After September Comes October

From BESA Center PerspectivesPaper No. 148, August 23, 2011 by Prof. Efraim Inbar*:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The decision to cut off negotiations with Israel and go to the UN in September to bid for state recognition is not going to bring the Palestinians closer to the establishment of a state. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution, totally ineffective in curing the dysfunctional Palestinian national movement. Israel, however, is united and strong enough to meet the challenge of Palestinian unilateralism.

Earlier this year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made the decision to cut off the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) negotiations with Israel and go to the UN in September to bid for state recognition. There, a US veto at the UN Security Council is expected, while at the UN General Assembly (GA), a large majority of its members are likely to endorse a motion recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.  

While such a resolution is not binding according to international law, its prospects have elicited negative reactions from Israel, the US and parts of the international community who deplore the Palestinian unilateral approach and fear the consequences of UN approval. Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, has even warned of an impending “diplomatic tsunami.”
These fears are greatly exaggerated. 

• ...the UN lacks legitimacy as it is a morally bankrupt institution that gives an equal voice to the worst aggressors and human rights offenders on the globe. It is unclear how a resolution by such a powerless institution could possibly make a dent in a century-old ethnic conflict in the Holy Land. 
• What can the UN actually do to implement the GA recommendations? ...

Unfortunately, GA resolutions cannot fix the Palestinian national movement, which is hopelessly fractured and dysfunctional... 

• Can the UN bring Gaza and the West Bank together to present reasonable interlocutors for Israeli negotiators?
• Can the UN mellow the Hamas lust to kill Jews and to eradicate Israel? 
• Can it cure the Palestinians of the shaheed death culture? 
• Is the UN in a position to infuse pragmatism into Palestinian political culture? The Palestinians still insist on the invented “right of return” for Palestinian refugees, which most of the world sees as an unrealistic demand and a huge obstacle to peace. The Palestinians are trying to rewrite history by denying Jewish history in Jerusalem. They are still not ready to concede that they lost the struggle over Jerusalem, a united capital city, which the Jews will adamantly defend. 

Israel is unquestionably stronger and time is on its side. Nevertheless, the Palestinians remain “bad losers,” not willing to make a pragmatic deal in order to achieve statehood.

The UN cannot deliver a state. It can neither change the facts on the ground, nor Palestinian behavior. The Palestinians had two historic opportunities to build a state, in 1948 and again in 1993, but both opportunities were squandered by failed leadership. Recently, we have observed somewhat more successful efforts at state building by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. While he is arguably the best thing that has happened to the Palestinians in their short history, his popularity among his people is quite low, indicating the dysfunctional character of Palestinian politics. The images of a blooming Ramallah, the fruits of Fayyad's efforts, are misleading.

Can the PA survive without begging for international support every few months? Can it survive cutting down its bloated and corrupt bureaucracy as a prerequisite for building a healthy economy? The much lauded US-trained Palestinian troops have yet to meet the real test in the main mission of state building – monopoly over use of force. The current abundance of illegal weapons poses an extraordinary domestic security challenge for a nascent state. Can these troops be trusted to fight a serious challenge from Hamas, or will we see them collapse just as an earlier version of US-trained troops did in Gaza?

Actually, regular Israeli military incursions against Hamas infrastructure in the West Bank keep the PA safe. Moreover, access to Israel’s labor market, money transfers, and many other services are critical to the PA's daily operations. Would statehood bring the same benefits?

The PA leadership realizes that their options vis-à-vis Israel are limited and that another terrorist campaign would turn out to be extremely destructive to the Palestinians. The power differential between a democratic, prosperous and militarily strong Israel and the corrupt, autocratic and fragmented Palestinians is only growing. Israel managed to "win" the first two Intifadas and can do so again. Now it is preparing for the Palestinians’ non-violent attempt to challenge the Israeli military, which may affect Israel’s image abroad and at home.

Actually, the Palestinian UN bid is an opportunity for Israeli unilateral measures such as annexation of the settlement blocs and the Jordan rift area – necessary for establishing a defensible border along the Jordan River. 

