"Moderates" Support Rock-Throwing

A few days ago, I blogged about the lack of a Palestinian partner for peace, using Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad's positon paper to show the absurdity of calling him a moderate. With the riots on Yom Kippur Eve, we learn once again that the phrase "Palestinian moderate," is, in fact, an oxymoron.

When French tourists visited the Temple Mount on the eve of the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, Arabs in the area mistook them for praying Jews, and began throwing rocks at them. Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount is totally legal, and even if someone is offended by it, rock-throwing is a pretty extreme response, right?

Let's ask some "moderates" what they think.

Reuters reported that the Palestinian government, our "partner for peace" released the following statement:

"The cabinet ... hailed our people who rushed yesterday to defend blessed al-Aqsa mosque and thwarted the attempt by extremist settlers to break into the compound."

Fayad's government also "condemned the storming by Israeli police and special forces of the mosque compound and their assault on worshippers."

"A Third Intifada may erupt...in reaction to the Israeli disrespect of the feelings of Muslims and the storming by extreme Jewish groups of the al-Aqsa mosque."

These are the words of another "moderate," Mohammad Dahlan of the Fatah party. Do you get the feeling he knows something we don't know?

It really is no wonder that the conflict has yet to be solved, when these are the people we're negotiating with.

See the Israeli Initiative's idea for an alternative partner for peace.

(Source: Reuters)

If This What A Moderate Looks Like, Clearly There Is No Palestinian Partner For Peace

Through a miraculous PR coup, Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayad has been labeled a "moderate voice of leadership" for a Palestinian state, after distributing a position paper entitled "Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State: Program of the Thirteenth Government - August 2009" to the UN, EU and American and Russian governments. In an article for Philadelphia newspaper "The Bulletin," David Bedein shows how immoderate Fayad really is.

The paper, which has been promoted by the Geneva Accord's website, has an abstract that calls for "peace, security and stability in our region on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital." As Bedein points out, it seems that no one bothered reading past the first page.

Throughout the position paper, Fayad refers to Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state, not East Jerusalem. He accuses Israel, "the occupying authority," of "implementing a systematic plan…and eradicating [Jerusalem's] Arab Palestinian heritage." His plan includes returning all refugees and their descendants to their pre-1948 homes according to UN General Assembly Resolution 194. He also demands the release of Palestinians convicted of murder or attempted murder from Israeli prisons, because Fayad seems to think that jailing Palestinians who committed capital crimes is a "violation of international law and basic human rights."

If this is the "moderate voice of leadership" amongst Palestinians, it is clear that there is no Palestinian partner for peace. It is impossible to negotiate with a group that supports murderers and denies the legitimacy of Israel's capital. For this reason and many others, the Palestinian Authority is an obstacle to peace and a danger to the entire region. Therefore, an alternative partner must be found: Jordan.

The Israeli Initiative favors strategic cooperation with the Kingdom of Jordan as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Should Jordan grant citizenship to the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinian Authority could be disarmed and would no longer be recognized as a representative body. With Jordanian citizens in Judea and Samaria, the refugees would no longer be refugees, Iranian influence on the Palestinians would be diminished, and regional stability would be increased.

For more information on the Israeli Initiative and cooperation with Jordan, click here.

For Bedein's article, click here.

For Salam Fayad's position paper, click here

UN General Assembly Celebrates 60 Years of UNRWA's Lack of Acheivements

Agency Has Perpetuated Palestinian "Refugeehood" For Sixty Years

This week's United Nations General Assembly has been marked by a week-long commemoration of 60 years of "achievements and service" by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). At a press conference in New York, Karen Koning Abu-Zayd, Commisioner-General of UNRWA, declared that the commemoration was a tribute to the refugees themselves, who thrived "despite being refugees for such a long time and under occupation for 40 of those 60 years." She also emphasized the importance of aiding refugee youth.

It is hard to understand what achievements UNRWA has had that are worth celebrating. Although the agency provides services such as food and education to Palestinian refugees, it has helped cause stagnation and complacency with their current status. While all other refugees, treated by UNHCR, the United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees, are resettled within two years, Palestinian refugees have remained in camps for 60 years, without help in rehabilitation from UNRWA.

"Western countries, which have sought to help the Palestinians, have, over the course of six decades, donated millions to UNRWA – an agency that has not rehabilitated even one refugee, and never will," emphasized former Israeli cabinet minister Benny Elon, founder of The Israeli Initiative. "UNRWA does not serve the Palestinian population; rather, it serves the Palestinian national narrative, and thus eternalizes the conflict, offering the refugees war and blood instead of welfare and life. The time has come to stop the cash flow to UNRWA and once and for all, with a just solution, deal with the refugee problem. Transferring the refugees to UNHCR's care, after 60 years under UNRWA, would be such a solution."

According to Israeli Initiative researcher Gideon Israel, "Sources working in the refugee camps have reported that 90% of the refugees in Gaza would like to emigrate to Western countries, and there are similar statistics for other Palestinian refugees. Contrary to the myth that no states are willing to accept refugees, there are actually many that would absorb Palestinian refugees, such as Canada or Chile. In fact, Palestinian refugees in Iraq were recently relocated to Iceland, Slovakia, Norway and the United States. However, these refugees were under UNHCR's care, not UNRWA. "

Although Abu-Zayd claimed that her greatest wish is to see the end of Palestinian refugeehood, UNRWA's actions speak louder than their words, and those actions say that UNRWA plays no part in rehabilitating refugees. Millions of Palestinians under UNRWA's care are sentenced to remain refugees forever – that is, as long as the State of Israel exists.

There is also an issue with Abu-Zayd's emphasis of the so-called occupation. The majority of Palestinian refugees are not in Israel, therefore the claim that most have been under occupation for 40 years is wrong. Israel cannot be blamed for the refugee situation, when there are many options that are not being sought for the Palestinian refugees, such as the ten countries which have agreed to participate in the UNHCR's refugee absorption program.