Israel’s population and have enjoyed full citizenship rights, both before and after the passage of the Nation-State Law. The rally was not aimed at achieving certain socio-economic goals, such as improved housing, education, employment or infrastructure in the Arab sector; it was aimed at taking away the right of the Jewish majority to say that Israel is a Jewish state. The call to turn Israel into a “state for all its citizens” sounds innocent and politically correct – but the underlying meaning is the end of the world’s only Jewish state.

The Nation-State Law defined the Blue-and-White stripes and Star of David as the Israeli flag. Despite the rhetoric, even after the law passed, it is not illegal to raise the Palestinian flag in Israel. But as Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid tweeted, “It’s interesting what would happen were someone to try to march in central Ramallah carrying the Israeli flag.”

The red, green, black and white flags waved at Saturday night’s rally were all red flags for the Jewish state.

Ben-Dror Yemini: Shooting themselves in the flag

There wasn't one protest on Saturday night, but two. One was of those who waved the Palestine flag, mostly in defiance. They are not seeking equality or coexistence, but the rejection of Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The second protest was of those protesting the discrimination and fighting for equality, and they think the Nation-State Law is going to make their situation worse. The first group wants to deepen the conflict; the second group wants change through legitimate protest.

The great majority of Israeli Arabs vote for the Joint List, whose leadership supports the former group. This leadership provokes. This leadership rejects Israel's right to exist. This leadership's comments and actions lead to slogans being shouted such as: "In spirit and in blood we'll save you Palestine." And on Saturday night—what a shame—these slogans were being shouted at Rabin Square.

On the other hand, all of the polls conducted in recent years indicate that 50-53 percent of Joint List voters support the definition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. They don't support every foolish thing the party's leadership does, just like Likud voters don't support every irksome declaration of constructions outside the main settlement blocs and/or outside the separation barrier. Voting for a party is about identity, not about agreeing with every statement.

The protest organizers asked not to wave Palestinian flags. They wanted to appeal to the Israeli public. It was a worthy decision. Because anyone who waves the Palestine flag at this protest is there to show defiance against Israeli flags, supports Palestinian nationalism and opposes Jewish nationalism.

Haaretz' Amira Hass reports:

How many of the young people protesting Friday at the Gaza border fence hoped the soldiers facing them would pull the trigger and end their lives?

Many. Many more than is reported or than the Palestinians are prepared to or can admit publicly.

“A person who was shot in the leg and had his leg amputated weeps. Not because his leg is gone, but because the soldier didn’t kill him,” said someone who came out of the Gaza Strip for a few days. He told of a 30-year-old man who went up to the fence a few times, was wounded a few times, until he got lucky and the soldier on the other side finally killed him.

What is the ratio between the number of those seeking to continue protecting the principles of the Palestinian struggle – by protesting at the border fence – and the number of those using the patriotic-nationalistic mantle to commit suicide, knowing that Islam prohibits “ordinary” suicide?

Many of them are young people who go to the fence to be wounded, thinking that Hamas will pay them, and then they can pay their debts at the grocery store or pay their rent for two months. It’s true: Hamas pays the injured a one-time payment of $200, I’m told. But only if the injury was serious.

Someone who was slightly injured and went to a Hamas office to ask for money was turned away. Someone else was fortunate – his injury was worth compensation, then he went to the fence to be wounded again, and received compensation again.

Some people deluded themselves that their family would receive large compensation if they were killed, or that payment for injury would come on a monthly basis. They still think it’s like the second intifada, when Saddam Hussein and Iran sent money for these purposes and the Palestinian Authority bore the burden. Those days are gone forever. ....

And now to the women protesters: Since they are few, this could seem like an accusation, or scorn, which will draw protests. But a Palestinian woman who spoke with women who go to the fence says she believes that few of them do it for national reasons, or that gradually the national reasons gave way to personal-economic reasons. Some of them went to be wounded and receive compensation. One went to be close to her son who was protesting. And many went to die – one whose husband refused to give her a divorce, another who was unmarried and felt that society considered her damaged goods, a third who was a victim of family violence ...We are familiar with the phenomenon of women in the West Bank who committed suicide-by-soldier.

What Amira Hass isn't saying is that the ones who want to die will do acts to ensure success - cutting the fence, throwing firebombs at soldiers, whatever.