Furthermore, Israel can implement economic sanctions to exact a cost for the violation of the Oslo agreements, which left the decision on the nature of the Palestinian entity for final status talks.  

The main challenge to Israel, however, is not on the diplomatic front where it is doing better than its critics think. The Arab world is in the throes of a socio-political crisis hardly able to do anything but pay lip-service in support of a Palestinian state. Israel’s diplomats managed to prevent an international flotilla from breaking the Gaza naval siege. Israel was also successful in procuring international understanding for its demand to be recognized by the Palestinians as a Jewish state. Furthermore, Washington is solidly behind Jerusalem on most issues, and the strategic relationship is hardly affected by differences on peace negotiations.

What is at stake, however, is Israel’s social cohesion. A united Israel behind a government perceived as doing enough for securing peace will be able to sustain protracted conflict. Netanyahu’s stable government meets these requirements. So far, a huge number of Israelis strongly believe that the Palestinians are not ready to make the necessary concessions for peace. A UN resolution is unlikely to change public opinion in Israel, which regards the UN as incompetent and hostile. Finally, the upheaval in the Arab world reiterates a great need for caution and for insistence on defensible borders.

Unless there emerges a more pragmatic Palestinian leadership, the conflict will continue to simmer. In all probability, September 2011 will be followed by October and many other months without a Palestinian state in the offing.

*The author is Professor of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies.

