A Pro-Israel Question at a State Department Presser (UPDATED)

 A rarety.

A pro-Israel question at a State Department Presser:

QUESTION:  Okay.  In light – thanks, Matt.  In light of UNRWA donors’ – that’s a UN agency – recent meetings at the UN, will the U.S. ask the UN to inspect and disarm UNRWA refugee camps that have become well-equipped arsenals?  And I have a follow-up question. 

MR MILLER:  Do you mean – where particularly do you mean? 

QUESTION:  In the Middle East. 

MR MILLER:  In the Middle – yeah. 

QUESTION:  In the Middle East. 

QUESTION:  UN Relief and Works Agency.

QUESTION:  Okay, so regarding Israel — 

MR MILLER:  I was – I wanted to get a little more specific. 

QUESTION:  — and the Palestinian idea.  But the UNRWA issue, so — 

MR MILLER:  So I will say that, as we have said before, we have long recognized Israel’s right to defend itself and take actions to secure its territory. 

QUESTION:  Okay.  The follow-up to that is:  Will the U.S. challenge the official Palestinian school curriculum, which rejects the two-state solution by teaching the next generation to reject any recognition of Israel?  

MR MILLER:  So, I will say that we support the two-state solution.  You’ve seen me asked about that on a number of occasions.  That will continue to be our policy, and that will be our policy as it pertains to anyone on either side of this longstanding conflict who wants to take a different position. 

QUESTION:  What about those well-equipped arsenals and the concerns that Israel has that are happening – that are occurring in the UN agency UNRWA camps? 

MR MILLER:  Again, as I’ve said, we support Israel’s right to secure its nation.

Who was the journalist?*

*

The journalist is Dr. Anthony Harper of InterMountain Christian News

^

Throwing Good Money After Bad - $310 Million

For the record, from the State Department Press Briefing – April 7, 2021 

by Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

MR PRICE: ...And today, we’re pleased to announce that, working with Congress, we plan to restart the U.S. economic – U.S. economic, development, security, and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. It includes $75 million in economic and development assistance in the West Bank and Gaza, 10 million for peacebuilding programs through the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and 150 million in humanitarian assistance for the UN Relief Works Agency, or UNRWA. All assistance, of course, will be provided consistent with U.S. law.

Assistance includes, among other things, support for small and medium enterprises’ recovery from the effects of COVID-19; support for needy households to access basic human needs, including food and clean water; and support for Palestinian civil society. A portion of this funding will support the East Jerusalem Hospital Network, as it continues to provide the necessary and life-saving treatments to Palestinians. This funding is in addition to the $15 million in humanitarian assistance to address COVID-19 pandemic and food insecurity that we announced last month.

U.S. foreign assistance for the Palestinians serves important U.S. interests and values, including providing critical relief to those in need, fostering economic development, and supporting Israeli-Palestinian understanding, as well as security and stability in a volatile region.  It aligns with the values and the interests of the United States as well as those of our allies and partners.  The United States is committed to advancing prosperity, security, and freedom for both Israelis and Palestinians in tangible ways in the immediate term, which is important in its own right, of course, but also as a means to advance towards a negotiated two-state solution.

The United States encourages other donors to support programs and activities that work toward a common goal of stability and progress for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

QUESTION: So I got two things, both on the Middle East, including – well, one on that. When you say that all this aid is going to be provided in – well, consistent with U.S. law, I’m curious as to how actually you’re going to do that.

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Because U.S. law – there’s several of them – says that the U.S. cannot provide money to the Palestinian Authority, or – perhaps more importantly – money that would be fungible, that would be used for projects and programs that they – that a government would otherwise do as long as they continue to pay stipends to people convicted of anti-Israel or anti-U.S. attacks and their families. So how exactly are you going to square this?

MR PRICE: Sure.

QUESTION: Because as you’re aware, since reports about this have come out for a week or so, there have been growing opposition in Congress.

MR PRICE: Well, let me just start there. And I don’t want to characterize the reactions of individual members, but I think it is fair to say that we have been gratified by the reaction that we have heard from Congress on a bipartisan basis. Members of Congress, just as we do, recognize that the aid we announced today is consistent with our interests, it is consistent with our values, it is consistent with the interests of those in the region, to include Palestinians not only in the West Bank and Gaza but also in the broader region as well, as well as the interests of our Israeli partners.

Now, you asked about how we ensure that this aid is consistent with applicable U.S. law, including the Taylor Force Act. I just want to underscore that —

QUESTION: And ATCA.

