יום חמישי, 16 ביוני 2011

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

My response to a piece in Foreign Policy

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 10:12 PM PDT

Ahmad Samih Khalidi, writing in Foreign Policy, writes:

The official PA/PLO position is that how Israel defines itself is not a Palestinian concern, and that the Palestinians cannot accede to this demand on two basic grounds: First, because it prejudices the political and civic rights of Israel's Arab citizens comprising 20 percent of the population whose second-class status would be consolidated by dint of recognition of the "Jewishness " of the state; and second, because acknowledgement of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people would compromise the Palestinian refugees' right of return as there would be no moral or political grounds for them to return to a universally recognized Jewish state.

But this is neither a complete nor totally convincing riposte. The Palestinians cannot be indifferent as to how Israel defines itself, or how others are ready to define it. In the context of the struggle over the shape and future of the Holy Land, one side's appropriation of a certain definition affects not only the rights of those who reside in this territory, but their very history and identity, their relation to the land, and by extension their rights, future and fate as well. There are, in fact, several deeper layers to this issue that warrant further examination and debate.

First, and perhaps most importantly, if Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, then the lands that it occupies today -- and perhaps more as there are as yet no borders to this homeland -- belong to this people by way of right. But if these lands rightfully comprise the Jewish homeland then the Arab presence there becomes historically aberrant and contingent; the Palestinians effectively become historic interlopers and trespassers -- a transient presence on someone else's national soil.

This is not a moot or exaggerated point. It touches on the very core of the conflict and its genesis. Indeed, it is the heart of the Zionist claim to Palestine: Palestine belongs to the Jews and their right to the land is antecedent and superior to that of the Arabs -- this is what Zionism is about and what justifies both the Jewish return to the land and the dispossession of its Arab inhabitants.

But this is not the Palestinian Arab narrative, nor can it be. We do not believe that the historical Jewish presence and connection to the land entail a superior claim to it. This we believe is our homeland established over one-and-half thousand years of continuous Arab-Muslim presence, and that we were eventually only dispossessed of it by superior force and colonial machination. For us to adopt the Zionist narrative would mean that the homes that our forefathers built, the land that they tilled for centuries, and the sanctuaries they built and prayed at were not really ours at all and that our defense of them was morally flawed and wrongful: we had no right to any of these to begin with.

...What [the Palestinians] cannot be expected to do is to renege on their past, deny their identity, take on the moral burden of transgressor, and give up on what they believe is their history. They cannot be expected to become Zionists.

As usual in a venue like FP, this is a sophisticated argument that uses a false framework. I responded there:

But the Palestinians also deny Jewish history!

Khalidi purposefully downplays the extent of the Palestinian Arabs' historical revisionism. It is not merely competing narratives; they deny basic history that there is such a thing as a Jewish people, that the Temples existed in Jerusalem, and so forth. These positions have been in official PA media and PLO statements.

Even worse, they co-opt indisputably Jewish shrines as their own - the "Bilal Mosque" that is supposedly at Rachels' Tomb simply did not exist fifteen years ago.

Real peace cannot occur if it is based on lies, and while it may be that Palestinian Arabs will not accept Zionism, they do need to face the facts that the Land of Israel has been the center of Jewish longing since before anyone ever heard of "Palestinians" - or Islam, for that matter. Their denial of those facts is not because of competing narratives - it is from an indoctrination of lies that must stop.

No Jew denies that thousands of Arabs lived in Palestine before 1948. Why can the Palestinian Arabs not accept that Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, has been the object of dreams and tears for the Jewish people since 70 CE?

Joke of the day: "Flotilla activists putting their lives on the line"

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 07:18 PM PDT

From the Australian Associated Press:
Three Australians will be putting their lives on the line when they board a boat hoping to stop the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, the NSW Greens say.

"(They) are putting their welfare on the line to take part in a peaceful humanitarian mission to bring aid to the people of Gaza," said the party's leader David Shoebridge.

Last year nine activists were killed when Israeli marines stormed the flagship of an international aid flotilla bound for Gaza.

One of the Australians taking part, former Greens MP Sylvia Hale, said she hoped for a "more moderate" response when she takes part in the Freedom Flotilla 2.

"The Israeli government has shown by its past actions that it's prepared to shoot first and ask questions later," she said.

"We don't expect gentle handling."

The threat of violence, however, has only encouraged activists with over 500,000 applying to be part of the flotilla.

