Yourish.com

As I noted a few weeks ago and Elder of Ziyon did yesterday, Palestinian refugees have no legal status in Lebanon – or in any Arab country.

So when Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinians, went to Lebanon the other day, did he demand equal rights for his constituents. Well, no he didn’t.

“The status of Palestinian refugees will remain unchanged until a comprehensive, final solution is reached” with Israel, Abbas said after meeting Lebanese President Michel Sleiman in Beirut.
“We believe there is no alternative to peace but peace itself, and we will continue our political fight for peace,” he said in a news conference.
A statement released by Sleiman’s office said the two leaders rejected the naturalisation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, an issue that for years has prompted controversy in Lebanese political circles.

Abbas did not say “let my people go” or even “let my people citizens.” He said “keep my people dispossessed.” This isn’t the most stirring revolutionary message.

Or as Elder of Ziyon, put it, “Screw you.”

Generations have grown up in Lebanon, raised families, and died, but their supposed “leader” is more interested in them keeping their stateless status rather than giving them the simple choice of allowing them to be more integrated into the land of their birth.

Mahmoud Abbas, that supposedly moderate leader of the PA, the PLO and Fatah, who claims to represent millions of people of Palestinian Arab descent, has once again told his people to go screw themselves rather than give them the option of happiness as full citizens of other Arab lands. He arrogantly claims to know what is best for his people, and is dead-set against giving them the option of making their own decisions.

I’ve not read of any protests of Abbas’s callous disregard of his people. However, two years ago when he went to Annapolis to discuss peace with Israel, there were protests. Abbas, to many, was a traitor for daring to discuss peace with Israel.

In Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas Islamists who oppose the meeting, tens of thousands joined an anti-Annapolis rally chanting “Abbas is a traitor” and “Death to Israel, death to America.”

Speaking at the largest protest in Hamas-run Gaza, leaders of the Islamist group which seized the enclave from Abbas’s forces in June said the president had no right to make concessions to Israel at the U.S.-hosted conference.

“Let them go to a thousand conferences, we say in the name of the Palestinian people that we did not authorise anyone to sign any agreement that harms our rights,” Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas leader, told a cheering crowd.

So when Abbas attempts to make peace he is a traitor. When he keeps his people dispossessed he is, apparently, a hero. Such is the backwards nature of the Middle East, where perpetuating the status of refugees is the Arab goal.

Unfortunately the UNRWA, which is now celebrating “six decades of service and achievement” does its share to perpetuate the status of the refugees as Elder of Ziyon notes:

So UNRWA exaggerates the number of “refugees” in Lebanon by an astounding 60% – and begs money from world governments based on hugely inflated numbers.

The “service” the UNRWA provides is perpetuating its own mission. Working together with Palestinian leadership, the international community has helped perpetuate the Palestinian grievances for sixty years now.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Barry Rubin observes that American support for Israel is headed in a positive direction. Now for those who have an opinion the ratio of those who favor Israel over the Palestinians is now

Wait a minute, though. Pew says regarding the overall figure (51-12), “These numbers have changed little in recent years.” But that’s just flat wrong.

In fact, in 1990 the figures were 34 percent support for Israel and 13 percent for the Palestinians. So here’s the incredible story that Pew not only left out but denied:

Since 1990 backing for the Palestinians has remained the same low number, while sympathy for Israel has gone up from 34 to 51, a rise of 50 percent!

This is extraordinary.

The Jewish Virtual Library has been Gallup’s polling on Israel for quite a while. And Pew, in this release from 2006, shows its polls over a number of years. Both pollsters show a ratio that recently ranges between 3 and 4 to 1, favoring Israel. (Pew framed its results that Americans are out of touch with the rest of the world.) Note that Pew and Gallup have slightly different numbers and that Gallup’s numbers are more variable.

What would account for the recent surge in pro-Israel opinion? Prof Rubin answers:

Presumably, the public understands that Israel tried sincerely to make peace and was turned down by the other side; that radical Arab nationalism and militant Islamism hate America for lots more reasons than its support of Israel; an understanding about the origins of terrorism; a grasp of the threat from Iran (quite visible in other parts of the poll); and many other factors. In short, it is a victory for common sense.

It’s worth observing two things here.

1) Given that being pro-Israel is an American position – not specifically a Jewish one – it explains why J-Street insists on calling itself pro-Israel despite consistently taking anti-Israel positions: if it claimed to be anti-Israel, it would have an even smaller constituency than it has now. J-Street’s claims that it represents a significant portion of American public opinion is dubious.

2) Those who insist that America’s generally pro-Israel foreign policy is distorted by Jewish influence (h/t Omri on Twitter), are mistaken. America’s pro-Israel sentiment is not exclusively Jewish. It represents a wide consensus in America, except among self-identifying liberals.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

BBC profiles an Englishman who had been a POW during WWII, Denis Avey. Avey had been held in the POW camp adjoining Aushwitz and twice switched clothes – his uniform for an inmate’s rags – and places with a Jewish man in Aushwitz, Ernst Lobethall.

Lobethall survived Aushwitz, in part, because of his acquaintanceship with Avey.