MR PRICE: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: And —

MR PRICE: And ATCA. And I just want to underscore that all of this aid is absolutely consistent with relevant U.S. law, including those two statutes. As we do around the world, we provide assistance in the West Bank and Gaza through experienced and trusted independent partners on the ground, and it’s these partners who distribute directly to people in need, not through government or de facto government authorities. Our development partners in the West Bank and Gaza have aggressive risk mitigation systems in place aimed at ensuring just that – namely, that U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance is reaching those for whom it is intended: the women, the men, the children in need of lifesaving assistance.

Now, you asked about this fairly technical issue as to how we ensure that this aid is consistent with the Taylor Force Act —

QUESTION: Well —

MR PRICE: — and that it doesn’t directly —

QUESTION: Okay, fine, but I would not say that that’s “fairly technical.”

MR PRICE: No, no, no – well, I’m getting to a technical point.

QUESTION: You’re either breaking the law or you’re following the law. That’s not a technical —

MR PRICE: Well, it is – you’re right, it is very clear. We are following the law. Everything we are doing here is quite consistent with it, scrupulously so. But you did ask about how we ensure this doesn’t benefit —

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PRICE: Directly benefit the Palestinian Authority, which is the relevant provision, and assistance considered as quote-unquote “directly benefiting” the PA is actually defined in the Department of State – defined by the Department of State and was transmitted to Congress in May of 2018. And in making this determination, we take several conditions into account, including the intended primary beneficiary or end user of the assistance; whether the PA is the direct recipient of the assistance, of course; whether the assistance involves payments of Palestinian Authority creditors; the extent of ownership or control the PA exerts over an entity or an individual that is the primary beneficiary or end user of the assistance; and whether the assistance or, in some cases, the services provided directly replace assistance or services that the PA would otherwise provide.

So we take all of that scrupulously into account – not only Taylor Force, not only ATCA, every relevant statute – to ensure, again, that what we are doing is in service of our interests, our values, consistent with U.S. law, and betters the lives of the people in the region.

QUESTION: Okay. As it relates to the UNRWA assistance, the 150 million to UNRWA, the Israelis have already come out and said that they’re concerned about this, that they don’t think it’s a good idea because the – because UNRWA, they think, is – well, one, that it’s non-transparent and that it promotes anti-Israel activity; and then secondly, the previous secretary of state just before he left office really laid a – quite a harsh allegation against UNRWA, saying that there’re fewer than 200,000 refugees that it actually serves from 1948. So one, do you – or, well, one, when you say you take into consideration Congressional concerns, are you also taking into account Israeli concerns? And then secondly, are you repudiating former Secretary of State Pompeo’s criticism of UNRWA that it’s riddled with corruption and is not serving anywhere near the number of quote-unquote “real” refugees?

MR PRICE: Well, you asked about UNRWA. Let me just say one more word on the bilateral assistance we’re providing to the Palestinian people because it gets to your question about security, and that is, of course, that we have an enduring commitment to Israel’s security. It is a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East but also, beyond that, globally. Likewise, we are committed to advancing the safety and the security of the Palestinian people. As we said in a statement earlier this week, we believe that Israelis and Palestinians should enjoy equal measures of security, prosperity, and dignity.

Now, when it comes to U.S. security assistance, that has played a key role in strengthening Palestinian Authority security forces capable of or, in some cases, willing to partner with Israel to address regional instability. We expect that a key part of our security assistance going forward will be working to advance the rule of law in the West Bank for the benefit of all through the development of professional and accountable security and criminal justice institutions, institutions that, by the way, are able to maintain security and stability in the West Bank to uphold the rule of law, to contribute directly to regional security, and to protect the population. That is not only in the interests of the Palestinian people. That, of course, is in the interests of our Israeli partners.

And as you know or as you might have guessed, we have engaged at multiple levels repeatedly with our Israeli partners on these questions. Of course, it was noted in the recent readout of the call between Secretary Blinken and his counterpart, Foreign Minister Ashkenazi. I wouldn’t want to characterize any further those diplomatic conversations, but we do all of this, again, consistent with the interests and the values of this country.

QUESTION: You don’t have to characterize it because the Israelis have already come out and said they think it’s a bad idea. So – or so the reservations that Congress has about this and the opposition that Israel has about this doesn’t matter; is that what you’re saying?

MR PRICE: Matt, we are doing this consistent with the values and the interests of the United States and also with the interests of those in the region as well. You did ask about UNRWA —

QUESTION: Yes. Yes.