"Violence encourages further acts of resistance, the flotilla last time was comprised of six ships this time I understand there are 12," Ms Hale said.

The trio, which also includes youth worker Michael Coleman and Vivienne Porzsolt of Jews Against Occupation, has called on the Australian government to protect them.

Mr Coleman said the passengers on board the boat would be acting "completely lawfully".

"We will give Israeli forces no pretext for any assault."
Putting their lives on the line? Please. If they were interested in danger, they'd be volunteering to work in Afghanistan. Or Syria.

Everyone knows that the only people putting themselves in danger on this latest exercise in political theatre are the ones stupid enough to attack trained, armed soldiers who are doing their jobs. The reporter knows it, the Israelis know it and the flotilla fools know it quite well. After all, the people on last year's ships that were not on the "Mavi Marmara" - and didn't have jihadist, martyrdom seeking Turks wildly waving metal bars and knives* on deck - seem to have somehow made it home in one piece. How is that possible when everyone knows the IDF "shoots first and ask questions later"?

And note how this "news" article swallows the absurd statistic that 500,000 people volunteered for the flotilla. Oh, really? Where is the list? Who even made such a claim? Where are the Facebook groups of people who were denied access, and what was the reason given? Can we see the form letter of denial?

This isn't a news article; it is a press release for the Free Gaza idiots.

*I noticed today that the UN report on the flotilla claimed, in footnote 69: "The Mission has found no evidence of knives being taken on board by passengers except for one traditional ceremonial knife."

The report was published over three months after Hurriyet published photos showing "peace activists" with hunting knives - knives that Reuters cropped out of the photos initially and then republished after there was an outcry.

How could the crack investigators at the UN miss that when hundreds of thousands of people saw the photos? A real mystery, I tell ya.

Completing the seasons open thread

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 02:35 PM PDT

I had posted photos taken at a small nearby last autumn and winter for open threads. I have now completed the series:




So here is an open thread to celebrate. 

And to remind you to vote in the Pro-Israel Blog-Off - I'm way, way behind in the voting. (My pleas are likely to get more pathetic as the week goes by. What can I say; I want to win. There, I admit it!)

Links!

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 01:32 PM PDT

CifWatch - Harriet Sherwood feels Hamas' pain

Colonel Richard Kemp:
...After the terrorist attacks in London on July the 7th, 2005...we in the UK were left deeply shaken by the attacks, and I remember that the first ones to call to offer help – for some time, in fact, they were the only ones to call – was the IDF. It was then that we knew who our real friends are.

Hamas on how the Jews gained from the Holocaust.

Latest issue of Military and Strategic Affairs. Looks good.

PC Magazine: Why Google Earth pixilates Israel

Israel vulnerable to cyber attack

Israel holds an olive branch towards Lebanon's new Hezbollah-dominated government!

Sheikh Raed Salah warns, for the millionth time, that Israel is preparing to ethnically cleanse all Palestinian Arabs.

"The machinations of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are immaterial. The Arab reform process is the peace process."

Ever see Arabs drape themselves with an Israeli flag and say "Allah Akbar"?

(h/t Israel Muse, Akiva, Yisrael M., Joel)

More exposure of UNRWA lies (Zach N)

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 12:34 PM PDT

Received via email:

From the UNHRC's Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
184. If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity.
In other words, it is not automatic, like the case of Palestinians (and there is actually a further exception in 188 which states, "If the dependant of a refugee falls within the terms of one of the exclusion clauses, refugee status should be denied to him)! Many Palestinians would fall within the exception clause, which I discuss at the bottom.

Another clause:

187. Where the unity of a refugee's family is destroyed by divorce, separation or death, dependants who have been granted refugee status on the basis of family unity will retain such refugee status unless they fall within the terms of a cessation clause; or if they do not have reasons other than those of personal convenience for wishing to retain refugee status; or if they themselves no longer wish to be considered as refugees."