He arranged for cigarettes, chocolate and a letter from Susana to be sent to him and smuggled them to his friend. Cigarettes were more valuable than gold in the camp and he hoped he would be able to trade them for favours to ease his plight – and he was right.

Mr Lobethall traded two packs of Players cigarettes in return for getting his shoes resoled. It helped save his life when thousands perished or were murdered on the notorious death marches out of the camps in winter in 1945.

Think about that. A pair of shoes saved his life! Lobethall moved to the States and, according to the article, lived a long life. Denis Avey is still alive and recently met Lobethall’s sister Susana, who had escaped to England before the war.

Quite an extraordinary man.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

In a mis-titled news story, Hezbollah strikes softer tone in second manifesto: analysts, AFP reports:

…Salem points out that the second manifesto, while softer in tone, nonetheless defends the party’s right to bear arms.
“It refers to the weapons as a fixture and not as a transitional phase followed by integration with the army,” he said. “And not all Lebanese will agree to that.”
Oussama Safa, who heads the Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies, says that while the manifesto sounds more “Lebanese” in tone, Hezbollah is unequivocal about its right to keep its arsenal.
“This manifesto clearly shows Hezbollah’s arms are not open to discussion,” he told AFP.

The “softer tone” in the title is misleading as it is very clear that Hezbollah has not softened its positions at all. And why should it have. While it may have been a mistake, Secretary of State Clinton effectively endorsed Hezbollah’s participation in the Lebanese government. Barry Rubin observed last week:

So here’s a wonderful example of what happens due to two seemingly small errors, shown during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appearance on the Charlie Rose interview show.

She stated:

“The Iranians not only worry us because of their nuclear program, they worry us because of their support for terrorism, their support for the military wing of Hezbollah, their support for Hamas, their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors, trying to destabilize gulf countries and other countries throughout the greater region.”

This was in the context of a relatively tough statement, right? But note two things: a tiny detail in the paragraph above and later on in this article (patience, please, it will be worth it) the explanation of U.S. policy she made immediately after.

Can you find the error? Ok, I’ll tell you: the words “military wing of Hezbollah.” This is a gimmick used by Hizballah [my transliteration] and Hamas, too, to fool people in the West. It is used by advocates of engagement with these radical Islamist terrorist groups in places like Britain.

Sure, they say, there is a military wing and a political wing. The latter is moderate or becoming so and thus you can negotiate with them separately. This is rubbish. There is no such differentiation except for normal administrative purposes. The same leadership and doctrine runs both.

So one could interpret this slip—and I do believe it was a slip—as a change in U.S. policy toward Hizballah. Don’t think so? Well, it happened.

The public manifestation of this came from Sami Moubayed, who may have the distinction of being the smartest of the Syrian intellectuals who serve as a flak for the regime. In an article, he wrote:

“Clinton’s statement on the Charlie Rose show came only 24 hours after Sa’ad Hariri had formed a cabinet of national unity [in Lebanon], which includes two members of Hezbollah. “Clinton was seemingly offering a life jacket to Hariri by saying that while the US frowns on the military wing of Hezbollah that engages in war, the political branch is acceptable.

“Never since the US declared Hezbollah a terrorist organization in 1999 has a senior U.S. official made such a groundbreaking statement about Hezbollah.

And if an inadvertent endorsement by the American Secretary of State wasn’t enough, David Schenker points out that Hezbollah will effectively have a seat on the UN Security Council.

The UNSC seat was the brainchild of Lebanon’s president Michel Suleiman, who used his 2008 UN General Assembly address and his side meetings during the 2009 gathering to press Lebanon’s candidacy. The notion of a seat on the council reportedly appealed to Suleiman, who prides himself on returning Lebanon to the “international political arena.”

Washington quietly opposed Lebanon’s candidacy. Senior administration officials were concerned about potential problems for the bilateral relationship that could arise from Lebanon’s voting decisions. While the pro-West March 14 coalition won the June 2009 elections, it was clear—even prior to the formation of the government in November—that Hezbollah and its local and international allies Syria and Iran would exert preponderant influence within the new government and the state’s foreign policy. Indeed, in the current government as with the previous one, Hezbollah—via its subsidiary Shiite party, Amal—controls the foreign ministry.

It’s not difficult to envision the kind of problems that will ensue. In the coming year, for example, it is all but assured that a resolution to implement “crippling sanctions” against Iran will come before the Security Council. Given Hezbollah’s influence—and the ever present threat of violence—the best Washington could hope for during a UNSC vote would be a Lebanese abstention. More likely, under pressure from Syria and Iran, Lebanon might vote against such a resolution.

Worse still, if history is any indication, Lebanon’s ambassador to the UN, Nawaf Salam—who himself is sympathetic to March 14—could be ordered to abstain or oppose Security Council resolutions in connection to UNSCRs 1701 and 1559, if not the Hariri tribunal, which Hezbollah and its allies do not support.

Members of the Arab/Muslim world often complain that the American veto on the Security Council unfairly shields Israel from the force of international law. Implicit in that criticism though, is that there are quite a few automatic votes against Israel. This is one more.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.