MR PRICE: — and concerns there, so let me just take a moment to note how seriously we take oversight of – our oversight role of UNRWA when it comes to UNRWA’s policies, programs, and finances. We take them extraordinary seriously. Got a long answer here.

QUESTION: You don’t really have to go on – you don’t have to drone on forever about it. But just, like, you are repudiating what the former administration thought about UNRWA? Do you still – do you believe, as the previous secretary of state did, that UNRWA serves a very, very small number of Palestinian refugees as opposed to what they claim to serve?

MR PRICE: I’m not going to characterize what the previous administration might have said or might have concluded. I am relaying here what this institution, what this secretary of state, what this administration, and what this building thinks and has concluded. And that is, again, that is that these steps and measures that we’ve announced today are consistent with our interests and our values.

I think the other point I would make is that even when the United States had stopped its support for UNRWA, the United States, and in this case the previous administration, did maintain a dialogue even in the absence of funding with UNRWA. By resuming this assistance today, not only do we have that dialogue, but we have a seat at the table. We can help drive UNRWA in the ways that we think it is in our interest and consistent with our values to do. Obviously, there are areas where we would like to see reform. We will continue to be in a position, an even greater position to drive and to steer UNRWA in a direction that we think is productive and useful with this step today.

Humeyra.

QUESTION: Can I actually get you to elaborate on that? So you do think that UNRWA needs to be reformed. Can you identify in which areas? And also, by restoring this aid today, are you guys working towards restoring to the amount of $365 million, which was in 2017? Is that what you’re aiming for, and what’s the path to that look like? But don’t forget the first one I asked.

MR PRICE: Well, let me start with the first one. It is absolutely the case that we are committed to closely engaging with UNRWA to uphold its neutrality, to promote human rights and tolerance and education, and to improve the agency’s effectiveness and sustainability, and we plan to do that in a few different ways. One, we plan to do that bilaterally with the agency, with UNRWA, to improve its transparency, accountability, and internal governance and oversight processes. And two, multilaterally to improve its sustainability over time.

The point I made before is absolutely a critical one. Even in the absence of the funding that the previous administration halted, we – in this case the previous administration maintained a dialogue with UNRWA. Now not only do we have a dialogue, but we have a seat at the table. We are able to help effect these reforms – these reforms that we think are necessary, these reforms that we think are important – in a manner that is much more – that will be much more effective going forward.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. I have two questions on the Palestinians and one on Iraq. On the Palestinian issue, so would you say that any part of this money will go to support election in East Jerusalem since you value the democratic process? Number one. And number two, would you say that this money is trying to address a severe humanitarian need or also double as a carrot for the Palestinian Authority to come back to the negotiation table?

MR PRICE: This is – these are humanitarian steps when it comes to the humanitarian aid that we have announced today. The Secretary was speaking in a completely different context earlier this week when he said that we don’t trade shots in arms for political favors. But I think the broader principle is one that stands. This is consistent with who we are as a people. It also happens to be consistent with what is in our interest. And when we talk about the humanitarian funding that we are – I would – that we have announced today, it is to alleviate the – in many cases the humanitarian suffering that Palestinians have endured, whether it is in the West Bank, whether it’s in Gaza, or whether it’s in the broader region.

Now, when it comes to the question of elections, again, I would make the point that everything we are doing is going to be consistent with ATCA, it’s going to be consistent with the Taylor Force Act, and as we do around the world, we are providing this assistance through experienced and trusted independent partners on the ground who in turn distribute that aid. Palestinian elections are a matter for the Palestinian people. I think I would leave it at that in terms of our announcement today.

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, I was just wondering if the Secretary or any official in this building has made sort of calls with the Palestinian officials ahead of today’s announcement. If not, when would they do that? And another question: Is there any update about the pledges to reopen the diplomatic – the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C.?

MR PRICE: Well, I would reiterate the point I have said before that we believe it is important for us to have a partnership with the Palestinian people and with Palestinian officials. I don’t have any calls to read out – I would imagine if Secretary Blinken had a call with his Palestinian counterpart, we would be in a position to read that out – nor do I have any calls to preview, but it is true that we have engaged extensively with stakeholders, including officials in the region, but I don’t have any details of that to read out.

Now, when it comes to the ways in which we will engage with the Palestinian people and Palestinian authorities, obviously today’s announcement, the announcement of funding on a bilateral basis for the Palestinian people and through UNRWA is an important element of that, but it is not the only way in which we intend to do that. But I just don’t have any announcements to preview at this time.

QUESTION: I don’t think you answered my first question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) 365. Is that the aim that you’re going to eventually increase this? Is that where you’re going?