A Palestinian State - The Day After

From International Analysts Network, 08 Aug 2011, by Mark Silverberg:
On Thursday, August 4th, Arab League foreign ministers and representatives from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon and Qatar announced that they would support the plan of the Palestinian Authority (PA) for collective recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly (UNGA). So what kind of state exactly would the UNGA be endorsing especially given that it has no power to do so without Security Council approval.....but we'll leave that legal issue aside for the moment, as well as the geo-political implications of a sovereign Palestinian state that will inevitably be controlled by radical Islamists. The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States defines a “state” as an entity with a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and a capacity to enter into relations with the other state - none of which the Palestinian state scheduled to be declared by the UNGA in September would possess. As Steven Rosen points out in Foreign Policy, this particular UN "state" would have two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers pursuing incompatible policies, a constitution whose central provisions are being violated by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold national elections, a population not entirely under its control (Gaza, originally considered to be part of the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Accords, is no longer part of the Ramallah-administered territory), questionable borders that would involve annexing territory under the control of another state (Israel), and no clear plan to resolve any of these conflicts. Political Consequences Assuming, however, that such a “state” is declared, both Israel and the United States have made it clear that unity talks between the PA and Hamas and the PA’s unilateral UN bid for statehood would have serious financial and political consequences. For Israel, sufficient grounds already exist to abrogate the Oslo Accords should it wish to do so (1). UNGA "recognition" would merely be additional icing on the cake. The PA's continuing violations have led to increased terrorism and diplomatic isolation, two costly wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and the disenfranchisement of Israel’s political center. Abrogating the Accords would not only terminate the basis upon which the PA itself was established and release Israel from cooperating with the Palestinians on numerous issues (most notably in the economic and security spheres), but would open the door to annexation and the extension of Israeli sovereignty over several major cities and towns on the West Bank which it currently controls in Area C - notably Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim and the Gush Etzion bloc. From a security perspective, should a Palestinian state be declared, and should the Accords be abrogated and Israeli security forces be withdrawn, Palestinian officials are well aware that Hamas (whose charter calls for jihad and genocide against Jews and Israel) is waiting in the wings for its opportunity to take over the West Bank, as it did in Gaza, and the Palestinians are not overly anxious to commit collective suicide through a third intifada that could quickly spiral out of control in favor of these Islamists - although Israel must prepare for that possibility. Economic Concerns Nor does the economic horizon appear to be any better if statehood is declared. Well over two hundred NGOs operate in the West Bank and Gaza, and 30% of the Palestinian GDP comes from foreign aid, making the Palestinians the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world. According to World Bank estimates, the PA received $525M in international aid in the first half of 2010, $1.4B in 2009 and $1.8B in 2008 making foreign aid the principal funding source for economic growth in the Palestinian territories. These billions of dollars in foreign aid would be jeopardized should the UNGA approve a Palestinian state outside the Oslo framework. Few states can claim to have failed before they are even declared, but the Palestinian Authority may be about to create one of them. Part of the problem the PA faces relates to the multitude of programs and services in Gaza and the West Bank provided by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the vast majority of whose funding is derived from foreign aid. UNRWA defines “refugees” much more broadly than any other NGO globally. Its broad definition includes not only those Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948 – then numbering about 750,000 - but their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren as well, who now number 4.8 million in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank. If foreign aid to UNRWA dries up because of the UN bid, the PA would be hard-pressed to pay for the vast educational, social, healthcare and relief services the agency now provides to its West Bank and Gaza “refugees” and this will have serious political consequences. Complicating these matters, the PA has also reached its borrowing limit. It carries a $585M deficit, is dependent on foreign aid to sustain its infrastructures, is the largest employer on the West Bank, and pays the salaries of approximately 150,000 civil servants and military personnel. During June and July, in a foretaste of what is to come, those salaries were cut in half (a decision later reversed when a general strike was threatened) and the prognosis looks even worse in the run up to September if they choose to proceed with their UN statehood initiative. Palestinian banks and the private sector have lent the PA more than $1B and they are loath to lend more. Reports from credible media sources have noted that some ministries have already lost electricity due to their inability to pay their bills. In July, the PA ordered a reduction in the price of bread, leading to bakery strikes, and September will bring additional bills for educational fees and school supplies. In some areas, garbage is said to be piling up in the