web analytics
September 16, 2014 / 21 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘refugees’

Netanyahu Says Illegal Infiltrators’ Protests Won’t Help Them

Monday, January 6th, 2014

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Likud’s Knesset caucus Monday that the protests by illegal African infiltrators “won’t help them [because] we are determine to deport them and all of those who succeeded to infiltrate.

Without referring directly to the United Nations, which has sharply criticized Israel for not accepting the infiltrators as “refugees,” Netanyahu said that Israel is taking care of those who truly are refugees but in other cases, “We are not talking about refugees. They are illegal infiltrators looking for work.”

With the United Nations and foreign leftists supporting their protests, thousands of African infiltrators took to the streets on the second consecutive day Monday to demonstrate against Israel’s policy to place then in administration detention centers for a year and deport them if they are not proven to be refugees.

One of their claims is that they want to return to their native countries but want their “basic rights” in Israel until they feel they can go back home. They basically are claiming they are “temporary” refugees.”

Although the United Nations, as usual, is targeting Israel, senior Likud Knesset Member Ofir Akunis, who is a deputy minister in the Prime Minister; office, told Channel 2 that the United States and European countries also do not recognize them as refugees.

Why These Negotiations Will Always Fail

Friday, January 3rd, 2014

Peace in the Middle East between Israel and its neighbors—including the Palestinians—is generally described as “elusive.” Why have forty years of active efforts not led to permanent peace in the region? Why 20 years after Oslo is there no great sign that peace stands ready to break out between the Palestinians and Israelis? The simple answer is that parties are negotiating on different planes that can never intersect.

Let’s analyze the ostensible goals of the parties to the current round of talks. The Israelis want peace and one can see why: lower regional threats, less military spending, greater regional cooperation, increased tourism revenue, export of Israeli technology, increased trade with Europe and more. What do the Palestinians get in the peace deal? They get less than half of the land they believe they deserve. They can look forward to a million or more Arab “refugees” showing up, expecting housing, food, work, and schools. They will be saddled with building an economy without natural resources or a strong technical ethos, while international donations will dry up (especially from Muslim countries, for the sin of recognizing a Jewish state). In short, the Israelis have much to gain from peace, while the Palestinian leaders who are running their side of the talks have much to lose.

Additionally, Israelis negotiate like Americans and Europeans: they try to cut a deal, but if it does not work, then they fall back to the present conditions. The Palestinians work in a different way: either they get what they want, or they pull out the terror card. Lawyers who reviewed signed confessions of Marwan Barghouti’s lieutenants found a singular pattern: if negotiations in the Arafat period were going well, then Tanzim and the like were told to lay low. If the Israelis were intransigent—on borders, refugees, or the like—then the order was given to attack. Negotiations cannot proceed when one side is willing to take a much greater liberty than the other side is willing to entertain. Picture if one football team had to respect the out-of-bound lines, while the other did not. The Israelis might walk away from talks, but they would not order the murder of Palestinian citizens, leftist propaganda aside. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are more than comfortable using attacks on Israeli citizens as a means to get what they want at the negotiating table—and this is a point that Americans and Europeans diplomats have never understood. They are convinced that everyone thinks like they do: peace is always good, and the rules of negotiations exclude violence between sides.

The reason for this failed understanding is cultural. Let’s look back at the Nazis, some of the greatest murderers ever. One notes that no German soldier was ever commanded to either kill or injure himself in order to gas, shoot, blow up, torch or otherwise kill a Jew. The Nazis were sadists and invented horrific ways to kill Jewish men, women and children; still, they would not have considered personal bodily harm or worse as being required to kill a Jew. The Palestinians, on the other hand, not only are active practitioners of suicide bombings, but polls still show that their citizenry supports such activities. We of a Western mind-frame find it impossible to consider such an act—whom do we hate so much that we would be willing to undertake such horrific activity? Are there any children or aged citizens of any country that we would hope to obliterate with flying shrapnel so as to somehow exact revenge on somebody else who has some tenuous relationship to the ones blown up? I have asked these questions to student groups visiting from the US; no one can answer in the affirmative.
This week marked another gratuitous prisoner release by Israel in the ersatz peace process.

These releases have generally been categorized as “confidence building measures.” Is there anyone who could define or identify any confidence built by releasing 26 murderers? The Palestinians partied with the released convicts and demanded the release of all Palestinian prisoners; Israelis felt anguish at the release and saw protests and complaints against the release of more murderers. What confidence was built by this act? None. The prisoner release is a bribe to the Palestinian leaders to continue with the worthless process of peace-making, so that they can show their base that they are getting something from the talks. The terrorists are free, the Palestinians only want more, and the Israeli leadership is put in the uncomfortable position of explaining why murderers walk free, with nothing to show for it. The Palestinians get their terrorists back, but the act has no tangible effect on the direction, good will or pace of the negotiations.