MR PRICE: I’m not going to – I’m – today we’re talking about a significant, a sizable, an ambitious announcement of funding. I don’t have anything to preview beyond today.

QUESTION: Did you have any comment that —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) this is the first tranche, because I know that the administrations have usually provided their UNRWA funding in trenches – tranches, whatever – leading up to the full amount. So you haven’t made a decision about whether you’re going to go back to that historic amount of (inaudible)?

MR PRICE: I just don’t have anything to preview today. We are in April of 2021. Of course there are many months left in this fiscal year. But I just don’t have anything to preview today as to where we are heading.

QUESTION: But then I turn to the security assistance. That’s – is that like the 60 million extra that’s not part of the number that you put into this press release?

MR PRICE: We – I’m sorry.

QUESTION: The security assistance.

MR PRICE: Yes.

QUESTION: You said we’re also resuming vital security assistance programs. So that’s separate from the numbers that you have in this press release, right?

MR PRICE: We can – we can – if we have more details on exactly what that security assistance looked like – looks like in terms of numbers, we can let you know.

QUESTION: Did you guys ever have a response to the GAO report that found that USAID had not followed all of the – all of the requirements of the Taylor Force and ATCA laws in awarding not direct grantees but sub-grantees?

MR PRICE: Well, we are of course aware of the GAO report. We have welcomed the report. We take it, its findings, very seriously. It’s important to note that this GAO report found no cases of U.S. funding going to parties, providers on the ground who failed vetting. USAID is already taking steps to strengthen its existing, extensive antiterrorism procedures. I would also say that the funding we have announced today takes into account that report and our implementation of that funding has and will take into account what the GAO put forward. Again, the bottom line here is that this administration is firmly committing to – committed to ensuring that all U.S. assistance is provided in accordance with antiterrorism requirements and all U.S. laws, including the Taylor Force Act.

^

UNRWA and the Pals Are Baaack in the State Department

A version of this was published at JNS.

At the State Department Press Conference of February 2, there was a question (and I have added underlines of important items)

I’m Said Arikat with Al-Quds daily newspaper. Sir, I wanted to ask you very quickly, last Tuesday, U.S. envoy to the United Nations told the Security Council that the United States is going to restore aid to UNRWA, the work and relief agency, and will probably open the consulate in East Jerusalem as well as reopening the office here in Washington for the Palestinians. My question to you: Is there a timetable, one? And on UNRWA aid, considering that the United States was the largest contributor – so will that be retroactive? I mean, that’s close to like $900 million since 2018.

Retroactive? Those funds were withheld because of bad management, anti-Semitic promotion and terror-support that was confirmed in reports. 

And the answer was

The United States does intend to restore humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. We’re not doing that as a favor, but because it’s in the interest of the United States to do so. Globally, our humanitarian assistance provides critical relief, such as emergency food assistance, health care, education. And the suspension of aid to the Palestinian people has neither produced political progress nor secured concessions from the Palestinian leadership. Of course, it has only harmed innocent Palestinians.

The United States will reinvigorate our humanitarian leadership and work to galvanize the international community to meet its humanitarian obligations, including to the Palestinian people.

As for "innocent", let's leave that to the Hamas recrutiment agencies. But what interest is it to for the United States to continue a fiction (millions of refugees), to enable a non-productive economy (relying on aid handouts instead) and to ignore the Palestinian Authority's continued policies of anti-normalization, diplomatic rejectionism, denouncing the Abraham Accords (see next question) as well as continuing terror incitement?

And then Nicholas Wadhams of Bloomberg asked

are you prepared to give the previous administration credit for the Kosovo-Israel deal, for the other Abraham Accords? 

To which Ned Price replied

When it comes to the Abraham Accords and to your question, I believe this was something that Secretary-Designate Blinken has spoken to, and he has spoken to the Abraham Accords as something that was welcome during the previous administration, something that indeed we hope to build on. The United States will continue to urge other countries to normalize relations with Israel, and we’ll look for other opportunities to expand cooperation among countries in the region.

While we support normalization between Israel and countries in the Arab world, it’s also not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and that’s very important. We hope that as Israel and other countries in the region join together in a common effort to build bridges and create new avenues for dialogue and exchange, these efforts contribute to tangible progress towards the goal of advancing a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Nomalization is not a substitute, for sure, but without it, there definitely will not be peace.

In connection with that exchange, it would be good to review what Steve Postal has written:

the Biden administration is well on its way to reversing the significant gains in Middle East peace brokered by the Trump administration. By undermining the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel and strengthening the Palestinian Authority and Iran, the Biden administration will greatly undermine prospects of peace in the region. The Biden administration will likely undermine other current and potential normalization agreements through the following:

Weakening relations with the UAE

Strengthening Iran

Strengthening the Palestinian Authority

Potentially alienating Morocco

Potentially ignoring Indonesia

With the new people coming on board, and I hope have read, or will, Shany Mor's The Return of the Peace Processors, Daniel Greenfield on Maher Bitar and on Hady Amr and others, you will realize that there are stormy waters ahead.

^

Before UNRWA There Was UNRRA

Many people are disturbed and upset that Israel, and others, are severely criticizing UNRWA for politicization as well as inefficiency. See here and here and here.

Well, before UNRWA there was an UNRRA and here's a incident:

In September 1945 Morgan became the Chief of Operations for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) in Germany...However he became frustrated with the inefficiency of the United Nations organisation.

Events in the British–Zionist conflict in the British Mandate for Palestine made Morgan feel conflicted between his role in assisting Jewish refugees at UNRRA, whom he regarded as special victims of the Nazis for being persecuted solely for their race, and supporting British policy as a British Army officer. In January 1946 he created an uproar by claiming at a press conference that there was a secret Zionist organisation that was attempting to facilitate an "exodus" of Jewish people from Europe to a new state in Palestine with Soviet encouragement. Morgan stated that he had witnessed an "exodus of Jews from Poland on Russian trains on a regular route from Lodz to Berlin. All of them were well dressed, well fed, healthy and had pockets bulging with money. All of them told the same monotonous story of threats, pogroms, and atrocities in Poland as a reason for their leaving" . He later wrote:

I had been able to piece together a reasonably comprehensive picture of the way in which the UNRRA set up was being most skilfully used to promote what was nothing less than a Zionist campaign of aggression in Palestine. In defiance of the prohibition by the British Mandatory power, reluctant as ever to employ decisive means, the admirably organised Zionist command was employing any and every means of forcing immigration into the country irrespective of the hardship and sufferings of the immigrants, few of whom seemed to have spontaneous enthusiasm for the Zionist cause. The whole project evidently had Russian connivance, if not actual support, since its success would conduce to the elimination of British authority in a vital area of the Middle East.

One reporter quoted Morgan as remarking that "the Jews seem to have organised a plan enabling them to become a world power- a weak force numerically, but one which will have a generating power for getting what they want".

...Morgan's statements caused a furore in the press, which portrayed them as anti-Semitic and distasteful. However, Morgan's comments were factual, based on military intelligence. It was reported at the time in Time magazine that: "Observers here [in Berlin] ... are positive of [Morgan's] sincerity, and know he had no intention of feeding the fires of anti-Semitic propaganda." Archibald MacLeish, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, stated that when the press had finished with Sir Frederick, "..the sum total effect was a lie and a disastrous and evil lie. This brings up the question of journalistic standards. In a world as closely integrated as this one is, the question must be asked: what is the standard of truth in journalism? When the journalist is dealing with an inflammatory subject and so reports it that verbally his story is true, but the overall effect is false, are the standards of truth satisfied?"

With his military background, Morgan was appalled at the corruption, inefficiency and political diversion of UNRRA. A member of his staff said that "to serve such an outfit is degradation beyond description. In fact, [Morgan wrote], to have been rejected for such service I have always felt to have been a high honour."

I see a clear parallel but the hypocrisy of today's defenders of UNRWA is quite clear.

^ 

Arabs as "Settlers"

From a House of Commons speech delivered by Earl Jowitt, a Labour politician who served as Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain on December 1. 1954:

...I visited the old Jerusalem and the Holy Places...I was deeply moved—I have never been more moved in my life, and this is what leads me to speak of it to-day—with what I saw in regard to the refugees. I saw them in old Jerusalem and I saw them in Jericho. I saw them, after seven years, still living in their inadequate tents. I am going to make an appeal from the heart to your Lordships' House, to this country and to the United Nations to try to do something to tackle and solve this problem. For seven years this has been going on. Some of the Jews will say, "The Arabs left voluntarily." I do not think that is an adequate answer. At Haifa and in the area around 41 there are large numbers of Arabs still living under Jewish rule. I went to the cadi's court and saw the cadi. He said he had 50,000 Arabs there still patronising his court. I spoke to him privately, and he told me that he had no sort of complaint to make about what was being done for them. It is obvious that they are happy and contented living under the Jews. He added: "The one thing we want is that there shall be peace, like we have here, throughout the Holy Land."

