Doc's Talk: FIRST HAND ACCOUNT: A BALCONY WITH A VIEW: FIVE STAR LUXURY OVERLOOKS DEHEISHE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE CAMP: IT'S TIME FOR UNRWA REFORM

Saturday, June 18, 2011

FIRST HAND ACCOUNT: A BALCONY WITH A VIEW: FIVE STAR LUXURY OVERLOOKS DEHEISHE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE CAMP: IT'S TIME FOR UNRWA REFORM

Rhonda Spivak, attorney, writer, and member of Canadian & Israel Bar Associations, now edits Winnipeg Jewish Review at http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com
Thu Jun 16 2011

http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com/article_detail.cfm?id=1277 orhttp://tinyurl.com/6dcegcl

When I was in Bethlehem in August 2009 during the Fatah-PLO convention, I noticed the front of the majestic looking five star Intercontinental Hotel where Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and company were staying at the time.

What I didn’t realize then, and learned last summer during my next visit, is that the back of this five star accommodation, virtually adjoins Deheishe Palestinian Refugee Camp which is under the mandate of UNRWA Last August, my Palestinian guide wanted to show me the Intercontinental Hotel which had once he said was “the nicest hotel in all of Palestine-even better than the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem.” We went inside to this grand looking buildingl, which is known as Jacir Palace, built in 1910 as a home for the extended family of a wealthy Bethlehem merchant, who was also a former Mayor of Bethlehem Suleiman Jacir.

It was a most jarring experience to see the new wing of this five star luxury hotel because the back of the hotel and the balconies of some of the newer rooms look into UNWRA's Deheishe Palestinian Refugee Camp, where Palestinian leadership and the Arab world have let the refugees and their descendants languish in relative poverty for generations. This has been done in order to keep alive the notion of the refugees returning en mass to their homes and villages in pre-67 Israel (a return which would signify the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and something Israel would agree to let happen only if it was ready to commit national suicide).

An article of June 1, 2011 by Emma Mancini for the Alternative Information Centre (AIC) Naji Owdah, director of the Phoenix Centre in Deheishe Palestinian Refugee Camp, a cultural centre for children and adults, shows how this camp breeds extremism

“... Palestine won’t agree with the two state solution: it would mean giving up, forgetting the right of return, “ Owdah, says. MORE

I asked my guide how the Palestinians in Deheishe refugee camp deal with the fact that literally a stone’s throw away the elite in Palestinian and Arab society can flaunt their wealth in their faces. ( I presume that that from the windows of their homes, some of the refugees get a view of the luxurious hotel and its gardens)

He looked at me and shrugged, "It is what it is." Near the Deheishe refugee camp, there is an upscale looking street where I saw nice café’s, and on another street there was also a modern looking design store. I took some photos of what appeared to be new gleaming banks from Arab countries, very nearby the refugee camp.

This jarring experience made me reflect on the fact that the PA leadership has no shame in staying in five star luxury immediately surrounded by the poorest elements of their society. It thus shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if Hamas wins in the upcoming Palestinian elections (assumingthese elections actually occur), as they did in 2006 throughout the West Bank. It shouldn’t be surprising if Palestinians continue to view Abbas and his PA cronies as corrupt and out to benefit themselves and not their people., Khaled Abu Toameh, a prize wining Arab journalist, has just written an article “The New Palestinian State Will Be Run By Islamic Fundamentalists” making this point:

“Fatah continues to suffer from a problem of credibility among many Palestinians, largely because of its failure to reform in wake of its crushing defeat to Hamas in the 2006 election.” ( http://www.hudson-ny.org/2136/palestinian-state-islamic-fundamentalists ).

The jarring experience also drove home the point that that it is not the case that there isn't enough wealth to re-settle Deheishe’s Palestinian refugees in Bethlehem itself or nearby in the West Bank in far better accommodation, and improve their living standards dramatically. This would enable them to focus their attentions on rebuilding their lives rather than destroying Israel.

The money invested in the PA’s Bethlehem from donor countries all over the world clearly has not ever trickled into the hands of the Palestinian refugees in UNWRA refugee camps such as Deheishe. Instead, the Palestinian leadership has deliberately not resettled and upgraded them, preferring to perpetuate the conflict with Israel by promoting their “ return of return.”

Whatever economic growth there has been in the Palestinian West Bank in the last two years (something that has attracted a lot of attention) it has not benefited the Palestinian refugees in the West Bank. They get to see the disparity between wealthy and poor growing around them, such that one should not be surprised if they all vote Hamas in the future.

ISN’T TIME FOR UNRWA REFORM ?

In an interview at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee [AIPAC] conference in Washington last month, Dr. Tal Becker, an International Associate of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told me that Israel “behind the scenes has tried to encourage [donor] states to channel aid they give to the PA towards “the rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank” [i.e. new homes for them] but Israel’s “efforts so far have been unsuccessful.”

The UNRWA mandate expires on June 30, 2011.[http://www.unctopt.org/en/agencies/unrwa.html ]

This provides an opportunity for nations that contribute to UNRWA to reform the UNRWA policies, so that UNRWA will promote resettlement of the approx. 4 milliondescendants of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 Israeli War of independence who wallow in 59 UNRWA refugee camps under the illusion that they can be repatriated to villages from 1948 that no longer exist.

If the legislative bodies of the US, Norway, Canada and the EU (who provide most of the funding for UNRWA) would recommend a change in UNWRA’s policies to promote resettlement instead of the right of return, this would not only improve the lives of the descendants of Palestinian refugees, but would ultimately help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

As Elliot Abrams, former deputy National Security advisor to George W. Bush told me in an interview at the AIPAC conference in Washington, the situation of Palestinian refugees “is unique” in the world.

“Every other refugee group that has been created since the World War II period has been handled by the UNHCR [United Nations High Commission for Refugees]”, but the Palestinians only are dealt with through UNWRA. Pursuant to the UNHRC’s mandate refugees “have often been resettled” in other countries, rather than returning to their former homes. The goal is “resettlement and a solution” to the problem.

Abrams noted that the “every other refugee group [other than the Palestinian refugees] certainly from the World War II period has been resettled,”and the problem has been “solved.”

RAWABI ISN’T FOR PALESTINIAN REFUGEES

There has been much talk of the new Palestinian city of Rawabi that is being built near Ramallah. At the AIPAC conference, retired Brigadier General Eival Gilady (who was in charge of carrying out the unilateral disengagement form Gaza in 2005 under Ariel Sharon) noted that Rwabi is being designed for 30-40,000 people to help grow the Palestinian middle class. Gilady is the managing Director of Portland Trust, which promotes joint Israeli-Palestinian ventures in the West Bank.

But when David Bedein of the Centre for Near East Policy asked Gilady, whether any of the Palestinian refugees in UNWRA’s refugee camps would be able to buy a new home in Rawabi, Gilady answered flat out, “No, they won’t be able to afford it.” [As an aside Gilady also told me after the session that in his view there ought to be “no right of return” for Palestinian refugees at all in any future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians -(“zero,” he said). Any return of refugees for family re-unification or other reasons in his view “ought to be done outside of an agreement.”]

David Bedein adds to this report: When I asked a representative of Rawabi whether Palestinian refugees could buy a home in the proposed new city, I was told no, as they have “the right of return.”

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