Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts

Friday, March 22, 2013

What Is Palestine ... Who Are Palestinians?

It can be very unclear who these people are ...


- The Gaza Strip was captured by Israel from Egypt in 1967 during the Six-Day War and occupied by Israel until 1994, when responsibility for its administration was transferred to the Palestine National Authority (PNA). 
The West Bank was held by the Jordanian army in 1948 at the end of the First Arab-Israeli War following the creation of the state of Israel, and formally annexed in 1950. The area was integrated into the kingdom of Jordan, with Palestinians there being given Jordanian passports and citizenship. The West Bank was captured by Israel during the Six-Day War (5–10 June 1967) and placed under military government.

- Gaza and the "west bank" are parts of Israel that were occupied by Egypt and Jordan from 1948 to 1967. They are the areas that Israel has agreed to and repeatedly offered to the special arabs we know as "palestinians." These lands are parts of Israel as is the Golan Heights which Israel is also willing to give to Syria for a peace deal. Israel does not occupy any land outside of Israel.

- It is still Israel land we won our land back in war.
It is different color because it's "disputed."

The palestinians are not fighting over just those parcels of land. They would like the whole country of Israel. There never was a "palestinian" people before the Arabs lost the war, they were actually mainly Syrians, Jordanian, Lebanese, mixed with Egyptian.

They didn't care about the property til Israel moved back (Israel always had a population in Israel but not in such large numbers) and moved large mass in wars previous to that of the '48 war.
There never was a country called Palestine it was a region called British Palestine Mandate. Palestinian people are a political group. The palestinian mandate was originally to be split between Jordan and Israel and Jordan already got 80 percent of it.

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. 
However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." -- PLO Executive Committee member Zuhayr Muhsin, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw."

- As on today these two areas constitute 'Palestine' state.

- its a british colony.


Saturday, September 01, 2012

A Japanese View Of The Palestinians

A JAPANESE VIEW OF THE PALESTINIANS

by Yashiko Sagamori



If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:

  • When was it founded and by whom?
  • What were its borders?
  • What was its capital?
  • What were its major cities?
  • What constituted the basis of its economy?
  • What was its form of government?
  • Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
  • Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
  • What was the language of the country of Palestine?
  • What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
  • What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
  • And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

    You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?

    And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

    I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.

    The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?

    The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

    In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

    That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

    You are absolutely correct in your understanding of the "Palestinians" murderous motives. I am afraid however that you, along with 99% of the population of this planet have missed the beginning of WWIII (the enemy call it Jihad) quite a few years ago. The siege of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, an event to which the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner had so miserably failed to respond, can be very well used as the day WWIII stepped out of the pages of the Koran and into the current events. I pray the United States and Israel lead the world to victory in this war.

    Come to think of it, there is no choice, be you a Christian, or even, believe it or not, a Muslim.
  • Friday, December 09, 2011

    The Truth About Refugees



    WORLD
    ISRAELI DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER BLASTS UN AGENCY ON ‘THE TRUTH’ ABOUT PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
    Posted on December 9, 2011 at 9:27am by Sharona Schwartz

    In a new YouTube video called “The Truth About the Refugees,” Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon takes a sharp look at the Palestinian refugee problem, and blasts the UN agency tasked with aiding them and their descendants. Ayalon asks:

      Why after more than 60 years are the Arab-Palestinian refugees still not welcomed and absorbed among their own brethren? And how could their numbers have grown from 500,000 to 4.7 million? The sad reality is that Palestinian refugees never had a chance. Attempts at resettlement were blocked by a variety of discriminatory laws enacted in Arab countries such as: a ban on receiving citizenship – with the exception of Jordan; blocking them from entering many professions; restrictions on owning land; restrictions on movement…

    From Israel’s perspective, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, or UNRWA, with the encouragement of Arab states, has engaged in a highly political mission to perpetuate the refugee problem rather than finding a dignified solution for those living 63 years in substandard housing that is clearly no longer “temporary.” Ayalon quotes a former UNRWA director in Jordan Sir Alexander Galloway who said:

      …the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…as a weapon against Israel.”

    He also asks why the UN formed an entirely separate bureaucracy to aid Palestinian refugees, when all other refugees are handled by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR):

      The answer is, because while the United Nations’ central refugee agency helps refugees resettle, the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency helps perpetuate their status by applying unique criteria…Refugees lose their status after receiving citizenship from a recognized country – Palestinians do not. Refugees cannot transmit their status from generation to generation. Palestinian refugees can.