The current peace talks will enjoy the same fate as their predecessors; and ditto for any future talks. The talks will break down because even the most left-wing Israeli politician is not yet ready to commit national suicide to accommodate the minimal Palestinian demands on dividing Jerusalem, accepting indefensible borders, and welcoming anything more than some token refugees. The Palestinians will blame the Israelis, as will most of the international community. Israel will point the finger at an intransigent Palestinian Authority, and we’ll wait for the whole process to start again sometime in the future.

I would argue that the above analysis is pragmatic and not in the least pessimistic. The Palestinians have too much to lose by making peace and also play by rules not understood or appreciated by the likes of John Kerry or Catherine Ashton. The simple fact is that the Palestinian Authority today enjoys large contributions from international donors and avoids all responsibility for building a functional society designed to absorb four generations of self-made Palestinian “refugees” living in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and the like. Israel looks forward to a rosier future, one that would include peace; the Palestinian cannot see getting a better deal than they have in the present. And for that, negotiations will—again—go nowhere, however much John Kerry and his Israeli partners try to tell us otherwise.

Abbas Uses Syrian ‘Refugees’ as Pawns while They Die of Starvation

Wednesday, January 1st, 2014

Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the “steadfastness” of so-called “Palestinian refugees” in Syria in a televised speech but forget to mention his concern for them did not extend to helping those who are dying of starvation.

“Marking the 49th anniversary of the Palestinian Revolution … Abbas [said], “We negotiate to reach a fair solution to the refugees’ issue based on the UN Resolution 194 as stated in the Arab Peace Initiative,” the official Palestinian Authority WAFA website reported Wednesday.

“Abbas greeted the ‘steadfastness’ of the Palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon and the Diaspora,” it continued

The several million “refugees” living outside of Israel serve as the Arab world’s doomsday demographic weapon to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. If their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and great-great grandparents had come from any other country, the United Nations would not have designated them as refugees, the United Nations would have considered them to be ordinary citizens who have to get on in life. The international body reserves the “refugee” status for first-generation people who flee or are forced out of a country.

It makes an exception for Arabs from Israel. The approximately 700,000 Arabs, who left on their own free will, fled or were forced out in previous wars, have grown to more than 5 million.

They are under the jurisdiction of UNRWA (U.N. Relief and Works Agency) and almost without exception are denied citizenship in their host countries.

However, their ranks have dwindled lately. At least 15 died from starvation in war-torn Syria since September, the Beirut Daily Star reported recently. UNRWA spokesman Chris Guneess told the French news agency AFP that approximately 20,000 of them in the village of Yarmouk are suffering from limited medical and good supplies.”

On Saturday, WAFA reported that Abbas finally ordered the dispatch of immediate food supplies to the Yarmouk camp. Well, he least that is what said.

That was on December 28, 2013.

And what did Abbas do exactly a year ago in January 2013?

He turned down an Israeli offer to allow “refugees” fleeing Yarmouk to enter Judea and Samaria. Why? Because Israel insisted they could enter only if they gave up their “right of return” to whatever would be left of Israel if Abbas gets his Palestinian Authority state on his terms.

The same week, five of the “refugees” were killed in the civil war.

Abbas’ great concern for the refugees is that they serve their true purpose in his life – pawns to be moved into Tel Aviv, Tzfat (Safed), Tiberias and anywhere else where the Palestinian Authority would have no legal sovereignty under its ”two-state” solution, which is his interim phase towards a one-state solution to the Jewish problem.

Can Jews Set Up Detention Camps?

Tuesday, December 17th, 2013

Sudanese illegal migrants marching towards Jerusalem (they actually ended up in Beer Sheva) in protest of the new Holot (sands) detention camp, Monday, December 16.

The new anti-infiltration law that was passed in the Knesset a week ago permits residents of the camps—mostly Sudanese and Eritreans—to leave the site until 10 PM each day, provided that they show up for a head count three times a day.

It makes it tough for them to reach any urban center. So now some 250 illegals are refusing to return to the facility.

I don’t envy Israeli politicians and civil servants deposited with the task of managing the population of an estimated 50 to 80 thousand illegals, mostly from war torn East Africa. The connotations are obvious and disturbing. And yet, all these poor, neglected people have been dumped on Israel’s cities’ poorest neighborhoods, turning the lives of local residents into a living hell.