In the course of the war, for which the Arabs must bear a great deal of responsibility, there were undoubtedly incidents...one of the features of war that incidents do take place. It was the fear that incidents might happen that induced a large number of these Arabs to leave the country. I am bound to say (I feel it should be said) that I found amongst the Arabs intense bitterness. I found, I regret to say, a distrust of this country and of her promises. 

...With regard to the work of U.N.R.R.A. (and this should be said, because that work is due shortly to come to an end), I am afraid I was not impressed with what has been done, although many admirable people have devoted themselves to that work. I thought I found—these are only impressions—a good deal of over-lapping organisation. There had been in the past some peculation, almost inevitably, I suppose. In order to try and prevent peculation, they now insist on the filling of forms to an extent and complexity which I have rarely seen, with the result that the charitably disposed people who are trying to administer the funds given to them by U.N.R.R.A. are beset by these forms, and have to engage extra staff to fill them up, with little advantage to anyone. I hope that what I am about to say will not be used in evidence against me hereafter, but I am bound to admit that the individual effort which I saw being made by some individuals was, to my mind, far more effective than the work which U.N.R.R.A. were doing.

...The weakness of the U.N.R.R.A. position is that they have concentrated on maintaining these people and not on settling them. I can well understand the reason why—indeed, I saw and heard it: the reason is that there are some Arab politicians who are not anxious that this matter should be settled. When I talked about trying to resettle some of the people of these villages...and trying to get them to the fertile lands in the interior, the Arabs said, "No, we regard them as our first line."

I want to say this to your Lordship quite definitely. You cannot resettle these people in Israel. Do let us be quite clear about that. You cannot do it, because in Israel, where they used to be, new settlers have come; and you would not solve this problem at all by trying to resettle them there. You would merely have to remove the existing settlers, and you would have the same problem all over again. As I have said, though you put them on the same land you would find, generally speaking, that that land is very different from what it was; and, moreover, is now full of new houses. I think the Arabs realise this. What they said to me was that they ought to be given the chance to go back. I said, "Supposing they were given the chance to go back, would they go?"; and they answered, "No." So we have this situation...There is there a population of something of the order of 800,000 to 900,000 refugees, because a large number of children are born every year. They are without hope; they are without prospects, and they are carrying on a miserable existence on an inadequate supply of food. It is a festering sore. That situation cannot do anything to improve the character of the people who are receiving food but are denied any chance of doing any work or any hope of work in the future. They look back on the past and long to go back to their own lands which, in their imagination, have become now far greater and more wonderful than they ever were.

My Lords, I am quite satisfied that we cannot afford to allow this state of affairs to go on, and I beg you to end this situation. Whether or not they will settle in Jordan—and I did not see any of Jordan, except in the course of my trip from Jerusalem to Jericho and down to Jordan and the Dead Sea; I did not go further north—I cannot bring myself to think that, if they showed the same energy and initiative and had the same capital resources as the Jews, it would not be possible to settle them on the east of Jordan. If I am wrong on that, there can be no question whatever that they could be settled in Syria. I beg the Government to use their influence. I realise that it is not a matter for this country alone, but I beg the Government to use their influence to try to get something done about this matter. All your Lordships will agree that to have something like 800,000 or 900.000 people in this condition is a most serious situation for the peace and well-being of the world. I am not making the smallest criticism of the Government—I want them to understand that. All I am asking is for help in dealing with a problem which strikes me as being the most urgent problem with which I have ever come face to face in my life.

^

Jewish Palestine Refugees - I Am Corrected

For years I have trying to promote the simple historical fact that Jews were also Palestine refugees.

(For previous posts see here; and here)

As per UNRWA's own definition, that Agency has decided that a refugee is a needy person, who, as a result of the war in Palestine, has lost his home and his means of livelihood. 

Arabs and Jews, both.

How "Palestinian refugee" crept in there I do not fully know.

But how many Jews.

My figure, based on what I read was between 17,000 to 20,000.

I was a minimalist.

Benny Morris’s book "1948 A History of The First Arab Israeli War", puts the number of Jewish refugees at 70,000.

According to a new book mentioned in the JPost, the number is at least 60,000 Jewish refugees.

The book, published in Hebrew, 

is titled "Jewish Refugees in Israel's War of Independence" and is authored by Nurit Cohen-Levinovsky who holds a PhD in history and heads the Educational Department at the Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Center in Tel Aviv.