    Arab states are all too willing to obstruct any livable arrangement for these mostly impoverished Palestinians by withholding citizenship, preventing moves to more adequate dwellings, and feeding the dream of their future “return” to their purported homes in Israel. Homes, it should be added, that many never actually saw since they were born years after the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars.

    Now, even their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are granted refugee status by UNRWA and are daily fed the myth Israelis will eventually, after a violent struggle, vacate their homes leading to a so-called “return” of those who weren’t even born in 1948.

    Instead of encouraging the refugees to move forward with their lives constructively, UNRWA – ceding to Arab state policies – has set up a massive bureaucracy predicated on handouts to the poor and perpetuating the problem, rather than acknowledging reality and allowing them to attempt financially-independent lives.

    Ayalon explains in his video that there were more Jewish refugees – 850,000 – forced from Arab states than the estimated 500,000 Arabs who fled their homes in 1948. Also by contrast, the Jews were allowed to build free lives in Israel and were never granted refugee status. Ayalon is himself the son of a Jew who was forced to leave Algeria.

    Ayalon’s first two videos on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the West Bank went viral. The Israeli Foreign Ministry hopes this one will also be widely viewed, offering the public a perspective not widely disseminated by the mainstream media, which like UNRWA tends to report on the issue without pointing to the basic logical complication – how can someone who was born decades after an armed conflict be considered a refugee?

    Thursday, November 10, 2011

    Thursday, October 20, 2011

    Sunday, December 05, 2010

    What The American Media Misses

    Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses
    by Arsen Ostrovsky, Frum Forum
    http://www.frumforum.com/abu-toameh-what-the-western-media-misses

    A few days ago, I was fortunate to attend a talk by Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh in Jerusalem.

    Toameh gave an incredibly wide ranging talk about the peace process, the double standards rife in the West and the media when it comes to coverage of the Middle East and his perspective as a Muslim Arab of Palestinian descent living in Israel (and you thought you had identity issues!).

    Toameh has been working as a journalist for almost 30 years now, covering Palestinian affairs, focusing predominantly on the West Bank and Gaza, including for the Palestinian press under the PLO and for various international media outlets in the US and Europe. He is currently at the Jerusalem Post writing on Palestinian issues. Toameh is also an Israeli citizen living in Jerusalem. In other words, he is aptly qualified to comment on the issues of his discussion.

    However, if you expected Toameh to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon with the familiar cries that Israel is an un-democratic apartheid state responsible for all that is wrong including the bubonic plague or to have a single-minded focus on the occupation, you would have been sorely disappointed.

    Instead, he spoke openly, courageously and in his words, said it "as it is". Asked what he thought was the essence of the conflict, Toameh said it was not about money or even settlements, as many so-called pundits often imply, as a precursor to blaming Israel. Rather, his answer was very simple: "This conflict is about Israel's very existence in this part of the world."

    But before you get any conclusions, Toameh is not a card-carrying Zionist or as somebody once asked him "when did you get on the Israel lobby payroll". In his own words, he says:

    "I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."

    Here are some of Toameh's illuminating comments:

    I asked Toameh how, as an Arab Muslim Israeli, he responds to accusations that Israel is an apartheid state.

    His response:

    "Israel is not an apartheid state. But there are problems and some discrimination with the Arab minority inside Israel. If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighborhood or own a home. The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions. Can you imagine if the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working even in one profession? The real apartheid is also in many Arab and Muslim nations, like Kuwait, where my Palestinian uncle, who has been living there for 35 years, is banned from buying a house. The law of Israel does not distinguish between a Jew and an Arab."

    As for the uniqueness of the Israeli media in the middle East, Toameh added:

    "Israel is a free and open country with a democracy, that respects the freedom of the media. You can basically write any anti-Israel story and still walk in downtown Jerusalem or Tel Aviv without having to worry about your safety. Anyone can be a journalist in Israel."

    Toameh says he finds it ironic that as an Arab Muslim living in this part of the world, the only place he can express himself freely is in a 'Jewish newspaper', noting that:

    "We don't have a free media in the Palestinian area, we didn't have one when I was working there in the late 70's and early 80's, we didn't have one when the PLO came here after the signing of the Oslo accords and we still don't have one under Fatah and Hamas."

    But what about the media's need for an anti-Israeli angle on stories? Toameh says that when he tried to alert many of his foreign colleagues that Palestinians were dying because of an internal power struggle or gross corruption by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, their reflex response was:

    Where's the anti-Israel angle to the story? Give us an anti-occupation story. Make our lives much easier. An Arab killing an Arab, that's not a story for us.

    Toameh notes that the same foreign journalists would then ask him: "Are you on the payroll of the Israel lobby?" "Do they [the Jews] pay you to say these things against Arafat and the PLO?" Toameh's response to them:

    "What do the Jews have to do with this? I'm telling you what the Palestinians are saying about there being corruption in the Palestinian Authority. I'm even telling you that the PA is saying that the PA is corrupt.

    "It is a sad reflection on the state of society, and in particular, the media industry, that not only are they not sufficiently concerned or outraged at the death of Arabs by Arabs (which coincidentally has claimed many more lives than the Israel ? Palestinian conflict), but that they will only muster even an iota of concern if they can put in an 'anti-Israel' angle."

    On the proposed loyalty oath as well, Toameh offered a pragmatic response: "I have no problem with it because it applies equally to both Jews and non-Jews alike."

    One of the biggest and most intractable sticking points has consistently been the Palestinian demand for a right of return, which Israel will not agree to because it would mean the death knell of Israel as a Jewish state.

    However, Toameh offers a very simple and pragmatic three stage solution, where the Palestinian refugees could:

    1. Go to the future Palestinian state;

    2. Resettle elsewhere, including other Arab states; and

    3. Be offered compensation.

    Most tellingly though, and in a statement seldom ever heard from Arabs (or the West), Toameh then asked: "And what about Jewish refugees that were forced to flee Arab nations", suggesting that the issue of Jewish refugees must also be part of any future solution.

    Focusing on the problem from Arab dictatorships and their insistence on inciting their people against Israel, Toameh says that we have a problem in the West in failing to believe what people tell us.

    "If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there's no need to start analyzing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves, and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognize Israel's right to exist, you're also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly?the PLO however is different ? they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic."

    On the subject of Arab dictatorship, Toameh says:

    "Arab dictators survive by constantly blaming the misery of their people on Jews and the West and never accepting responsibility for anything. And by inciting against Israel and the West, you divert attention from problems at home. Why? Because you always need to make sure that your people are busy hating someone else. If they're not hating Israel and the West, they might wake up one day and come to you, and God forbid, demand reform and democracy."

    The crux of the message is:

    "If you keep inciting your people, then they ask 'well, why are we then making peace with the Jews?' We should be killing them as Hamas is saying'."

    So what does Toameh think about Mahmoud Abbas, the PA President?

    "Abbas is corrupt, discredited, weak and does not have much power. He is reliant on Israel, whose presence in the West Bank is ironically the only reason he has managed to stay in power."

    And if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders as demanded by Abbas and the PLO:

    "Abbas will collapse and Hamas will take over the West Bank in less than a day. If I were Israel, I would not give Abbas one inch of land in the West Bank ? not for ideological reasons, but to avoid a situation where Hamas and others would take over the area."

    When we asked him how best to defeat the extremists, radicals and terrorists like Hamas and Hizbullah, Toameh answered:

    "The first and most important thing is you go to the Arab governments and tell them, "Stop the incitement that's feeding these radicals and driving people into their hands." Sometimes there's no difference between what is written about Israel and the Jews in the papers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia with what is written by Hamas."

    Noting again the billions of dollars in aid provided by the US and EU to various Arab dictatorships, Toameh says: In other words, and even more clearly, they should tell them: "Stop calling for my death with my money."

    I asked Toameh about what steps were needed to move forward. According to him, the answer is "very simple" and involves the following steps:

    1) The Palestinians must start investing money (provided to them mainly by the US and EU) for the welfare of their people instead of incitement. Then dismantle all militias, establish a free press and democratic institutions, end the infighting, insist on good governance and speak with one voice so at least we know who we're talking to. And then, he suggests, they should go speak with Israel and see what it has to offer them.

    2) Deal with the enemies of peace ? if you weaken the enemies of peace, like Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, the moderates will rise and start speaking out. But as long as Iran is breathing down the neck and threatening, together with Hamas and Hizbullah, who are threatening to kill anyone who makes concessions, no moderate Arab will ever dare sign an agreement with Israel. Toameh says:

    "I don't even rule out military action against any of them because this is the only language these guys understand. Talking to them and appeasing them is even more dangerous."