streets. In a country of less than four million, the economic repercussions of a massive loss in foreign aid revenues would be staggering, not to mention the political fallout that would certainly follow in its wake. The U.S. Congress is also threatening to cut off aid should the PA reconcile with Hamas and move forward on its statehood initiative. In fiscal year 2011, U.S. foreign aid to the PA reached $550M, but that aid is now in jeopardy. On July 7th, the House passed a resolution opposing the statehood initiative by a 407-6 margin. House leaders followed up the resolution with a letter sent directly to PA President Mahmoud Abbas to “warn of the severe consequences” of continuing the UN initiative. As Jonathan Tobin writes in Commentary: "This initiative is rightly viewed by the Obama administration as a direct challenge to its leadership. The PA's tactics are sufficiently insulting to the U.S. that it may just motivate the administration to make good on threats to cut off American aid." In addition, 87% of Palestinian exports now go to Israel, making the Palestinian economy dependent on good relations with its neighbor – a relationship that is deteriorating by the day. Over and above this, one-seventh of the total Palestinian workforce (constituting one-quarter of the total Palestinian payroll) work in Israeli West Bank towns and cities, which the PA has, at least for now, sought to ban. Nor is the possible loss of Western foreign aid the PA’s only dilemma. Donations from the Arab world have plummeted. Its chief Arab benefactors (most notably Saudi Arabia) have failed to meet their own multi-billion dollar commitments to economic aid this year. Arab donors pledged $500M in 2008, 2009 and 2010 (of which only 7% was delivered) and increased it to $971M in 2011, but the year is more than half over and only $330M has been delivered. While Saudi Arabia did announce a $30M donation to the PA recently, that is far cry from the billions it promised. It is more concerned with shoring up its anti-Iran Sunni alliance with Jordan than pouring more funds into a dysfunctional Palestinian state that would be politically and economically problematic. The Saudis have therefore saved Jordan from bankruptcy and infused the country with an estimated $1B in July alone on the condition that Jordan accepts Saudi policies instead of bowing to Washington’s demands that are based on the delusion of a democratic Arab Spring. In this regional Sunni-Shiite power struggle between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the PA’s economic woes seem to have taken a back seat to Arab power politics, and the PA is becoming more trouble and costing more treasure than it’s worth. Compounding Palestinian concerns, a recent Palestinian Media Watch report just presented to the U.S. Congress documents that, in May 2011, the PA paid just over $5M in salaries to Palestinians in Israeli jails, including 5,500 convicted terrorists, many of whom have Israeli blood on their hands - not to mention the families of Palestinian "martyrs" after whom tournaments, summer camps and marketplaces have been named. As Herbert London notes in Hudson (NY): "It pays to be a terrorist. These monthly stipends are more than the average salary for a PA civil servant or military officer." Last year, the U.S. provided $225M to the general Palestinian operating budget from which these salaries continue to be paid. As this represents a flagrant violation of U.S. anti-terrorism laws, Congress is now reviewing its options, and PA actions in September, as well as its pending pact with Hamas may tip the scales in favor of those in Congress seeking to terminate foreign aid. And the U.S. Congress is not alone in its threat. Aid funds from Britain and the European Union are also being used for similar purposes, and it’s causing an uproar in the House of Commons. It was disclosed recently that the PA, which receives £86M of British aid a year, has authorized payments of almost £5M to the families of "martyrs", and another £3 million to the 5,500 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. According to the official Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, payments to the families of "martyrs" (the definition of which includes suicide bombers) totals 3.5% of the PA budget. And there is one final fear facing Palestinian leaders. Since 1998, more than $500M in judgments have been won against the PA by the families of victims of Palestinian attacks under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991. PA Prime Minister Fayyad has urged the U.S. administration to impose a presidential waiver that would protect the PA from having its bank accounts frozen in the United States to pay for these judgements, but that waiver depends very much on PA actions over the next thirty days. Daniel Greenfield summed it up well in FrontPageMagazine: “The Palestinian Authority can’t pay its own bills. It can’t even fund its own army, yet insists on having one. It can’t generate its own electricity (95% of the electricity on the West Bank and 75% in Gaza comes from Israel), provide its own water or even hold elections. If that’s not the definition of being unready for statehood – what is?” Finally, there is talk of a third Intifada breaking out following the UN vote in September. But it's important to note that the second Intifada (2000-2004) led to one of the deepest recessions the Palestinian economy has experienced in its short history and the memory lingers. According to the October 2004 World Bank Assessment, GDP per capita shrunk by thirty-five percent from its pre-Intifada numbers. After four years of conflict, the Report noted that average Palestinian incomes declined by more than a third, and one-quarter of the work force was unemployed with nearly half of Palestinians living below the poverty line. Palestinian leadership knows full well that it has much more to lose this time around, both economically and politically if it proceeds with the statehood plan and joins with Hamas. A No-Win Situation Taking everything into account, Abbas is in the midst of what Robert Satloff of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy terms "a self-generated diplomatic train wreck" at the UN. Abbas knows that the Islamic Middle East cannot tolerate the presence of even one acre of land under sovereign Judeo-Christian control. He recognizes that peace is the only way Israel can win, and peace is the only way the Arabs can lose. Accordingly, surrendering land for peace is not the issue; Israel must cease to exist. As late as July 13th, Fatah’s foreign relations boss Nabil Shaath gave an interview to a Lebanese television station in which he stated point blank that the PLO will never accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. With that in mind, for the past sixty-three years, Palestinian leaders have promised an absolute Palestinian “right of return” to Israel. Abbas knows he can’t make peace with Israel and negotiate a two-state solution that would recognize Israel’s legitimacy - no matter what the terms of the agreement or where the final borders might be drawn. That’s why the PA is unwilling to compromise on the issue of refugees; Israel as a Jewish state; or any future agreement that would constitute an end to the conflict. That’s why it has consistently chosen to avoid resuming talks without first demanding that Israel agree in advance to all its demands. But he also knows that he can’t afford to lose the massive financial aid pouring in from the U.S. and European Union without causing economic ruin for his embryonic state. Even PLO Council Member and former PA Information Minister Nabil Amr has expressed concern over the plan. Amr told the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper in an interview in late July that he was advising Abbas to reconsider the move. Given all this, the best Abbas can hope for is to upgrade Palestinian status at the UN from observer to non-member state on a par with the Vatican (2), but that is a far cry from the "state" he promised the ‘Palestinian street’, and anything short of statehood may well be viewed as a betrayal. If so, all the foreign aid in the world won't save him. ENDNOTES 1. Given that Arafat saw the Oslo Accords as part of his 1974 Phased Plan calling for the phased destruction of Israel, it is little wonder that the Accords have been honored more in their breach than in their observance. In violation of the Accords, the PA has failed to change the PLO Covenant by amending the clauses which call for the destruction of Israel (Article XXXII (9)). It has actively instigated rioting and taken few steps to halt armed attacks by PA police against Israeli forces. It has failed to confiscate illegal arms and disband terrorist militias like the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade thus enabling them to remain active (Article XIV, and Annex I, Articles II (1) and XI). It has failed to extradite suspected terrorists to Israel. It has conducted official activity in Jerusalem by maintaining headquarters, funding schools, paving roads and providing municipal services - all of which are prohibited under the Oslo Accords. It has recruited terrorists to serve in the Palestinian police. It has not protected Jewish holy sites from being desecrated. It has failed to revoke the death penalty for selling Arab lands to Jews. Its security forces have systematically utilized arbitrary arrests, detention and torture. It has signed a pact with Hamas - a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. It has conducted foreign relations by concluding economic and cultural agreements with other states which is specifically forbidden by the Accords (Article IX), and it has circumvented direct negotiations with Israel by seeking statehood from the UN on what are required to be final status talks with Israel. Each of these actions constitute a violation of the Oslo Accords. But the most flagrant violation continues to be its incitement to hatred of Jews and Israel in its school textbooks, public speeches, and its official media. An Arabic translation of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” can be found on the website of the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information. For almost two decades, Israelis have bristled at maps in Palestinian schoolbooks and documents that designate Israel as Palestine, Palestinian TV broadcasts of mosque leaders denigrating Jews, and statements by Palestinian leaders calling for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from any future Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem - for starters. In total, more than 600,000 Jews reside in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Any Israeli who would call for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel would be rightly branded as an extremist, but few in the West think it odd that the Palestinians' view of a two-state solution is to have one state with Jews and Arabs, and one Arab state from which all Jews have been expelled. All this is reinforced by the fact that Palestinian terrorists who carried out deadly attacks against Israeli civilians are widely regarded as “martyrs” in Palestinian society. CAMERA reminds us that Article 26 (2) of the  U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights implicitly condemns incitement to hatred and violence against other ethnic/religious groups in textbooks and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2003/37 (No. 4) condemns incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism, but the PA seems to be violating the Accords without consequence. 2. If the Palestinians can get a two-thirds majority in support of statehood in the General Assembly, they also could put forward a so-called Uniting for Peace resolution. This non-binding, advisory resolution could provide legal cover to nations wanting to treat Palestine as a state - for example, allowing sanctions and lawsuits against Israel to go forward. The Uniting for Peace option was first used to circumvent a Soviet veto in the Security Council against action during the Korean War, and it was employed during the 1980s to protect countries that sanctioned apartheid South Africa from being sued under international trade laws.