She does mention that very few of the people who go to the protests are interested in protesting. They go to kill time. Some went for free food provided by Hamas for Ramadan. It is a social event, not a protest.

Which shows that the weekly events at the fence are being reported completely wrong, and have been since they started.

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 2014, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees issued a report to attempt to eliminate statelessness by 2024.

The UNHCR estimates that there are some 10 million stateless persons in the world. Ending that status is a high priority for the agency.

It has a ten point plan, including:

ENSURE THAT NO CHILD IS BORN STATELESS
Goal: No reported cases of childhood statelessness.
Goal: All States have a provision in their nationality laws to grant nationality to stateless children born in their territory.

PREVENT DENIAL , LOSS OR DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY ON
DISCRIMINATORY GROUNDS
Goal: No States have nationality laws which permit denial, loss or deprivation of
nationality on discriminatory grounds.

ACCEDE TO THE UN STATELESSNESS CONVENTIONS
Goal: 140 States are party to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
Goal: 130 States are party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

Does the UN's other "refugee agency," UNRWA, adhere to these goals?

No. In fact, UNRWA opposes these goals!

It won't admit it publicly, of course, but for nearly 70 years UNRWA has been encouraging millions of people to remain stateless in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria - but only as long as they can be considered "Palestinian." UNRWA has never said a word against discriminatory laws in those states against Palestinians.

Most importantly, UNRWA has been complicit in the idea that Palestinians born in those countries not becoming citizens of those states, and even if they do become citizens through some loophole (which hundreds of thousands have managed to do), UNRWA wants them to be treated differently and not to ever be considered full citizens - until Israel is destroyed by "right to return."

It is one of the most egregious crimes of a UN agency that acts completely at odds with another agency, in order to perpetuate misery and statelessness and discrimination.

The fact that so few people consider this outrageous is itself outrageous.

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.

08/13 Links Pt1: Fatah Facebook Honors Japanese Terrorist Kozo Okamoto; Kushner is right about the United Nations; UN Enabling Hamas's War Machine

From Ian:

MEMRI: Official Fatah Facebook Page Honors Japanese Terrorist Kozo Okamoto

On August 12, 2018, Fatah's official Facebook page posted a photo of Japanese terrorist Kozo Okamoto and information about him. Okamoto was one of three terrorists, members of the Japanese Red Army (JRA), who carried out an attack in Israel's Lod Airport on May 30, 1972, in which 26 people were killed and 79 were injured. Before participating in the attack, in 1971, Okamoto trained in Lebanon with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Okamoto's fellow terrorists were killed in the course of the attack, and he himself was sentenced by an Israeli court to three consecutive life sentences, but was released after 13 years as part of the Jibril Agreement, a prisoners exchange deal between Israel and the PFLP-General Command.

The following is a translation of the post on Fatah's Facebook page:[1]

The August 12, 2018 post on Fatah's Facebook page

"Who Is Kozo Okamoto?
"1. A Japanese fighter who carried out an attack against the Zionists in Palestine.
"2. Converted to Islam at the age of 24 and participated in an operation at Lod Airport in 1972, in which 26 Zionists were killed. He was captured after he ran out of ammunition.
"3. He was sentenced to death but following pressures by Japan his sentence was changed to life in prison.
"4. He was released in 1985."

It should be noted that this is not the first post about Okamoto to appear on Fatah's official Facebook page. On May 18, 2016, a post appeared headed "Who Is Comrade Kozo Okamoto, the International Revolutionary?," which said: "On May 30, 1972, a squad of three Japanese commandos stormed the Lod Airport. They threw five grenades: three at the planes parked at the airport, one at the customs office there, and another at the vehicles parked at the airport. As a result 26 Israelis were killed and over 80 were injured. After throwing the grenades the squad started retreating from the airport, and clashed on the way with an Israeli patrol near Ramla prison, wounding five members of the patrol unit.[2] Two of the three Japanese commandos gave their lives [in the attack]: Tsuyoshi Okudaira (whose nom de guerre was Bassam), and Yasuyuki Yasuda (whose nom de guerre was Salah). The third, Kozo Okamoto (whose nom de guerre is Ahmad), was wounded and captured. The operation was planned by the PFLP.