    3) "We can't move forward when you don't have a clear, strong, reliable and credible partner on the Palestinian side" says Toameh. According to him: "Abbas is not a partner. He and Fayaad might be nice guys with good intentions ? but they cannot deliver. So the PA are not partners because they cannot deliver and Hamas are not partners because they don't want to be partners."

    Addressing the issue of whether there was a clear and credible partner on the Israeli side, Toameh said:

    "I don't care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a two-state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don't care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don't know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don't know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no."

    In an incredibly candid address, for me perhaps the most defining statement Toameh made was when I asked him: Would you rather continue living as a member of a minority in Israel or move to another Arab country? Toameh's response was simple, honest, and telling:

    "Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second-class citizen in Israel, even though I'm not, than a first-class citizen in any Arab country."

    In a world where it's all too easy to turn a blind eye to courage, Khaled Abu Toameh is a welcome breath of fresh air. A man, deeply committed to peace, who is seen as a traitor by many and who bravely continues to put his own life on the line each day, Toameh perhaps says it best himself:

    "I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."

    Saturday, June 06, 2009

    Pressure On Israel Raises War Risk

    Pressure on Israel raises war risk
    Obama peace efforts may prove explosively counterproductive
    By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. | Tuesday, June 2, 2009


    JERUSALEM -- From this vantage point, two events this week appear to be ominous straws in the wind, warnings of a "man-caused" maelstrom that inexorably may plunge the Middle East into another, potentially cataclysmic war.

    The first is that Israel feels obliged to undertake an unprecedented, countrywide civil defense exercise this week. At one point, every man, woman and child in the Jewish state is supposed to seek shelter from a simulated attack of the kind Iran may shortly be able to execute against it.

    The second is President Obama's latest effort to reach out to the Muslim world, on Thursday from one of its most important capitals, Cairo. There, he is expected to make a speech reiterating his previous statements on the subject - which, unfortunately, can only have been interpreted by his intended audience as acts of submission.

    If the past is prelude, the president of the United States will: apologize yet again for purported offenses against Muslims by his country; promise to be respectful of Islam, including those who adhere to its authoritative, if virulent, theo-political-legal program known as Shariah; and enunciate diplomatic priorities and initiatives designed to reach out to America's enemies in the region while putting excruciating pressure on its most reliable ally there, Israel.

    This pressure has become more palpable by the day. It has taken various forms, including: U.S. stances adopted at the United Nations that will isolate Israel; blank political and even financial checks for Palestinian thugs such as Mahmoud Abbas; diminishing U.S.-Israeli cooperation on intelligence and military matters; and the withholding from Israel of helicopters (and perhaps other weaponry) being provided to Arab states.

    Perhaps the most chilling example of this coercive pressure so far, however, was reported originally in the Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot and given international prominence by my esteemed colleague and Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick. According to these accounts, in a recent lecture in Washington, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the American officer charged with training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, made a shocking declaration.

    In Ms. Glick's words, Gen. Dayton "indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis." She noted that neither the general nor the Obama administration seemed to find this prospect grounds for rethinking the wisdom of such a training-and-arming program. In fact, her column observed that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates "just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy."

    Taken together with the U.S. administration's refusal to come to grips with what truly is the most serious threat to peace in the Middle East - Iran's rising power and growing aggressiveness, reflecting in part its incipient nuclear-weapons capabilities - the stage inexorably is being set for the next, and perhaps most devastating, regional conflict.

    Whether the signals Mr. Obama is sending are intended to communicate such a message or not, they will be read by Israel's enemies as evidence of a profound rift between the United States and the Jewish state. In this part of the world, that amounts to an invitation to an open season on Israel.

    It is hard to believe the Obama Middle East agenda enjoys the support of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress. Historically, the public and strong bipartisan majorities on Capitol Hill have appreciated that an Israel that shares our values, that is governed democratically and that is in the cross hairs of the same people who seek our destruction is an important ally. Quite apart from a sense of moral and religious affinity for the Jewish people's struggle to survive in their ancient homeland, most of us recognize it is in the United States' strategic interest to stand with Israel.

    It is worrisome in the extreme that Mr. Obama does not appear to share this appreciation. To those who worried about his affinity for the Saudi king and Islam more generally and his long-standing ties to virulent critics of Israel such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi and former Harvard professor-turned-National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, the president's attitude is not exactly a surprise.