PA "peace partners" dream of erasing Jewish presence in Jerusalem

From PMW, 17 August 2011, by Itamar Marcus and NanJacques Zilberdik:

Official Palestinian Authority TV broadcast a documentary which stated that the PA plans to build an Arab residential area in place of the Western Wall Plaza in Jerusalem, "when they [Israelis] disappear from the picture, like a forgotten chapter in the pages of our city's history."

The Western Wall, a remnant of the Temple Mount, is Judaism's holiest and most important prayer site.

The PA TV documentary further rejected the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, referring to Jewish history as "their false history," while the Jews' praying at the Western Wall was called "sin and filth."

 

Click to view 

The following is the transcript of the excerpt of the PA TV documentary:

 "They [Israelis] know for certain that our [Palestinian] roots are deeper than their false history. We, from the balcony of our home, look out over [Islamic] holiness and on sin and filth (Jews' praying at Western Wall) in an area that used to have [Arab] people and homes. We are drawing our new maps. When they [Israelis] disappear from the picture, like a forgotten chapter in the pages of our city's history, we will build it anew (residential area). The Mughrabi Quarter will be built here (on the Western Wall Plaza)."

[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 10, 2011]

Legislators find it "disgraceful" and "ludicrous" that PA uses aid to pay terrorists

From PMW, 8 August 2011, by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik:

Last week, Palestinian Media Watch presented a report to members of US Congress documenting that the PA pays salaries to imprisoned terrorists from the general PA budget. In addition, the report showed that the PA actively honors terrorists who are serving life sentences for murder. Legislators in the US and Britain have responded that they find it "disgraceful" and "ludicrous" that their tax money is paying these salaries.

US Congressman Trent Franks:

"I cannot support sending millions of American taxpayer dollars to such an organization; especially when they are currently paying salaries to over 5,500 terrorists sitting in Israeli prison... No American funds to the West Bank were ever to be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit (or have committed) acts of terrorism. This disgraceful waste of taxpayer dollars is an affront to freedom and an insult to Israel, the most precious ally America has in the world." [FoxNews.com]

British MP Philip Davies:

"Tory MP Philip Davies said the payments were 'ludicrous'. He added: 'People think overseas aid is to try to alleviate terrible poverty in places where they can't afford to look after themselves. But it's being put to these kind of purposes. It would be bad enough at the best of times, but at a time when we have got no money, it is utterly inexcusable.'"

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations also released a statement by Richard B. Stone, Chairman, and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman:

"At a time when we are spending valuable resources to battle terrorism, the Palestinian Authority is using American and international aid to support convicted terrorists. Such a counterproductive policy undermines basic values and laws evaluating assistance from the U.S., and must be stopped if peace is to be pursued in the region."

Follow this link to read follow-up stories in Fox News, the Daily Mail, the Jerusalem Post and the Conference of Presidents' statement.

The PA denies Jewish history in Jerusalem

From PMW, 11 August 2011, by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik:

The Jewish Temple is "the alleged Temple"

Examples from April - July 2011

Earlier this week, on the Jewish day of mourning known as Tisha B'Av, which commemorates the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, the official PA daily denied the Temple's existence, referring to it as "the destruction of the alleged Temple" and "the so-called destruction."

For years, Palestinian Authority leaders have actively denied Jewish history both in ancient Judea/Israel and in Jerusalem in particular. Palestinian Media Watch has documented this ongoing PA policy of historical revisionism, which centers on the denial that a Jewish Temple ever existed in Jerusalem. PA political and religious leaders, officials, and even academics consistently refer to the Temple as "the alleged Temple." [Arabic: Al-Haikal Al-Maz'oom].

The Palestinian claims that the Temple never existed and that Jews have no history in the Land of Israel not only contradict Jewish sources, Christian sources, and the archeological record, but contradict the Quran as well. The Quran in Sura 17:2-7 mentions the "Children of Israel's" two periods of independence in the land and the destruction of both the First and the Second Temple: "...to enter the Temple even as they entered it for the first time, and to lay waste..."

The PA accuses Israel of forging a false Jewish history in the land while at the same time stealing Palestinian history, culture, and heritage. The Palestinians refer to these actions as "Judaization." The main target of this "Judaization" is the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which Israel purportedly conspires to destroy in order to build the Jewish Temple.

Advisor to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmad Al-Ruweidi, recently denied the existence of the Temple while commenting on an Israeli excavation of a tunnel:

"I personally visited the entrance to this tunnel, and it is clear that they [the Israelis] have built it modeled on the alleged Temple, as a basis for transferring the Temple in the future into the Al-Aqsa Mosque."

Follow the link for examples from the PMW archives from April to July 2011. The examples are arranged in two categories: PA leaders refer to the Jewish Temple as "the alleged temple" and PA denial of Jewish history in the land and accusations of heritage theft.