Kushner is right about the United Nations

Jared Kushner may be right in seeking to disrupt the current structure of US assistance to the Palestinians. Since 1950, America has contributed more than $6 billion to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). UNRWA supports roughly 5 million registered Palestinian refugees, and their descendants, in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, who were displaced during the 1948 and 1967 Israeli-Arab wars. About 30,000 of UNRWA’s 5 million Palestinians are first generation refugees. UNRWA’s most visible operations are in Gaza, a nearly impossible responsibility made even more difficult, as Hamas and the Israelis are on the brink of a fourth war in the last decade. Like any organization established in the 1950s, it is time for 21st Century disruption. Re-visioning UNRWA, however, requires thoughtful diplomacy and economic nuance.

The international community should not regard UNRWA as a monolith. Circumstances in Jordan, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem are vastly different than in Gaza, Syria, or the sealed refugee camps in Lebanon. UNRWA primarily provides health, education, and social services; make no mistake this assistance is life-saving to the most vulnerable. But after 70 years, the structure and incentives have ossified to create welfare dependency. Most Palestinians would prefer the dignity of a state, a job, and the potential of a real future than food basket deliveries, generation after generation. While acknowledging its good work in tough places, UNRWA subsidizes dysfunctionality and an unsustainable status quo in most of the Levant. Here are three suggestions to hack UNRWA.

Kushner is right to demand a fundamental re-ordering of UNRWA. The UN agency serves as a welfare and humanitarian relief provider which after 70 years subsidizes despair and continued conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. Yet, hacking UNRWA raises a few cautionary flags given that disruptive change can do real harm. The administration must ensure that UNRWA can start the school year for all of its students, particularly in Gaza. Imagine the Israelis and Palestinians on the brink of war with schools closed indefinitely. Further, an UNRWA exit strategy will require intense international cooperation. Lastly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the death bed of big ideas and failure is a real possibility. The world today is vastly different from the one in 1950 when UNRWA was created. Disrupting the UNRWA’s organizational model is essential if the Middle East wants to see a different future.

Fearing Gaza crisis, Israel asks US to scale back aid agency cuts

Israel has asked the United States not to withhold funds from the U.N. agency responsible for assisting Gazans out of concern that this would exacerbate the already dire humanitarian situation in the Hamas-ruled enclave and increase the probability of armed conflict.

Sources familiar with the details told Israel Hayom on Sunday that the Israeli position was presented to the Trump administration several months ago, and remains unchanged.

Officially, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East provides educational, health and social services to some 5 million Palestinian "refugees" living in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

However, the agency has been accused of engaging in anti-Semitic incitement, and Hamas terrorists have used UNRWA facilities in Gaza to target Israeli civilians.

In January, the Trump administration cut tens of millions of dollars in funding for UNRWA, demanding that it undertake a "fundamental re-examination."

The State Department notified UNRWA then that the U.S. was withholding $65 million of its planned $125 million funding, and said that additional U.S. donations would be contingent on major changes by UNRWA.

After a night of missiles on the south of Israel, I got up to a new day, full of missiles.

My nerves were frazzled. But why? Nothing happened to me. At night I had reset the RED ALERT app so that it wouldn’t alert me of all the missiles on my country, it would only sound the alarm if missiles came to Haifa.

Only.

I allowed myself the luxury of sleep – something the people of southern Israel did not have. Everyone who lives in proximity to Gaza has safe rooms in their homes but can you really sleep when you have to move your entire family into one room and you hear sirens and explosions around you all night long? Can you sleep knowing that the Iron Dome missile defense system works most of the time but not always? It knocks most of Hamas rockets out of the sky but no system is perfect, sometimes it misses and every missile interception means the missile explodes in the air, dropping boiling hot shrapnel from the sky. Wherever it hits, it hits.

https://www.facebook.com/IsraelForeverFoundation/videos/1954101291277274/

What right do I have to have frazzled nerves?! Watching your people suffer is not the same as suffering yourself.

I cry when my friend in Be’eri tells me how hard it is for her to breathe because of the arson terrorism. The smoke permeates the air, so much so that she needs to use an asthma inhalator, something she hasn’t had to do for years. I lived through one day of arson terrorism and I will never forget the fear and the choking stench of the smoke. She has lived through months of it, with no end in sight. I cry but it is she, not me, who is having a hard time breathing. It is she, not me, who is worried about the long-term health damage to her family, constantly breathing air that, to some extent or another, depending on the whims of Hamas and the direction of the wind, is poisoned.