As David Shayne notes,

according to Dr. Levinovsky, some 97 Jewish villages were attacked and damaged: 11 of these were destroyed entirely, 6 were conquered and lost – until after the 1967 Six Day War, when those conquered were re-established...Fully one quarter of Jerusalem’s Jews fled, mostly to the relative safety of the coastal plain.

Jerusalem's Jewish population numbered 100,000 in 1948. 

I stand corrected.

But I correct the record: as a result of the Arab terror ethnic cleansing campaign of 1920-1947, the true number of Jews who became refugees during the Mandate era, even if UNRWA limits the term "refugee" to the 1946-1948 period, is several thousands more, as we need include those who were driven out of Hebron, Gaza, Shchem, Jenin, Jericho, Tul Karem and Jerusalem.

The exodus from the Old City began in 1920, increased after Nov. 1921, after August 1929 and then during 1936-39 all due to Arab rioting and terror.

We know the British forced Jews out too.

At the beginning of the 20th century, 20,000 Jews lived in the Old City. In 1948, 1700 were left.

Thousands of Jaffa's Jews were forced out due to most of the same circumstances (in 1936, 10,000 Jews still lived in Jaffa. In 1920, 8740 Jews lived in Jaffa, by the British count, and that number increased until 1929.

Hundreds of Jews from Hebron.

______________________

UPDATED

^

Look For The Blue Tent

From this now famous video news report on hamas setting up a rocket launcher adjacent to a hotel and in a civilian area of Gaza:

Shall we suggest to Hamas to change the color of its tents next time?

Or shall we simply trust that the IDF Air Force will be better able to pinpoint its retaliatory strikes by simply searching for blue tents?

And who paid for those tents?  UNRWA?

Do they have an itemized expense record?

^

Pallywood in Action (Graphic Images Provided by Hamas)

Pallywood is

"media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs ... designed to win the public relations war against Israel."

Pallywood in action (thanks to LDB) at outside and down the block from the UNRWA Rafah school in which the IDF targeted terror commanders:

"The Israeli army has targeted three Islamic Jihad terrorists mounted on a motorcycle near an UNRWA school in Rafah," said an IDF spokesperson in a statement.

Note, there's no girl here:

Nor here:

Still in pre-shoot production stage;

Almost ready:

Fitting her into the scene:

"Okay, is this the shot we want?"

* And now there is this clip and you can see the infant girl being place down in the first few seconds.

and this clip:



====
Note:

This post does not support illegal actions directed at civilians and I am not pleased that innocent lives are lost.  It is solely uploaded to illustrate how Pallywood works.
________________________

And EOZ found a video.

And this post explains other aspects that I missed or an not sure of to include in my post.

A new summary.

^

Another New UNRWA Logo

After reading this:

The booby-trapped tunnel in question had its opening situated in a small health clinic run by UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees. That fact alone should be shocking enough. But it comes just days after a cache of rockets was discovered at one of UNRWA’s schools. Worse still, this was the third such discovery since Israel’s operation Protective Edge began. The UN’s personnel in Gaza can no longer plead negligence; anyone considering the facts must inevitably conclude that UNRWA is actively collaborating with Hamas.

I thought this is how the UNRWA logo should look:

^

Un-UNRWA

UNRWA Spokesman breaks down over deaths of children in the fighting:

Chris Gunness, whose job is in danger.

Children like these?

or him?

UNRWA:

and

^

The UN Denies Itself

A PMW Bulletin claims, correctly, that we witness a

False claim by UNRWA in response to PMW report: Map without Israel that official posed with does not represent today but "pre-1948" Palestine

(The pictures broadcast on Palestinian Authority TV are here)

here

 



and they detail:

UNRWA spokesperson Christopher Gunness, responding on UNRWA's website, rejected PMW's report. He claimed that the map in question was not intended to reflect the present, but reflected the period before Israel was
established:

"...The map in question is an embroidery depicting a pre-1948 map and therefore ante-dates the creation of the state of Israel. The allegations are therefore completely false."
[UNRWA's website, May 14, 2013]

UNRWA spokesperson Gunness' justification that the map "depict[s] a pre-1948 map" is baseless, as the map includes the PLO-PA flag and not a British flag.

And they add a final note, that

Israel's representative to the UN Ron Prosor reacted to PMW's original report about the map, protesting to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a letter:

"The map identified 'Palestine' as the geographic area extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. The State of Israel was conspicuously absent. It doesn't take a PHD in Middle Eastern history or geography to realize that a map of the Middle East that doesn't include Israel is deeply and profoundly prejudiced."

I think the message could have been sharpened.