It’s a serious problem, it has to be resolved, and whatever Israel does to alleviate the problem will look and sound terrible. On account of the “camp” part in the term “detention camp.”

Photo credit: Tomer Neuberg/Flash90

Photo credit: Tomer Neuberg/Flash90

The marchers carried signs, no doubt prepared for them by Israeli NGO activists, with Biblical verses about our obligation to treat the foreigners well, because we, too, were foreigners in Egypt.

Of course, one of the conditions the Torah places on the foreigner is to observe the law. Illegal infiltration would probably disqualify them for the accepting treatment advised by the Torah.

Palestinian Authority Arabs Turn Their Anger on UNRWA

Wednesday, November 20th, 2013

Palestinian Authority Arabs on popular service committees in U.N.-run villages, commonly known as refugee camps, are shutting down UNRWA offices and programs  in northern Samaria Wednesday and Thursday in protest of “systematic reductions” in services for residents, the Bethlehem-based Ma’an News Agency reported.

Similar protests have occurred in Gaza where UNRWA is the dominant influence outside of the Hamas terrorist organization.

Palestinians Rebuff Jewish Refugees’ Outreach

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013

An offer to advocate for Palestinian refugee rights to cooperate with advocates for the rights of Jewish refugees was rejected at the Zochrot conference. 

The conference went ahead on the supposed site of an Arab village on the Tel Aviv university campus on 29 and 30 September, despite attempts to have it cancelled.  Levana Zamir, the president of the Association of Jews from Egypt in Israel, who made the offer to cooperate,  watched the conference develop into a nightmare – a sick and calculated blueprint for the annihilation of Israel. (One can only marvel at the irony that the bastion of anti-Zionism that is Tel Aviv university, whose staff and students so enthusiastically participated in the conference, should cooperate in their own destruction. )

The Zochrot conference website banner.

The Zochrot conference website banner.

Here is Levana’s report:

Levana Zamir

Levana Zamir

This international conference initiated by the Israeli NGO Zokhrot (meaning ‘we remember’),  titled “Realizing the Return of Palestinian Refugees” took place over two days in the Eretz Israel Museum in Ramat Aviv – located on the site of the former Arab village of  Sheikh Mouniss.

It was  a nightmare to me.  Janet Dallal, an Israeli friend from Iraq, was there with me. The other heads of organisations of Jews from Arab countries decided not to come and speak out – saying it would give the conference too much  publicity. Now I can say they were wrong.

The aim of this conference was not to argue whether the Palestinian refugees have a right of return, but the realization of it,  termed ‘decolonization’ by the conference including in parts of north Tel Aviv where small Arab villages were located before 1948.

The conference got off to a slow start, talking about doing justice to the dispossessed and stateless Palestinian refugees, and with a few good words from Leila Hilal, Director of the Middle East Task force of the New America Foundation – the main organisation financing this conference, beside other European organisations.

Leila Hilal said she was embarrassed to open the conference knowing that ‘the right of return’ issue was very delicate for most of Israelis: I liked her opening very much. But she continued saying it was about time to do justice to those politically-displaced refugees and put an end to their suffering. From time to time she talked of “compensation”.

Professor  Dan Rabinovitz of Tel Aviv University (where else?) gave his presentation, saying that the ‘right of return’ would be granted to refugees born in Palestine and are still alive – not to their descendants – i.e. 200, 000 refugees.  A  ‘right of return’ given by Israel to Jews only is discrimination, he said. He asked for recognition and for an apology. The Return would not always be to the original locations, but to alternatives.

After three more presentations about “reconciliation”, the Serbian refugee model, and the research findings of an Arab doctoral student from the UK on displaced Palestinians, it was easy for me at the Q&A to say my few words over the microphone and to ask my question.  I said:
“I came here to give you a hand, to ask you to continue your fight to get back your properties and compensation because I am myself a refugee, a Jewish refugee from Egypt. We were dispossessed of all our family properties, of our identity, then expelled. There are a million Jewish refugees like me from Arab lands – Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, etc.  So I propose to pool our efforts – Palestinian and Jewish refugees – to recover our properties, secure compensation, and not to accept the kizuz (cancelling out) proposed by Israel.

“My question to Leila Hilal was this: “as you represent the New America Foundation, dealing with refugees in the Middle East, would you agree to give us a hand, and deal with Jewish refugees too. Let’s do it together, hand in hand.”

Leila did not answer my question but asked the others to do so.  Prof. Dan Rabinovitz said that my request was absolutely right, but he was an expert on Palestinian refugees and dealt only with them. The doctoral student from the UK, Munir Nuseibah, said he would be ready to develop his research for both sides. But during the coffee break, when I asked him how he would like us to cooperate on his research, he said he could not cooperate. People around us heard his answer very clearly.