The images racing through my head were scenes we have seen too many times before - wives saying goodbye to men, going off to war. Mothers, trying not to show too much emotion when they watch their men walk away, not wanting to burden the men, trying to not frighten their children.

The media doesn’t show the other images, of the military personnel knocking on the door to notify families that their beloved son, brother, husband will never come home again. I know what those scenes are like… enough bereaved parents told me what they experienced.

That terrible phrase that sounds so innocuous to people who don’t know Israelis. That phrase that makes those who are naturally flamboyant, fast and loud become quiet and serious: “It wasn’t an easy thing…”

The worse the situation is, the less dramatic Israelis will be. “It wasn’t an easy thing…” comes before descriptions of what it is like to try to administer first aide to your friend as they bleed to death in your arms. Or returning to consciousness after a bomb goes off and seeing the pieces of your friends strewn all over the place….

I don’t want to hear those words. I don’t want to see Israelis quiet or somber.

We all know the war is coming. It’s only a question of when. We actually had thought it was going to happen earlier but whatever is happening behind the scenes on the political level is keeping the attacks on a low flame rather than a full-blown war.

I don’t envy our Prime Minister. Whatever decision he makes, lives are at stake. Israelis are suffering now, how many will suffer later?

The seemingly indecisive political maneuvering, again and again agreeing to terms dictated by a terrorist organization is sickening. We all know this weakens us in the long term, emboldening our enemies. On the other hand, we know the IDF can beat Hamas – the problem is, what happens after? Who takes over Gaza? What happens with Iran in the north? We all know that the current situation is terribly wrong but who knows how to fix it?

We have one son who is an Officer in the IDF. His base is in the south. He says that he is ok and has a proper shelter to go to when missiles rain down but who can promise us that he will get to shelter in time?

His younger brother gave a year of his life in pre-military voluntary service (which does not count as part of his military service). Soon he too will be inducted into the IDF but, if the war starts now / soon / in the next weeks / months, he will be in training and not be in combat.

His friends will. It is their parents, not us, who will be on edge every time the phone rings, every time they see a military vehicle close to their house and if, God forbid, they see soldiers walking up to their door, unannounced.

Yesterday I walked next to the beach in Haifa. It’s summer and many families came to relax and swim. This is what people should be doing on a hot summer day – not huddling in a bomb shelter, waiting for the next explosion.

We all knew that it wasn’t likely that missiles would come raining down on us. Not that day. What will happen tomorrow? Who knows?

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.

As crazy and inaccurate as the reporting on Israel's Basic Law calling Israel the Nation State of the Jewish people has been, it is nothing compared to the Arab coverage of that law.

The most unhinged analysis I've seen yet comes from Salah Aldawoody in Arab Youm, where he claims that the Basic Law gives Israel the right to declare Jordan and Tunisia to be Jewish states, since there is some Jewish history in those states. In fact, it allows Israel to spread from Morocco to Saudi Arabia!

It gives legal weight to forcing Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel, somehow. Aldawoody quotes some Tunisian laws from the past few years and seems to claim that these laws are related to Israel's Basic Law and forces "normalization" and forces people to love Israelis against their will, or something like that.

It fosters "the tendencies and collusion of colonial elites used by international banks as conditions for the acceptance of guardianship of subordination of students and bondage. " I don't know what that means but it sounds pretty bad.

This is complete insanity- and it is published as normal, sober analysis in Arab media.

(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.

Palestine Today quotes Maariv about a Swedish candidate for Parliament.

Sa'id Hudros, is considered one of the most prominent activists in favor of the Palestinian cause in the Sweden.

Hudros was born in the Burj al-Shamali refugee camp in southern Lebanon, has lived in Sweden since 1990.

According to UNRWA, Hudros is a "refugee."

Even as he lives in Sweden, as a full citizen, UNRWA considers Hudros to be a registered Palestine refugee and counts him as one of the five million "Palestine refugees" that they keep track of.

Indeed, over 200,000 Lebanese Palestinians who have moved to Europe and elsewhere are still counted as "refugees" by UNRWA in Lebanon - including Sa'id Hudros.

He is not eligible for UNRWA services because he does not live in Lebanon anymore but if he would move back he would be get free medical aid and his grandchildren would receive free education - even though they are all Swedish citizens.

UNRWA needs reform, badly. Sa'id Hudros is part of the proof.

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.