"Palestine", geo-politically, existed only under the British Mandate, awarded to it by the League of Nations.  There was never any defined "Palestine" previously in history.  Even under Ottoman Empire rule the borders altered and were never fixed in any international legal fashion.  Indeed, there never was a "state of Palestine", ever.  The only time the country was an independent state was when it was ruled by the Jews.

Under the terms of the Mandate, no Arab state was to be established.  Only a Jewish national home was the purpose of the Mandate.  Indeed, the territory of the Jewish national home, in its original configuration, was altered and some 75% of it was separated, Jewish settlement therein was banned, and eventually, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was created east of the Jordan River.

The map shown, therefore, is an ephemeral memory.

The November 29, 1947 UN-recommended partition, and there were previous maps of partition in 1937-1939, included much different borders of what was to be an "Arab state", but that proposal was rejected.  The Arabs have no claim to that map.

The map shown most definitely erases Israel, either today's Israel or the "Jewish state" that the UN itself suggested be established.

In other words, the UN today is denying the UN past and rewarding Arab rejectionism, terror and denial of Jewish nationalism.

Either Gunness is:

(a) ignorant;

(b) lying;

(c) acting on behalf of Arab propaganda;

(d) or all of the above.

^

Chris Gunness - Terrorist Stooge

The spokesman for UNRWA is a terrorist stooge.

His latest Tweet:

Chris Gunness ‏ @ChrisGunness

Superpower-backed nuclear state attacks majority-children refugee community blockaded behind a fence with nowhere to run. Sick sick sick.

To which I replied:

ymedad ‏ @ymedad

@ChrisGunness children are not rocketing Israe; terrorists r. & Israel has children too, a primary school was shelled yesterday. grow up.

^

Obama/Clinton - "Palestine Firsters"?

After all the noise about the latent antisemitism at CAP and the use of "Israel Firster", and all the apologetica, I guess calling President Obama and Sec'y of State Clinton "Palestine Firsters" would be acceptable to those progressive radical liberal forces who can't stand Israel?

And why?

Well, at the end of December we had this:

The US State Department said Congress has released $40 million in aid to the Palestinians, part of the nearly $200 million that was frozen over their bid for full UN recognition.

"We have been working with Congress for some time, because we don't think it's in US national interests to keep this money frozen," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters, saying US diplomats were "gratified" by the move. The monies, provided through the Economic Support Fund, are targeted for economic and humanitarian support.

What could "Palestine First" about this, in a negative sense?  Well, read this from January 3:-

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama State Department proudly announced an initial contribution of $55 million [above was $40 - YM] for Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza and other parts of the Middle East. President Barack Obama and the State Department claim the $55 million contribution will provide critical health, education, and humanitarian services to five million Palestinian refugees in the region.

...What the State Department neglected to mention regarding the Palestinians in Lebanon is that they are undergoing training by the Lebanese-based terrorist group Hezbollah, say many counterterrorism experts.

The State Department's press release claims that United States recognizes the critical role the Agency plays in assisting Palestinian refugees and maintaining regional stability and calls upon other donors to enhance their support for UNRWA. Sadly, Israeli intelligence sources say some of the aid money is used to purchase weapons such as fully-automatic firearms, rockets, and explosives.

In 2011, the United States provided $75 million to the United Nations West Bank/Gaza emergency programs, $15 million to emergency programs in Lebanon, and $10 million for the construction of five new schools in Gaza, which will serve an estimated 10,000 schoolchildren. However, the U.S. is not allowed input into the school curriculum which is notoriously anti-Israeli. [it incites, delegitimizes and urges violence against Jews, see next sentence]

In fact, the Law Enforcement Examiner in 2011 ran stories regarding the indoctrination of children and the terrorist training provided by Hamas to youngsters living in Gaza.

In December 2011, the Law Enforcement Examiner reported that members of Palestinian groups, including terrorists from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, met with representatives from President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party on Tuesday in Cairo, Egypt. Egypt's representatives at the meeting included members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists.

And, back in November, there was this:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday night and demanded that he release Palestinian tax revenue that Israel has frozen for more than a month after UNESCO accepted the Palestinians as a member. A senior U.S. official and an Israeli source familiar with details of the conversation say Clinton called Netanyahu after messages relayed to him in recent weeks on the tax money were not answered positively.

and you can hear her earlier giving money).

Well, if Hillary wants Netanyahu to fund Israel's own demise, that surely could qualify as a definition of a "Palestine Firster".
If that isn't "Palestine First", I don't know what is.

PS  Mairav Zonszein calls Obama an "Israel Firster".

^