PA continues to honor "Martyrs" and not worry about donors' grants

From PMW Bulletin, 31 July 2011, by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik:

Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas' advisor, Sabri Saidam, recently defended the PA's honoring of Palestinian "Martyrs" by naming streets after them and marking their birthdays. Palestinian Media Watch has reported on the PA policy of turning terrorists into role models by naming events and places after them. Abbas' advisor said Palestinians should continue this practice and not be concerned about the condemnation from foreign countries or the possibility that countries who support the PA financially will cut funding:

"Blessings to the souls of our Shahids (Martyrs), whom we will not forget - not for the sake of a grant, not for the sake of a deal..."

Earlier this year, Saidam expressed strong support for naming a square after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi whose bus hijacking killed 37 Israeli civilians in 1978. The official PA daily reported that he "emphasized that the anniversary of Dalal's Martyrdom-seeking (i.e., her terror attack) should be made greater by inaugurating a [city] square in her name." Following a popular inauguration of the "Martyr Dalal Mughrabi Square," Saidam told Agence France-Presse:

"Every one of us has tried in his own way to express his pride in this Shahida [Martyr Dalal Mughrabi]."

In the recent article he wrote in the official PA daily, he also expressed sorrow over the fact that some Palestinians view the Martyrs "as a burden" and do not wish to commemorate them out of fear of evoking international condemnation:

"How it pains me to see people who view our Shahids (Martyrs) as a burden because the donors will be angry and some countries will complain, or because economic and everyday interests will be harmed... Blessings to the souls of our Shahids, whom we will not forget - not for the sake of a grant, not for the sake of a deal, and not for the sake of a position."

Saidam lamented that Palestinian youth don't know the names of past leaders, and mentioned three Fatah leaders from the 1960s: Abu Ali Iyad, Abd Al-Fatah Hamoud, Ahmad Al-Shuqeiri. Abu Ali Iyad was appointed head of Fatah military operations in 1966, and was responsible for several terror attacks. Abd Al-Fatah Hamoud was one of the founding members of Fatah and Ahmad Al-Shuqeiri was the first chairman of the PLO.

When Palestinian Media Watch publicized the PA's plans to inaugurate a square named after Mughrabi in 2010, international disapproval and criticism forced the PA to cancel the inauguration. However, Fatah went ahead and held informal inaugurations in 2010 and 2011.

As documented by Palestinian Media Watch, the PA has named numerous places and events after Dalal Mughrabi....

The West Bank is disputed, not "occupied"

From YouTube, on Jul 12, 2011, by DannyAyalon:

In this 3-minute video, Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains where the terms "West Bank", "occupied territories" and "67 Borders" originated and how they are incorrectly used.

Also see the excerpts from previous JIW postings below for further information (click on the title to go to the full posting, where you will find links to the original source material).

The Mandate for Palestine

…The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000- square-miles area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries, and became operational on September 29, 1923.

...On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form…

...The “Mandate for Palestine” is Valid to This Day
The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.

This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal.

The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the meaning and validity of Article 80 in three separate cases...July 11, 1950...June 21, 1971...[and] July 9, 2004...neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law.

Obama Ignores International Law  

Israel Has the Better Title to the Territory of What Was Palestine, Including the Whole of Jerusalem
International law makes it clear: All of Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.
Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:
"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

"... as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."
"No legal Right Shall Spring from a Wrong"
Professor Schwebel explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" must be read together with other principles:

"... namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, cannot and should not be rewarded.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:

"Territorial Rights Under International Law.... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."

Thus, under international law Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right to self-defence when it redeemed and legally reoccupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.

Legalities aside, before 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and for the first ten years of so-called occupation there were almost no Jewish settlers in the West Bank. And still there was no peace with the Palestinians. The notion that Jewish communities pose an obstacle to peace is a red herring designed to blame Israel for lack of progress in the 'Peace Process' and enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish state.

"Occupation" and "Settlements"  

"Occupation" and "Settlements" have … become the buzzwords by which to denote, to decry and defame Israel's control of the territories across the 1967 armistices lines. This prevailing custom is wildly at odds with the realities that forced Israel to seize these territories in an unequivocal act of self defense against threats of annihilation, in classic preemptive exercise of the right of "anticipatory self defense."