08/12 Links: Netanyahu: Israel demands a total ceasefire; Jeremy Corbyn gave a speech at wedding of a Holocaust 'denying' PLO man; Historic Māori-led apology to Israel

From Ian:

Netanyahu: Israel demands a total ceasefire

Israel demands nothing less than a complete cease-fire from Hamas, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday before the weekly government meeting.

"We are in the midst of a campaign against the terror [Hamas] in Gaza. There has been an exchange of blows and this will not end in one blow,” Netanyahu said.

“Our demand is clear - a total cease-fire,” Netanyahu added.

“So far, we have destroyed hundreds of Hamas military targets. With every round of attacks, the IDF exacts a heavy price from Hamas. I will not reveal our operational plans, but they are ready.

Our goal is to restore peace to the residents of the south and the surrounding areas. This goal will be achieved in full,” Netanyahu said.

He spoke in advance of a meeting later today of the security cabinet to discuss further steps with regard to Gaza in the aftermath of last week’s violent flare up in which close to 200 rockets were fired at Israel on Wednesday and Thursday.

It’s unclear if Hamas stopped the rocket fire as the result of a mutual understanding reached with Israel, or if it was unilateral decision.

The man trying to save Gaza

United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Nickolay Mladenov, 47, has become one of the most prominent diplomatic brokers the region has seen in recent years. His current mission is a critical one: preventing a war from breaking out between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, as well as eventually rebuilding the strip.

Ever since the mass protests along the Gaza border fence began on March 30—and with them the kite and balloon terrorism that has burnt large swaths of fields and woodlands in southern Israel—Mladenov has been a central figure in efforts to prevent a violent confrontation between Israel and Hamas.

At least twice, his intensive diplomatic work—together with the Egyptians—was successful in preventing further escalation. The last time was on July 20, when a Palestinian sniper killed Staff Sgt. Aviv Levi from the Givati Brigade, the first Israeli casualty on the Gaza border since Operation Protective Edge, prompting the IDF to bomb dozens of targets in the Gaza Strip, and it seemed that a huge escalation was inevitable. Hamas made a phone call to Mladenov, who rushed to ask Israel for a ceasefire, which in the meantime seems to be holding—until next time.

Israeli officials agree that Mladenov is the most active UN envoy the region has seen in recent years. That is considered a compliment, as Israel generally views UN personnel with suspicion for their generally pro-Palestinian views. Mladenov previously headed a UN mission to Iraq and served as the minister of defense and foreign affairs in his native Bulgaria.

Sources familiar with Mladenov say he is very involved, ambitious and makes frequent trips to all the parties; all while presenting a pleasant demeanor, wisdom and a desire to delve into the depth of the issues.

Matti Friedman [NYT$]: Matti Friedman

Mr. Dabash, a civil engineer, was born in Sur Baher a few months before Israel captured it in a war with Jordan in 1967. Unlike the West Bank, which was placed under military occupation pending a peace deal with the Arab world, East Jerusalem was declared by Israel to be part of Israel proper.

That meant people here, including the Dabash family, were given residency status and access to Israel’s systems of universal health care and social welfare. They were allowed to apply for citizenship and vote in municipal elections. But nearly no one in East Jerusalem did either of those things, seeing them as an unacceptable “normalization” of Israeli control.

For the past 51 years, Mr. Dabash and the other Arab residents of Jerusalem have lived an ambivalent and disadvantaged political existence. In the last election in 2013, according to City Hall, not even 2 percent of them cast a ballot.

Over the past five years or so, watching from west Jerusalem, it’s been clear that remarkable changes are afoot in the city’s human landscape. Not long ago, it was unheard-of to see Palestinian salespeople in Israeli stores. Now it’s commonplace. Palestinian enrollment at Hebrew University is up dramatically, as are requests for Israeli citizenship. The number of East Jerusalem wage earners employed in West Jerusalem is now estimated at close to 50 percent. The trend is driven not by good will but by economic interests: by demand for labor in Jewish Jerusalem, and by a lack of better options for Palestinians. . .

Following all of this makes you more aware of the peculiarities and paradoxes on which the city rests. One, for example, is that the movement on the Israeli side is coming not from the conciliatory left but from the nationalist right. The left traditionally hoped that one day East Jerusalem would be transferred to Palestinian rule and wouldn’t be Israel’s problem — hardly an incentive to invest. The right, on the other hand, believes the whole city must remain under Israeli control, and thus has an interest in making a united city more viable.