When Leila asked the Serbian expert to answer to another question about the success of the ‘right of return’ imposed on Serbia, she said that it was a very bad experience involving killing people, and it had to be stopped.

During the coffe break, the president and founder of Zokhrot, Eitan Bronstein (an Israeli), came to me and said he was ready to see how Zokhrot could cooperate with us to include the Jewish refugees in their themes and activities. At that moment I was really glad to be there, but Leila avoided me and disappeared. I will send her a short message.

Janet Dallal intervened during the afternoon sessions, reminding the audience (all of them leftists) of the existence of the second group of refugees, the Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries, and the role of the Arab League in all this.

The second and last part of the conference became a nightmare.

During the whole next day, the lecturers demonstrated what the Return would be like, geographically – through animated short clips – and practically.

For example, in North Tel Aviv, on Ibn-Gvirol Street and the corner of Arlozorof – a sophisticated Tel-Avivian neighbourhood where an Arab village called Soumayel was located – the ‘Israeli occupiers’ would have the right to decide to leave their homes or stay and pay the ‘Palestinian refugee owner’ the ‘market value’ of their house. Then the ‘Palestinian Refugee owner’ would decide between recovering ‘his’ house or taking the money, with all that entailed. The Israeli ‘occupiers’ could not pass their homes on as inheritance to their descendants, etc. etc.

The Palestinian refugee who did not wish to Return, would get all their rights as Israeli citizens (Bituah Leumi national insurance rights, etc). in the paradise of One state for Two Peoples.  There was never any talk of “two separate nation-states”.

Everything is already settled for the Return to Arab villages too. The speakers planned, for example, how the ‘new’ Arab village of Ladjoun, on the edge of the flourishing kibbutz Meggido in the North,  will look, and under which conditions two Arab buildings still located inside the kibbutz would be incorporated into the village.

All this seemed to me sick and destructive, so the second day I did  not attend the conference but watched via the On-line conference link on the Zokhrot Facebook page.

The conference continued in this vein. Some lecturers even said, “Zionism is a crime” and nobody objected, except one lady who said: ” please respect others’ beliefs”. That was the only moment when I wished I had been there to say that today the word “Zionism” has no meaning any more – because the State of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. We are Am Israel, living in Medinat Israel.

To sum up, I cannot believe this is happening to us, that Israelis could side with our enemies so as to annihilate the State of Israel. This conference came one step closer towards this annihilation. I would like to say to all those who were there, that the creation of the State of Israel after 2,000 years was a miracle, and that the people of Israel on its own land is neither invincible, nor should it be taken for granted.

Visit Point of No Return.

Abbas’ Fatah Party Decides to Draw PA Borders with Blood

Monday, September 30th, 2013

The Palestinian Authority has added a new definition to its revised dictionary, and “red line” now refers to “borders drawn in blood.”

While Israeli and Palestinian Authority negotiators are staging direct talks over a future PA state and under the thumb and eyes of the Obama administration, the Fatah movement that Abbas heads stated on Facebook last month, “My homeland taught me that it is the blood of Martyrs (Shahids) that draws the borders of the homeland.” So much for the Green Line.

The Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), which translated and posted the latest incitement, noted that there is an accompanying picture of a terrorist  – or maybe he is a “militant” or just an ordinary Arab man on the street – holding a rifle.

Nothing really has changed since the days of Yasser Arafat prancing around with a holster on his hip. Abbas wears a suit and tie and lets his political movement’s Facebook page talk “peace” in its own unique fashion.

The new definition of “red lines” follows other newly-defined terms in the Palestinian Authority dictionary.

“Peace Process” years ago became the term for “piece process,” whereby Israel loses peace piece by piece.

“Negotiations” means accepting all Palestinian Authority demands without compromise.

“Right of Return” means giving Arabs who never have lived in Israel the freedom to “return” where they never were.

This is based on the United Nations’ two-headed definition of “refugee,” a status that throughout the world applies to those who flee or are expelled from a country – except for Arabs who lived in Israel decades ago. The United Nations redefined” refugees” for them so that it includes their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great great-grandchildren ad nauseum

Another interesting term in the Palestinian Authority dictionary is “democracy.” That now means a PA chairman –Abbas – who nine years was elected for four years but who continues in power without a free vote.

Another facet of the Palestinian Authority’s newly defined democracy is that Arabs can live wherever they want in Israel, which it refuses to define as a Jewish state, but Jews cannot live anywhere in a future PA country.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/abbas-fatah-party-decides-to-draw-pa-borders-with-blood/2013/09/30/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: