RUTHFULLY YOURS

Under the regimes of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, Palestinians are free to criticize Israel and incite against it. But when it comes to criticizing the leaders of the PA and Hamas, the rules of the game are different. Such criticism is considered a “crime” and those responsible often find themselves behind bars or subjected to other forms of punishment.

This, of course, is not what the majority of Palestinians were expecting from their leaders. After the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the PA more than 20 years ago, Palestinians were hoping to see democracy and freedom of speech. However, the PA has proven to be not much different than most of the Arab dictatorships, where democracy and freedom of expression and the media are non-existent.

Given the current state of the Palestinians, it is hard to see how they could ever make any progress towards establishing a successful state with law and order and respect for public freedoms and democracy.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip may be at war with each other, but the two rival parties seem to be in agreement over one issue: silencing and intimidating their critics. Of course, this does not come as a surprise to those who are familiar with the undemocratic nature of the PA and Hamas.

Under the regimes of the PA and Hamas, Palestinians are free to criticize Israel and incite against it. But when it comes to criticizing the leaders of the PA and Hamas, the rules of the game are different. Such criticism is considered a “crime” and those responsible often find themselves behind bars or subjected to other forms of punishment.

This, of course, is not what the majority of Palestinians were expecting from their leaders. After the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the PA more than 20 years ago, Palestinians were hoping to see democracy and freedom of speech. However, the PA, first under Yasser Arafat and later under Mahmoud Abbas, has proven to be not much different than most of the Arab dictatorships, where democracy and freedom of expression and the media are non-existent.

On Thursday, Bloomberg quoted a Palestinian Authority official saying that PA President Mahmoud Abbas is willing to forgo his usual preconditions for negotiations with Israel — such as a freeze on all settlement construction — in order to give the administration in Washington “a chance to deliver.”

In addition, according to the report, Mohammad Mustafa, Abbas’ senior economic adviser and former deputy prime minister said that the Palestinian leader will “tone down his campaign to prosecute Israel for alleged war crimes and to rally condemnation of the Jewish state at the United Nations.”

This claim came mere days after Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian Football Association and Olympic committee, declared in an interview on Israel’s Channel 2 that the Western Wall in Jerusalem “must be under Israeli sovereignty, but the Temple Mount is ours.”

Rajoub proceeded to praise U.S. President Donald Trump for his “clear intentions for an ultimate deal to end the suffering of both peoples.”

Neither Mustafa nor Rajoub was telling the truth, of course. Rajoub even issued a firm denial in Arabic the day after the interview. But the relatively mild rhetoric used by each was highly significant, as it was the direct result of a tongue-lashing that Trump gave Abbas less than three weeks ago in Bethlehem, for being deceitful about his role in incitement to violence.

Buoyed by the warmth with which he had been greeted at the White House on May 3, and familiar with the previous American administration’s continual appeasement, Abbas was stunned by the reprimand.

Although Trump should have been informed by his advisers that Abbas is and always has been a bald-faced liar — professing to seek statehood and peace, while funding and glorifying terrorists and infusing hatred for Israel and the Jews into the PA education system and media — he was apparently taken aback when shown very recent concrete examples.

Trump’s surprise at something so self-evident was disconcerting, particularly in light of his faith in his ability to facilitate a deal between Israel and the PA, and his backtracking on his promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. His response to being manipulated by the aging despot, however, was heartening.

In a global context, Trump’s dressing down of Abbas constituted a welcome shift in the attitude of the administration in Washington to its place among nations. One shudders to remember, for instance, that former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry allowed Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to browbeat him shamelessly and with impunity during the negotiations that led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers signed in July 2015.

On her last day in Israel, Haley visited Yad Vashem and stated:”We must always choose sides.” Her admiration and affection for Israel were palpable. What a lovely ambassador we have in the UN….rsk
US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley spent Thursday, her second day in Israel, touring the country by helicopter from north to south, accompanied by IDF brass and her Israeli colleague Danny Danon, who briefed her on the state’s vast security challenges.

Haley began the day by visiting Bethlehem and an UNRWA school in the Aida refugee camp.She posted a photograph of herself with Palestinian women stating that she had the “chance to talk with girls and women about their lives, their hopes and their dreams.”

Accompanied by Danon and Deputy Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, she then flew by helicopter to the border with the Gaza Strip.While they were in the air, Danon told Haley that “Hamas pours its resources into arms and digging murderous terror tunnels instead of investing in a better future for the residents of Gaza. They educate their youth to hate Israel instead of providing them with the opportunity to grow and flourish.”

Noting that Haley met the family of slain soldier Hadar Goldin at the UN in February, Danon said that “Hamas is displaying appalling cruelty by holding the bodies of Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul hostage in Gaza. We greatly appreciate America’s assistance with our efforts to ensure that they are returned home for a proper burial.”

She toured the Kerem Shalom crossing, which is the sole passageway between Israel and Gaza for commercial goods, and was joined there by the UN’s Mideast envoy Nikolay Mladenov. Haley, along with Mladenov, inspected the opening of a concrete attack tunnel uncovered by the IDF.

Her visit was closed to the media, but the US Embassy posted a short video of the trip, including shots of Haley standing in the tunnel Hamas had dug from Gaza into Israel.

In Kibbutz Nahal Oz, she spoke with residents about their experience of living under fire from Gaza, asking mothers there how it is to live in the shadows of the missiles. In 2014, Daniel Tregerman, four, was killed by mortar fire there. One boy told her, “The children of Nahal Oz thank you. Have a nice day in Israel.”

The American diplomat then flew north, first for security briefings along the Lebanese border. She visited Kibbutz Misgav Am, received a security briefing, met with UNIFIL head Maj.-Gen. Michael Beary, and spoke to female IDF soldiers responsible for monitoring developments directly across the border.

From there she went to the Golan Heights, where she was shown an IDF field hospital treating wounded from the Syrian civil war.

Danon said that the jam-packed day was effective in showing her the challenges posed by Hamas and Hezbollah.

Haley is scheduled on Friday, her last full day in the country, to visit Yad Vashem, meet Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman, and tour Tel Aviv.

At this time 50 years ago, Israel was fighting the Six Day War and conquering territories. Since then it has returned the Sinai to Egypt, withdrawn from Gaza, retained control of the Golan Heights, and created a self-governing Palestinian entity in part of the West Bank while retaining overall security control there.

This 50-year anniversary has seen a flood of statements lauding or lamenting the Six Day War and its outcomes for Israel. Statements of the former kind emphasize that the war gave Israel defensible borders, a close alliance with the United States (by showing that Israel was a regional power), and, eventually, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

Among the best in this vein were op-eds by Michael Oren and Bret Stephens.

Statements of the latter kind bemoan Israel’s “occupation” of the Palestinians and describe it as a disaster that has to end — fast. And UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres offers some of the most egregious remarks in this vein.

“This occupation,” Guterres writes:

… has imposed a heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people. Among them are generation after generation of Palestinians who have been compelled to grow up and live in ever more crowded refugee camps, many in abject poverty, and with little or no prospect of a better life for their children.

Further, he writes:

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remove a driver of violent extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and open the doors to cooperation, security, prosperity and human rights for all.

Let’s start with Guterres’ first claim about the alleged misery of Palestinian life since Israel took over the territory.

A few days before Guterres posted his statement, popular Israeli columnist Ben-Dror Yemini published a piece called “The truth about the occupation.” Yemini is not a right-winger; he wants Israel to eventually withdraw from most of the West Bank and separate from the Palestinians. But he also wants the discourse to be based on truth and not propaganda.

Yemini looks at some key elements of Palestinian life and compares the situations before and after the “Israeli occupation” (I use the scare quotes because Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and — except for anti-terror operations — Area A of the West Bank):

Education: Before the Six Day War in 1967, there was not a single university in the West Bank (under Jordanian rule) and Gaza (under Egyptian rule). “Today, there are more than 50 higher education institutions in the territories.”

This apparent repudiation of terrorism is a startling development for Abbas. The only catch is that when it comes to Israel, Abbas takes quite the opposite line.

For the past two years, Palestinians have been waging a new type of “intifada” against Israel — one that consists of knife and car-ramming attacks, similar to the ones carried out in Britain, France and Germany. This wave of attacks, which began in September 2015, has claimed the lives of 49 people and injured more than 700. Since then, Palestinians have carried out more than 177 stabbings, 144 shootings and 58 vehicular attacks.

Adding to the hypocrisy, Abbas and his PA leadership often point an accusing finger at Israel for killing the terrorists. Instead of condemning the perpetrators, Abbas and the Palestinians regularly accuse Israel of carrying out “extra-judicial killings” of the terrorists. In other words, Palestinian leaders save their condemnation for Israeli soldiers and policemen for defending themselves and firing at those who come to stab them with knives and axes or try to run them over with their cars. How would the British or French governments react if someone condemned them for killing the terrorists on the streets of Paris and London?

Who says that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas does not condemn terror attacks against civilians?

As it turns out, he and his Palestinian Authority (PA) do indeed condemn terrorism — when it is directed against anyone but an Israeli. Israeli blood, it seems, is different.

Abbas led the international outcry after the June 3 London Bridge terror attack that left seven people dead and 48 injured.

A brief statement issued by Abbas’s office read:

“The President of the State of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, on Sunday condemned the terror attack in the British capital of London. His Excellency (Abbas) offered his deep condolences to Britain – its queen, government and people, and to the families of the victims of the terror assault. He affirmed his permanent rejection of all forms of terrorism.”

This statement is in line with others Abbas has made recently. Just two weeks ago, Abbas, during a joint press conference with visiting U.S. President Donald Trump in Bethlehem, condemned the May 23 terror attack in the British city of Manchester, the deadliest attack in the United Kingdom since July 7, 2005, in which 23 people were killed and 119 were injured, 23 critically.