Cessation Clause (which EoZ mentioned):

113. Article 1 C of the 1951 Convention provides that:
"This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or
(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under Section A (1) of this Article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;
(6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence


This is particularly interesting:
(3) Persons considered not to be deserving of international protection
Article 1 F of the 1951 Convention:
"The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

And now for the kicker:

A. War refugees
164. Persons compelled to leave their country of origin as a result of international or national armed conflicts are not normally considered refugees under the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol.22 They do, however, have the protection provided for in other international instruments, e.g. the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the Protection of War Victims and the 1977 Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 relating to the protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.23

165. However, foreign invasion or occupation of all or part of a country can result--and occasionally has resulted--in persecution for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the 1951 Convention. In such cases, refugee status will depend upon whether the applicant is able to show that he has a "well-founded fear of being persecuted" in the occupied territory and, in addition, upon whether or not he is able to avail himself of the protection of his government, or of a protecting power whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of his country during the armed conflict, and whether such protection can be considered to be effective.

166. Protection may not be available if there are no diplomatic relations between the applicant's host country and his country of origin. If the applicant's government is itself in exile, the effectiveness of the protection that it is able to extend may be open to question. Thus, every case has to be judged on its merits, both in respect of well-founded fear of persecution and of the availability of effective protection on the part of the government of the country of origin.

For some additional points, I include some quotes from James Lindsay

"That is, UNRWA already grants refugee status to the children of refugees in Jordan, even though almost all of them are Jordanian citizens—this fact complicates any argument that matrilineal descendants in other areas should remain unregistered because they have citizenship through their nonrefugee fathers," pg. 25.

"Even UNRWA sometimes finds it difficult to remain coherent on the subject of citizens who are refugees. In a May 17, 2007, interview with Riz Khan of al-Jazeera, the commissioner-general stated, "Any group of refugees, until they can go home or until they are resettled or until they decide to integrate or take another nationality, they are, they remain refugees; their descendants remain refugees." Yet, in the same interview, she noted that "the Jordanian government has given citizenship [to most of its Palestinian refugees], but that doesn't take away the refugeehood; the refugee status remains." Video of the interview available online " pg. 37.

"The roughly 414,000 UNRWA-registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have a significantly different status from their nonrefugee neighbors, but even there, some of UNRWA's registered beneficiaries are likely citizens (given that Beirut granted citizenship to some 70,000 Palestinian Christian refugees in past years)," pg. 53.

"Nonetheless, with the increasing attention paid to women's rights and gender equality (made a UN value by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted in 1979)—and particularly since the May 1994 publication of Christine Cervenak's influential article accusing UNRWA of "gender-based discrimination"—the agency has been embarrassed by its different treatment of the children of male and female refugees. In response, UNRWA began making a number of ad hoc adaptations, softening the effects of its discrimination against women married to nonrefugee men and the children of such marriages. With the adoption of the 2006 Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions, nonrefugee husbands and descendants of registered refugee women are now entitled to apply for UNRWA services. Nevertheless, because matrilineal descendants still are not registered as refugees, the supposedly unequal treatment remains in a formal sense. Therefore, the pressure to categorize descendents of all registered refugees as refugees in their own right, adding tens of thousands of new "refugees" to the rolls, will likely continue," pg. 25.

So either Gunness is ignorant of the laws that govern his institution and the UNHCR or he's a liar. Maybe he's both.

Thru Jerusalem: Great music video

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 11:40 AM PDT


Details about the video and the artist:

Thru-Jerusalem, Kutiman's latest work, is the result of a musical journey that lasted a number of weeks and included visits to a number of different musicians in the city. Kutiman stopped off in apartments, ventured out into the open air (in the backdrop of the stunning Jerusalem landscape) and visited the rehearsal rooms of local creative artists to record their work.

Among other artists appearing on the resultant video piece are musicians such as blues artist Lazer Lloyd (who after a short visit to a rabbi changed his life completely despite being signed by Atlantic Records), Guy Mar from HaDag Nahash, Safi Suede - one of the most important Kanun players in the world; the ultimate marching band - Marsh Donderma, Emanuel Wizthum on the viola and a few dozen musicians of different ages, different ethnic backgrounds and who play different instruments-but all of which derive from the city.

Kutiman worked his magic and produced an amazing 5-minute long work which documents the emotional journey he took in the city. He alternates between optimism and despair, between the future and the past, between the new and the ancient and ends the video with a mantra of harmonious and emotional prayer. The work itself is made up of a collection of unique footage of the city and in essence this is, in fact, represent the unique "sound" of the city.

(h/t The David Project)

Israeli Arabs killing each other. So guess who's to blame?

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 10:46 AM PDT

Al Arabiya reports that violence and crime is increasing among Israeli Arabs.

A recent report shows that although Arabs are 20% of the population, some 79% of all shooting incidents in Israel are among Arabs, and 60% of the fatalities.