    His administration's posture may have been further reinforced by Arab-American pollster John Zogby's recent Forbes magazine article arguing that friends of Israel made up John McCain's constituency, not Mr. Obama's. (This raises an interesting question about the sentiments toward Israel of the 78 percent of American Jews who voted for the latter in 2008.)

    My guess, however, is that, as the implications of Mr. Obama's Middle East policies - for the United States as well as Israel - become clearer, he will find himself facing the sort of popular and congressional revolt that has confronted him in recent weeks on Guantanamo Bay. The question is: Will such a reaffirmation of American solidarity with and support for Israel come in time to prevent the winds of war being whipped up by Mr. Obama's posturing and rhetoric - and driving Israelis into bomb shelters - from wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and perhaps far beyond?

    Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy.

    Friday, November 21, 2008

    U.N. to Mourn 60 Years Israel's Existence

    UN to Mourn 60 Years of Israel's Existence


    NEW YORK - This Monday, November 24th, the UN will commemorate its annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People with a film depicting Jews as Nazi-equivalents and a public exhibit mourning the sixty years of Israel's existence.

    "The event is an annual reminder that the UN's real agenda is to delegitimize the birth - and the perseverance - of the state of Israel," said Anne Bayefsky, Editor of EYEontheUN.org.

    Monday's observance marks November 29, 1947 - the day that the UN voted to establish a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine - a decision accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. This year's observance is being held a week early due to scheduling conflicts.

    As in years past, there will be a formal meeting Monday morning of the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, a film, an afternoon meeting of the General Assembly on the "Question of Palestine," and the opening of a public exhibit in the entrance to the UN's New York headquarters.

    Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan referred to November 29th as "a day of mourning and a day of grief," and the usual procedure is for UN member state after UN member state to use the opportunity to grieve for the suffering of the Palestinian people at Israeli hands.

    The General Assembly is scheduled to adopt another six resolutions condemning only Israel for violations of human rights. The total number of resolutions criticizing Israel expected to be adopted at this fall's General Assembly is 20, as compared to only four resolutions critical of human rights records in any of the remaining 191 UN member nations.

    The 2008 installment of what is in essence a repeat of the "Zionism = Racism" allegation, will be the public showing of the film "La Terre Parle Arabe" or "The Land Speaks Arabic." The film draws parallels between the Nazis' final solution and the alleged Zionist design for Palestinians. It is commonly billed with these words: "…the late-19th century Zionists…drew up plans, put them into practice, then…used… force, often brutal."

    Here is some of the script for the UN public's edification:


      "Christians and Muslims alike…unite in their hatred of Zionism…I preferred to die as a martyr rather than be governed by the Jews …We were against the Jews…The number of Jews increased constantly…The children cried …The Hagana had no mercy, no pity. Zionists! They were Zionists!… The Jews were shooting at us, they were facing us…The Jews yelled "turn around you bastards, you dogs." They machine gunned us…They started killing people who were asleep…[We]…found a poor woman…pregnant. They had killed her and the baby came out of the womb. They started slaughtering them until morning."

    The exhibit to be opened at 6 p.m. on Monday in the UN lobby - the public entrance through which school children from across the United States and tourists from around the world pass every day - is entitled "The Palestinians: 60 years of struggle and enduring hope." Bayefsky comments: "The "sixty years" of struggle is telling. It puts a lie to the alleged root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict as an "occupation" that began with the 1967 war. The real complaint is the alleged wrong of the creation of the State of Israel itself." She adds: "The carefully selected word "struggle" also speaks volumes. What the UN glorifies as a struggle is a series of wars launched by Arabs to annihilate the state of Israel beginning in 1948, and the ongoing "struggle" of Palestinian and other Arab terrorists dedicated to the same end."

    Past UN Palestinian Solidarity Day observances have included:


  • The display of a map in Arabic with the State of Israel missing altogether.

  • Flying only the flags of "Palestine" and the United Nations, and omitting the flag of the UN member state of Israel

  • Opening the day with a moment of silence commemorating the death, among others, of suicide bombers or "all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people..."

  • Exhibits promoting terrorism and the alleged right of return while criticizing a host of non-violent efforts by Israel to prevent terrorism from checkpoints to a security fence - all of which are invariably presented as evil steps taken in a vacuum.

    "Anyone hoping to see an Israeli flag flown in addition to a Palestinian one in celebration of the UN partition plan that approved a two-state solution, should not hold their breath," said Anne Bayefsky, Editor of EYEontheUN.org. She continued, "the UN tradition of mourning the creation of the state of Israel continues."
  • Tuesday, May 20, 2008

    UN a Terrorist Organization ?

    Defund UNRWA
    by Asaf Romirowsky
    Washington Times
    May 19, 2008
    http://www.meforum.org/article/1896


    A few days ago an Israeli air strike killed a member of a Palestinian missile team that had been firing rockets from Gaza. Now the United Nations has come out with an unusual statement of bewilderment and utter shock as the truth has come out. The dead man, Awad al-Qiq, was a U.N. employee and headmaster of a top prep school in Gaza. He was also the chief rocket-maker for Islamic Jihad.

    Mr. Al-Qiq — not surprisingly, a science teacher — worked for one of the schools run by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Now that he is out of the rocket business, the employment of such a "respectable" individual by the sole U.N. agency devoted to Palestinian refugees deserves an explanation.

    In a new report by the Global Research in International Affairs Center by this author and Professor Barry Rubin, "UNRWA: Refuge of Rejectionism," the case is made that this group is a major cause of the continued Arab-Israeli conflict, the incitement of a whole generation of Palestinians to terrorist violence and even the suffering of the refugees themselves.

    The report's recommendation is simple and workable: UNRWA should be dissolved and its functions divided between the far more effective and depoliticized U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

    Since Hamas came to power in 2006, Palestinians in the new Islamic state of Gaza have been crying out for more and more UNRWA aid. Historically, UNRWA has been the main vehicle for the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the United Nations. Where once it was charged with resettling Palestinians, its explicit mandate in recent decades has been to maintain them in the camps where Arab states left them some 60 years ago. Education, health and limited vocational training are provided, just enough to keep Palestinians as "refugees." UNRWA is an apparatus that maintains the status quo — a huge bureaucracy with no incentive to move toward a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. This arrangement is ripe for abuse.

    As one of the largest employers in the host countries with Palestinian refugee camps, UNRWA is staffed mainly by local Palestinians — more than 23,000 of them, with only about 100 international U.N. professionals. The pattern of hiring within the served population is unique in the U.N. system. By contrast, UNICEF (to cite one example) avoids employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, considering it a conflict of interest. UNRWA bureaucracy has created an infrastructure for Palestinian dependency. Refugees, now in their third generation, rely on the services UNRWA provides and have no incentives to plan or implement solutions that may endanger their livelihood by rendering UNRWA's services obsolete.

    It was under the leadership of former UNRWA Commissioner Peter Hansen that the organization's complicity with terror was openly exposed. In a statement to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Hansen admitted: "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll " and I don't see that as a crime."

    As Hamas' genocidal agenda has become impossible to cover up, UNRWA has now resorted to professions of shock and promises of "zero tolerance." For some UNRWA's affiliation with terrorism is not a detraction but an added value that shows "diversity." As Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, notes, "humanitarian and charitable institutions throughout Palestine employ personnel regardless of sectarian or political affiliation and offer services on a similar basis. Thus, UNRWA, NGO-run institutions [and] public hospitals and clinics, for example, employ members of different political groups such as Fatah, the [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group."

    As we look for ways to crack down on terrorism and terrorist activity, looking at UNRWA is a good start. American taxpayer dollars fund approximately one-third of UNRWA's operating budget. UNRWA provides food, medicine, economic aid, jobs, radical education, political opportunities, and even logistical assistance to Hamas and other extremist groups. UNRWA's budget, which exceeds $365 million, is funded by many nations, but the United States and other Western nations are the largest contributors.

    Cutting off UNRWA's budget would be detrimental to Hamas in Gaza, which would be forced to either provide services to Palestinians or admit it has no intention of doing so. It would also send an important message to the United Nations, which perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem and lends legitimacy to groups like Hamas through UNRWA's continued existence.

    Transferring UNRWA's services to other agencies, notably the High Commission for Refugees, which has a long and productive experience, would be another important move. And lastly, actually having the Palestinian Authority take responsibility for the social services if it is to truly govern the Palestinian people would send a signal to all parties that a future state of Palestine would be prepared to live in peace with its neighbors and itself.

    Asaf Romirowsky, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, is manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.