Abbas described the terror attack as a “heinous crime” and said that the Palestinians were prepared to work with the U.S. as “partners in the war on terrorism in our region and the world.”

Two days later, Abbas was among the first leaders to condemn a terror attack that killed 28 Coptic Christians in central Egypt. Once again, Abbas said that he and the Palestinians stood with Egypt and its president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, in the war against terrorism.

This verbal charade has been going on for some time.

Last April, Abbas was quick to condemn the terrorist attack that took place on the Saint Petersburg Metro, in Russia, in which 15 people were killed and 45 injured. Abbas, in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that he and the Palestinians support Russia in its war against terrorism.

Abbas also ran to condemn the wave of terrorist attacks that has hit Belgium, France and Germany in the past two years. This apparent repudiation of terrorism is a startling development for Abbas. The only catch is that when it comes to Israel, Abbas takes quite the opposite line.

For the past two years, Palestinians have been waging a new type of “intifada” against Israel — one that consists of knife and car-ramming attacks, similar to the ones carried out in Britain, France and Germany. This wave of attacks, which began in September 2015, has claimed the lives of 49 people and injured more than 700. Since then, Palestinians have carried out more than 177 stabbings, 144 shootings and 58 vehicular attacks.

This wave of terrorism is the direct result of incitement by various Palestinian groups and leaders, including Abbas himself.

Wafa al-Biss is only one among hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians who have tried to smuggle guns, knives, suicide vests and bombs into Israel. Should anyone be surprised if Israel uses checkpoints and other security measures to save Jewish, Christian and Muslim lives?

In the wave of terror that has continued for the past eighteen months, Palestinians, including children, have used knives, scissors, and machetes to stab Jews, and cars to ram and kill pedestrians or police. Palestinians also suffer from the security this demands, by having to wait in queues at checkpoints or searches. That is regrettable, but hardly a reason to condemn Israel.

The Palestinian narrative and the wider Arab and Muslim demand that Israel must be wiped out is not a Christian narrative. It is an Islamic narrative.

A few days ago, some friends in Australia alerted me to a blog post written by former Bishop George Browning, who had been the 9th Anglican bishop of Canberra and Goulburn. Entitled, “Capitalism, Anti-Semitism & the Judaeo-Christian Ethic” (5 May 2017), this was an anti-Israel rant of biased and profoundly inaccurate misdirection, mixing outright lies with exaggerations. Towards the end, Browning denies that his article is anti-Semitic (“… rather than this critique being anti-Semitic, I believe it to be…”). Is he aware of the leading modern definition of anti-Semitism written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and recognized by some 32 countries? This definition, like others before it such as the European EUMC and US State Department definitions, includes several clauses that identify unfair, incorrect and biased criticism of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, or setting double standards for it, that are anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, Browning’s article, as shall be seen, falls without reserve into that definition. It is hard to understand how a man of his intelligence and personal involvement in Israeli-Palestinian matters should not know of or respect the IHRA definition. In order to make this clear, here are two clauses from the IHRA definition:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Now, let me turn to several statements made by Browning.

“Universal justice appears to have become an unwelcome stranger in the land of Israel. Zionism’s compulsive identification with land, has replaced justice as its core value.”

What on earth can he mean? People all round the world have high regard for their land, and over centuries have fought and died for it. Patriotism is a common position for the Irish, the Scottish, the English, the Americans, the French, the Italians, the Tibetans, and hundreds more. The Palestinians, to whom Browning is intensely loyal — he is, after all, President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network — talk about little else but their right to the land and their love for it. But in Browning’s mind, Jewish love of their ancestral land, a place to which Jews prayed to return for more than two millennia, supposedly overturns the ancient Jewish love for justice in a way other nations’ love for their land does not. That is anti-Semitism.

Just after this he writes:

“The having, holding and conquering of land has seemingly become the arbiter of nationhood…”

Does Browning know so little about history? Jews did not conquer the modern land of Israel: they have lived on that land for three thousand years; and were officially given it first through the League of Nations Mandate system, then the United Nations Partition resolution, both reinforced by UN resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), all internationally-recognized and binding agreements.

In 1947, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the offer of a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state, and in 1948, five Arab countries launched an offensive war to drive the Jews out. Although this war failed, the Palestinians lost Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan, but few Palestinian Arabs complained. In 1967, Israel, fighting another defensive war, forced Egypt and Jordan out, but later made peace treaties with both countries, and in 2005 moved out of Gaza completely. Settlements within the West Bank, (originally the Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria) are legal under international law despite claims to the contrary, and all borders will be negotiated when and if the Palestinian leadership agrees to a peaceful resolution. Such offers that have been made in 1947, 1967, 2000, 2001, and 2008, but turned down every time by the Palestinians and their Arab allies.