The article quotes an Arab MK that says that while it is true that Arabs do not always want to cooperate with Israeli police to investigate these crimes, the police aren't pushing hard enough. He also accused Israel of freely allowing weapons to proliferate among Arab communities so that they kill each other. (He said they do the same with drugs.)

Yeah, Israeli Jews want to arm Arabs. Makes perfect sense.

And since the Arabs have such easy access to weapons, they are likely to use them for things like family disputes, the MK continues.

Sheikh Marwan Jabara says that while some of the responsibility does rest with the Arabs themselves, most of the responsibility is the Israelis' (meaning, of course, Jews) because it is their policies that make Arab lives so miserable that they find themselves wanting to kill each other.

A monkey causes panic in Gaza

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 10:09 AM PDT

From Firas Press:
A monkey running in one of the main streets in Gaza City caused a state of panic and fear among citizens, amid strenuous efforts by many people to apprehend the fugitive monkey.

Witnesses said the monkey escaped from a street traders tunnel, and managed to hide in one of the produce shops at the beginning of the street. Plans are underway to get him out of his place.
I'm itching to add monkeys to the Zionist Attack Zoo, so we just need someone to blame Israel....

Interesting logic behind Lebanon UNRWA protest

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 09:21 AM PDT

Palestine Press Agency reports that Palestinian arabs in the Ein al-Helwa camp in Lebanon are engaging in a series of protests against UNRWA.

They seem to have a couple of problems with UNRWA. One is that UNRWA, supposedly, changed its name from "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East" to only "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees." For some reason, they interpret this as meaning that UNRWA will start to resettle Palestinian Arabs outside Israel. (If the name change is true, to me it sounds like UNRWA wants to take responsibility for so-called "refugees" in other countries.)

But the main reason for the protest is more interesting: it is to protest UNRWA's failure in adequately providing social and health services for residents of the camp.

So what do they do to protest the lack of services? They shut it down altogether!

They burned tires, closed entrances to the camp, and prevented all UNRWA employees from doing their jobs.

Meaning that the protest reduced services from "less than 100% of what we demand" to "zero."

Way to go! That will teach those UNRWA guys, forced to take a free vacation day as they close schools and stop distributing food and medicines!

(As usual, UNRWA does not acknowledge any problems. Since it is so transparent.)

Egypt arrests Palestinian Arab arms dealers in the Sinai

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 08:38 AM PDT

Ma'an Arabic reports that Egypt arrested some top Gaza arms dealers.

Egyptian police in northern Sinai said they were able to bust the cell of the top Palestinian arms dealers in the Gaza Strip that infiltrated into Egypt through the tunnels. They had possession of large quantities of Israeli and American weapons as well as ammunition.

Four were arrested in the early-morning raid in El Arish.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards anticipates first Iranian nuclear bomb test

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 07:44 AM PDT

From MEMRI:
An article posted April 24, 2011 on Gerdab, the website of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), envisions the day after Iran's first nuclear test. The article states that Iran's first controlled nuclear explosion will not disrupt the daily lives of Iranians, but will only boost their national pride. However, it says, in the Arab world, in the West and in Israel, it will sow a sense of fear mingled with respect for Iran's achievement.

The article makes satirical comments on Iran's charged relations with the Arabs and with the West.

The following are excerpts from the article:[1]

"The day after Iran's first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians. But many of us will have a new gleam in our eyes.

"It's a fine day. The hour is 7:00 AM. The sun is not yet fully up, but everything is already clear. Many countries in the northern hemisphere are starting their day. It's the first dawn after Iran's nuclear test. It's an ordinary day.

"Yesterday, an underground nuclear explosion took place, probably [somewhere] in the deserts of central Iran, where the Americans and some of the [other] Western countries once wanted to bury their nuclear waste. The blast was not so powerful as to cause much damage to the region, but not so weak as to cause the Iranian nuclear scientists any problem in their experiment.

"It's an ordinary day, and just like on any [other] day when there is news from Iran – which is 90% of year – we see reports on the foreign news websites, and they read as follows:

"Reuters: 'Iran Detonates Its Nuclear Bomb.'


"CNN: 'Iran Detonates Nuclear Bomb.'


"Al-Jazeera: 'Iran Has Tested Its Second Nuclear Bomb.'


"Al-'Arabia: 'A Shi'ite Nuclear Bomb Has Gone Off.'


"Yahoo News: "Nuclear Explosion in Iran."


"The Jerusalem Post: 'The Mullahs Have Obtained Nuclear Weapons.'


"The Washington Post: 'Nuclear Explosion in Iran; Shock and Anxiety in Tel Aviv.'

The local [Iranian press] will also shower this achievement by the Hidden Imam and the Leader [Khamenei] with words of praise, as follows:

"Kayhan: 'Iran Has Tested Its First Nuclear Bomb.'


"Jomhouri-ye Eslami: 'Iran Carries Out Successful Nuclear Test.'


"Iran [a popular pro-Ahmadinejad daily]: 'On President's Orders, Iran Tests All-Iranian Nuclear Bomb.'


"Ettelaat: 'Iran Detonates Long-Awaited Nuclear Bomb'...

"It will be a news storm, but it will not disrupt normal [daily] life in Iran. Employees will come to work and punch the clock on time, or [at most] a little late. Bakers will not bake unsubsidized bread. Broadband Internet will function as usual, and even this storm will not make it any cheaper, nor will it cause [Iranian] TV to rethink its policy on the airing of foreign programs.

"The day after Iran's first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians, but many of us will have a new gleam in our eyes – a gleam of national pride and might.

"[Koran 8:60:] 'And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy'"
Any questions?

(h/t Missing Peace)

Video: Victim of rape and torture in Iran

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 06:58 AM PDT

Harrowing:





(h/t Barbara L)

UNRWA keeps lying

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 05:56 AM PDT

UNRWA's Chris Gunness tries to defend the indefensible in a YNet op-ed:

All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.
I cannot find any UNHCR documentation on the status of children born to real refugees, so I cannot address that specifically. However, UNRWA's definition of refugee is far removed from the definition that the UN established and uses today for all other cases.

The UN defines a refugee as someone who
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his [or her] nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him [or her]self of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his [or her] former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

UNRWA's definition is completely different:
...any person whose "normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict."

Palestine refugees are persons who fulfil the above definition and descendants of fathers fulfilling the definition.
There is nothing in the UN definition that explicitly includes children the way UNRWA does, even if in some limited circumstances they do so.

But there is a much more important difference. The 1951 Convention on Refugees  has exacting and specific criteria on how someone can end his or her refugee status:

(1) He [or she] has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his [or her] nationality;
(2) Having lost his nationality, he [or she] has voluntarily reacquired it; or
(3) He [or she] has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his [or her] new nationality; or
(4) He [or she] has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he [or she] left or outside which he [or she] remained owing to fear of persecution."

UNRWA has no definition on how a person can lose their "refugee" status. If they leave the areas of UNRWA operations, they cannot avail themselves of UNRWA services, but they still define them as refugees forever.

By any definition, including the UN's, Palestinian Arabs who received Jordanian citizenship should no longer be considered refugees, and the camps in Jordan should have been demolished long ago.

By any definition, Palestinian Arabs who live in the territories are not refugees. They are in what was Palestine! The worst you can say is that they are displaced persons, which again makes no sense for anyone born after 1948.

There is an additional difference. UNHCR works diligently to resettle or repatriate refugees so they no longer require UN services. UNRWA, on the other hand, works diligently to prolong people's refugee status so UNRWA can stay in business.

This is why UNHCR has reduced the numbers of refugees in its purview most years of its existence, and UNRWA's refugee rolls have ballooned.

Gunness writes:
On the question of resettling refugees, all internationally accepted paradigms for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict envisage the refugee question being resolved in the context of a just and durable solution, based on UN resolutions and international law, agreed by the parties and in consultation with the refugees. It is the failure of the parties to reach such an agreement that is perpetuating the refugee crisis.

Yet in the earliest UNRWA reports, the organization - and the UN - actively desired to resettle or repatriate refugees:
65. The General Assembly at its fifth session, recognizing that direct relief could not be terminated as envisaged in its resolution 302 (IV), authorized the Agency, by resolution 393 (V), to continue to furnish such relief for the period 1 July 1951 to 30 June 1952, and considered that "the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential for the time when international assistance is no longer available and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in in the area".

Gunness gets it exactly backwards. Gunness is saying that a resolution of the refugee problem depends on the peace process. His forebears in the UN, however, correctly noted that peace depends on solving the refugee problem!

This was the UN's original mandate for UNRWA, albeit implicit. And this shows how UNRWA has turned from a pro-active agency dedicated to truly reducing the number of refugees into a huge bureaucracy dedicated to maintaining the status quo - and making it worse.

There is only one country where the number of UNRWA refugees - tens of thousands of them - was successfully reduced, and in fact eliminated. That country is Israel, and the refugees have been equal citizens for six decades.

A neutral UN human development and humanitarian agency whose work promotes universal values in the Middle East cannot be blamed.
Oh, yes it can be. UNRWA used to try to work with Arab countries to integrate refugees into their societies. It used to create works programs with the aim of making the refugees self-sufficient. Now it does nothing to reduce the descendants of the refugees' dependency on aid.

If UNRWA wanted to do something positive, it would immediately leave the Jordanian camps and tell the government of Jordan that they are responsible for their own citizens' well-being. (There is the exception of the Jerash Gaza camp, where the residents should be allowed to move back to their homes in Gaza!)

The UNRWA should also transfer all of its budget for Gaza and the West Bank to the PA, and tell Mahmoud Abbas that he is responsible for the welfare of his own citizens.

And in Lebanon, UNRWA can keep its neutrality while insisting that Palestinian Arabs there be treated with equal rights, publicly pressuring Lebanon to ease its onerous restrictions that they place uniquely on Palestinian Arabs. As it is, UNRWA's supposed "neutrality" allows it to blame Israel for numerous perceived injustices but it does not have a negative word towards any Arab regime, even as Jordan strips citizenship from its Palestinian population.

Gunness is a hypocrite and a liar, and UNRWA as it exists today must be dismantled to bring it more in line with how a refugee aid organization is supposed to work.

Israeli singer to perform in Marrickville, epicenter of Australian BDS!

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 04:58 AM PDT

This is so great:
Marrickville mayor Fiona Byrne has a prior engagement and will not be attending tonight's concert by the award-winning Israeli singer Efrat Gosh at the Camelot Lounge in Marrickville Road.

Gosh, named Israeli female artist of the year last year, was originally going to perform just a single gig in Sydney last weekend.

However, the Israeli embassy in Canberra and the Zionist Federation of Australia decided to promote a second show as a direct consequence of the council's controversial "boycott Israel" proposal earlier this year.

Led by Byrne and her fellow Greens with the support of Labor councillors, the council planned to join the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel.

It earned condemnation from the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd and NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell, as well as messages of support from polemicist John Pilger and human rights lawyer Julian Burnside.

A more recent pat on the shoulder came from Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

The move was eventually scuppered after a vocal three-hour council meeting in April.

"We wanted to bring Israeli culture specifically to Marrickville to show another colour of Israel," said the Israeli embassy spokeswoman, Einat Weiss.

"We realised that a lot of people who live in Marrickville didn't know anything about the real Israel."

Update: More here. (h/t Israel Muse)

UNDOF: Syrian army allowed "Nakba Day" protesters to go to border

Posted: 15 Jun 2011 02:51 AM PDT

Further proof that of official Syrian complicity in the May 15 and June 5 protests:
Syrian armed forces allowed Palestinian demonstrators to cross the Israel-Syrian border in the Golan Heights during Nakba and Naksa Day protests, a United Nations report released on Wednesday said, AFP reported.

The report on the UN Disengagement Force (UNDOF), which monitors the ceasefire between Syria and Israel did not accuse Syrians of organizing the demonstrations, but said that Syrian armed forces were near the locations of the protests on May 15 and June 5.
This supports the Telegraph story showing a May 14th memo where the Syrian government is shown to have organized the protests, as well as my earlier supposition that this would explain the absence of amateur video of the protests from the Syrian side.

A possibly different UN report  apparently also confirmed Israel's contention that some Syrian casualties were from mines that exploded from fires, although it blamed Israeli smoke grenades and tear gas for igniting those fires. Video at the scene showed tires set afire by the rioters.

This still doesn't adequately explain why UNDOF disappeared on those days instead of trying to perform its duties. UNDOF is claiming that since April, Syria has stopped them from accessing some villages near the border, "ostensibly for reasons of safety and security of the military observers" as anti-government protests have allegedly spread to the area.

At any rate, the protests gave cover for the UN to extend UNDOF's mandate.

(h/t Joel)
פורסם על ידי zoom ב- 0:05

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה

הירשם ל- תגובות לפרסום (Atom)