A 2003 article "Jus ad Bellum: Law Regulating Resort to Force", published by the American Bar Association, sets out the rather stringent conditions for the legitimate exercise of "anticipatory self defense." It stipulates that the necessity for action must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." It goes on to quote a "recent edition of a leading treatise [which] states that [anticipatory] self-defense may justify use of force under the following conditions: an attack is immediately threatened; there is an urgent necessity for defensive action; there is no practicable alternative, particularly when another state or authority that legally could stop or prevent the infringement does not or cannot do so..."

There is clearly not doubt that these conditions were met in June 1967.

The declarations of Arab leaders, before Israel held a square inch of territory now claimed to be "occupied," show irrefutably that "an attack was immediately threatened" and that there was indeed "an urgent necessity for defensive action." Furthermore, there was clearly no practicable alternative, particularly when another state or authority that legally could stop or prevent the infringement did not do so..." (since the UN had, at Cairo's behest, removed its troops from the Israeli-Egyptian border; and the United States and other maritime powers refused to remove Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and to honor their commitments to allow Israel the right of navigation in the Red Sea.)

On March 8th 1965, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser proclaimed: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

On May 18, 1967 the Cairo-based radio station Voice of the Arabs blared stridently: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. .... The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

Two days later, on May 20, 1967, Gen. Hafez al-Assad, Syria's Minister of Defense, and later President, boasted: "Our forces are now entirely ready....to initiate the act of liberation itself and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland....the time has come to enter a battle of annihilation."

On May 27, Nasser declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

And four days before the outbreak of war, on June 1, 1967, Iraqi President Abdul Rahman Ali (later killed by Saddam Hussein) threatened: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map."

Therefore, it was not Israeli aggression but unequivocal Arab aggression that led to the events which precipitated Israel's takeover of territories across the 1967 frontiers, an act of clearly legitimate anticipatory preemption of that aggression….

Palestine - 'Occupation Incorporated'

From Sky News, July 18, 2011, by Tim Marshall:

...The Palestinian Authority likes to boast about the West Bank' s 8% economic growth...

What they fail to remind us is that there are well over 200 NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza, and 30% of the GDP here comes from international aid. Palestinians are among the most foreign aid funded people in the world and the place is awash with money.

This underlying economic problem is further complicated by the fact that UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees stipulates that not only are the Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948 refugees, but so are their sons and daughters grandsons and granddaughters, great grandsons and granddaughters and so on into the future. In Palestine many people are born refugees. There are people who have a vested interest in this continuing. In 1950 there were 750,000 Palestinians in the Middle East, now there are 4.8 million. UNWRA is considered a 'temporary agency'.

...The billions that pour in here mean the Palestinian Authority does not need to try very hard to deliver the services expected by voters, it also stifles the private sector, inflates wages and causes an internal 'brain drain'.

The restaurant I went to in Ramallah had a line of expensive cars outside and ranks of NGO workers picking their way through an expensive menu inside. The NGOs do fine work alleviating suffering, helping projects with expertise etc, but they also recruit the best of the local talent and take advantage of their charitable status to get tax breaks.

No Palestinian business can compete with NGOs which routinely triple what a local firm would pay. Many NGOs fork out 'danger money' and even 'hardship payments' to both local and international staff which further undermines the local private businesses. So the NGOs get the brightest and the highest paid, and the private firms get the rest but without the tax exemptions.

“Palestine is the best-kept secret in the aid industry,” a medical NGO worker recently told This Week In Palestine, “People need field experience and Palestine sounds cool and dangerous because it can be described as a war zone, but in reality it’s quite safe and has all the comforts that internationals want'

... Palestine remains a friendly place, welcoming, hospitable, full of air con, hi-fi, wi-fi and wine. Journalists also take advantage of this state of affairs, writing of the poverty and suffering of Gaza for example, before retiring to very expensive sea front hotels after an excellent dinner in one of the expensive fish restaurants.

This is not to argue that NGOs are not required, many are, but they distort the situation and fundamentally the Palestinians cannot have properly functioning businesses, nor be fully independent until their leaders are partially weaned off their addiction to other peoples money.