Doc's Talk: UNRWA Nears Sixty:Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

Friday, February 06, 2009

UNRWA Nears Sixty:Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

James G. Lindsay and Andrew Whitley
February 6, 2009

copy2

On February 3, 2009, James Lindsay and Andrew Whitley addressed a Policy Forum luncheon at The Washington Institute marking the publication of Mr. Lindsay's new study Fixing UNRWA: Repairing the UN's Troubled System of Aid to Palestinian Refugees. Mr. Lindsay, an Aufzien fellow at The Washington Institute, served with UNRWA from 2000 to 2007. As legal advisor and general counsel for the agency from 2002, he oversaw all UNRWA legal activies, from aid contracts to relations with Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Whitley is director of the UNRWA representative office at UN headquarters in New York. He previously served as a UN official in Geneva, East Timor, and Kosovo, and was the founding director of Middle East Watch (now Human Rights Watch/Middle East and North Africa). The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.
copy2

copy Audio of this event is also available at WashingtonInstitute.org

James G. Lindsay
As the title of the study implies, UNRWA is not necessarily part of the problem, but it needs fixing to become part of the solution. The report's purpose is to examine UNRWA critically and fairly with the insight available only to someone who has worked at a senior level in the agency. The goal is to make UNRWA more effective and supportive of U.S. policy objectives.

The study suggests UNRWA undertake the following reforms:

• End the oxymoronic policy of providing refugee aid to "citizen-refugees." A great number of UNRWA aid recipients are not refugees in any conventional meaning of the term, including the definition used by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the body that coordinates worldwide action to protect all other refugees around the world. These "refugees" are citizens of a country and thereby have a claim on that country's protection and national services.
Thus UNRWA should end its assistance to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are Jordanian citizens.

• Focus on shifting from a status-based to a needs-based system of aid delivery. It is true, for example, that education is a universal right, but should U.S. taxpayers be paying for education for those who can afford to contribute to their own education?

• Limit public pronouncements to humanitarian and relief issues, rather than getting involved in political issues, especially when taking Hamas's point of view. There are other UN platforms for political pronouncements. UNRWA claims that it condemns attacks by both sides, but in reality, the agency responds only to Israeli attacks and condemns Hamas's firing of Qassam rockets toward Israeli civilians only as an afterthought.

• Vet staff and beneficiaries more rigorously. The United States has laws prohibiting taxpayer funds going to terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Although UNRWA says it is takes measures to ensure that it is avoiding those with terrorist ties, in reality it does not check its staff and beneficiaries against conviction records or appropriate terrorist lists. UNRWA crosschecks against the UN's 1267 list, but this register contains only a few hundred al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and none from Palestinian terrorist groups. UNRWA has rebuffed attempts to have staff and beneficiaries checked against U.S. lists of terrorist suspects on the grounds that these lists come from a single country rather than from the UN.

• Monitor textbooks more carefully. The agency should not use textbooks that do not meet international standards. A different agency -- such as UNESCO -- might be appropriate for taking responsibility for this.

• Toughen welfare eligibility rules to discourage large families.

• Expand loans to refugees who want to move out of refugee camps and become self-sufficient.

UNRWA does valuable work. It should not be dissolved. It should be repaired so that it can give Palestinians a greater opportunity to lead normal lives.

A draft of Fixing UNRWA was submitted to the agency in July 2008 for general comment. The agency's official readers were struck by, among other things, the report's "inaccuracies" and "faulty analysis." Despite repeated requests, however, UNRWA did not provide any specific comments, citations, or corrections to fix the alleged errors.

Andrew Whitley
UNRWA is preparing a rebuttal to Mr. Lindsay's publication. The agency is disappointed by the findings of the study, found it to be tendentious and partial, and regrets in particular the narrow range of sources used. The study ignores the context in which UNRWA operates and the tight line the agency walks due to various pressures. Someone reading this paper with no background would assume that the Israeli government was a benign actor. No mention is made of the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

UNRWA defines who is a Palestine refugee for the practical purpose of identifying who is entitled to its services, not to define who is entitled to return to their former homes. One criticism of the agency is that assistance to second- and third-generation refugees perpetuates the problem, though from the beginning, UNRWA has recognized that all members of the family are entitled to its services. In times of emergency, UNRWA has a mandate to help people in need, whether or not they are carrying a refugee card. If someone is starving or trapped behind the separation wall, UNRWA will not deny that person food or medical assistance. The agency acts in line with general humanitarian principles.

The agency has a significant record of integrating refugees into local societies and not perpetuating its own role. Refugees are entitled to the same rights as citizens in the countries where they are located, and it is essential to eliminate distinctions between them. UNRWA is building a cadre of trained, educated, self-sufficient Palestinians who will be the backbone of a future Palestinian state.

UNRWA does not have a resettlement mandate. It does, at the same time, recognize the impracticality of the return of Palestinian refugees to their former homes. The agency has followed accepted principles of international law and not attempted to force the refugees to give up choices for the sake of a particular agenda; rather, it has tried to help individuals make choices that improve their lives.

The agency has cut 150,000 names from the registers because of duplications and other reasons. Work still needs to be done. Many people still receive benefits for which they are not entitled. UNRWA, however, focuses on the neediest.

UNRWA is not a passive actor on hot-button issues here in Washington. It does not condone terrorism. In Gaza, it has cut people off without warning, including a senior staff member who failed to warn international staff about the extramural activities of one teacher. It has no investigative or police capability, but it does present Israeli authorities with staff lists to check.

All Palestinian textbooks are under review. In Syria, they are particularly egregious, but replacing them with sanitized UN textbooks runs counter to the goal of integration of refugees into local societies. UNRWA provides mandatory supplementary courses in human rights and conflict resolution. The textbooks are not perfect, but frankly neither are Israeli textbooks. UNRWA is working amid an ongoing conflict between two peoples over the same territory.

UNRWA's relations with the U.S. government have always been close and cooperative. Washington has been glad to recognize the agency's stabilizing role, fund it, and help in its reform process.

This is not a purely humanitarian issue, but a political one. The refugee question is one of the core issues that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have dealt with; it goes back to the circumstances under which Israel was formed and its responsibility for the expulsion of large numbers of Palestinians.

This rapporteur's summary was prepared by Curtis Cannon.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"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."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"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."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk