(December 29, 2020 / JNS) Dedicated to the late Saeb Erekat, who declared: “I am the son of the Natufians. … I have been there [in Jericho] 5,500 years before Yehoshua Bin-Nun.”
In the artificially conceived world of the imagined “Palestine,” there is an alternative constructed history—the result of an ideological creationism I will term “Palestinianism.” This flies in the face of all known history and the known evidence—literary, archaeological or otherwise recorded—is denied, then altered, and finally, repackaged. Moreover, when events cannot be denied, a totally obverted version of the occurrence and why it happened is then presented, as when the Palestinian Authority tweeted out this Christmas in direct denial to what is recorded in the book of Matthew: “Merry Christmas from the birthplace and land of the son of Palestine Jesus Christ.”
The Christian Scriptures has it that his birthplace was the province of Judaea in the town of Bethlehem in the Land of Israel. Why would the P.A. leadership presume they could be so blatant in their propaganda messaging?
Moreover, the truth is a total disconnect from this effort by proponents of Palestinianism. Faced with simple and plain proof that what is being purported is not factual, a vigorous campaign of maligning and deprecation will take place. I would suggest, too, that the only reason any of the claims put forward by this Palestinianism are accepted is a latent anti-Jewish emotional approach to Judaism, Jewish national identity and its political framework: Zionism. Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
In this imaginary Palestine, Nov. 29—the day the Arabs of Mandate Palestine, the geopolitical entity that originally was to become the reconstituted Jewish National Home, rejected a partition that further stole more of the Jews’ historic homeland and inaugurated an intra-communal war—becomes the International Day of Solidarity for a “Palestinian people.”
In Jerusalem—the city the Jews have considered their capital for 3,000 years and wherein they worshipped at two temples, a city where archaeological artifacts proving that connections are discovered year after year—Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, an imam of Al-Aqsa, can say, “It is our duty to clarify our strategic position, that Al-Aqsa is for Muslims alone, and the Jews have nothing to do with it.” Jews who enter the compound are “intruders … aggressor[s].” There is a Temple denial effort.
As part of their political self-imagination, they promote, as American-born Israeli writer David Hazony has noted, an “aspirational sovereignty.”
They quote UNSC 242 from November 1967, but neglect to mention that neither “Palestine” nor “Palestinians” is mentioned in the text. The resolution calls for peace that will allow “every state in the area [to] live in security,” yet no Palestine state existed then or ever in history. Moreover, it allows for “the establishment of demilitarized zones.” Could that apply to administrating Judea and Samaria, legally?
P.A. spokespersons and their supporters whip up charges of Israel as an “apartheid state.” The reality, however, is that if there is any genuine separation in place, it is that which disallows Jews to worship at their holiest site, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. P.A. law denies Israelis the right to purchase property in its territory.
Another imaginary charge is that of ethnic cleansing. When the war the Arabs launched—one of aggression in violation of U.N. decisions—ended in 1949, there were no Jews left in Jerusalem’s Old City, its neighborhoods of Shimon HaTzaddik, Nahlat Shimon, and its environs of Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, the Gush Etzion Bloc’s four kibbutzim and the Dead Sea kibbutz of Bet HaAravah. Between the years 1920-1947, Jews had been ethnically cleansed by the Mufti’s terrorist gangs from Hebron, Bethlehem, Shechem, Gaza and other locations as the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Sham’a and Shiloach.
Palestinianism is a project of national and cultural identity theft, determined to rob Jews of our history, our religious essence and our rights. That is the first blow we suffer from Arabs projecting themselves as Palestinians. Engaging in such deceit should undermine their own claims, their moral justification and their ability to make gains although too many diplomats, intellectuals, media people and politicians are willing to let them get away with it all. And that is the second blow. Even the outright anti-Semitism of the P.A. is ignored.
Even the P.A. is an imagined government. Hamas rules in the Gaza Strip, and if “democratic” elections would be ever held, they would overthrow the Fatah faction. This is a modern-day reincarnation of the deadly Qays and Yaman internecine strife in the Arab world.
Palestinianism was always disintegrating because it very well may be that their identity is imagined. While, as noted here, “Palestinians have always had to adjust their ways to the demands and political needs of outside powers,” cannot we consider that they lack a resilient “inside”? If we compare their history to the Jews, and our 1,800 years of exile and persecution, there is no true comparison. And yet, they consistently fail to maintain national progress and success. Indeed, as D.R. Divine analyzed there, the Arabs of this region existed more to fight among themselves:
No uniform process of legitimizing a single source of political power existed for any Palestinian. … Palestinians opposed one another, their rivalry rooted in the different social networks to a large extent sustained by the presence of Ottoman power.
Indeed, their declared “democracy” is a repressive regime against their own as-it-were citizens. No personal freedoms, no true liberties. No transparency in governmental institutions on the one hand, and on the other, embezzlement and other instances of authoritarian rule. There is no genuine concern for the populace; rather, they are seen as throwaways to be exploited for an imagined goal which, based on the experiences of this past century of strife, is simply to deny Jews our national rights.
Foreign diplomats, human-rights activists, religious leaders and all others concerned about the Arabs living in the territory of the historic Jewish national home should temper their enthusiasm and realize the limitations of their efforts in pursuing the goal as a second (after Jordan) Arab-dominated state in the region of Palestine. Supplementing and encouraging a national imagination can do no good.
Yisrael Medad is an American-born Israeli journalist and political analyst.
Let us face reality, tell no tales about how the money will be used.This is not Scheherazade. Opinion.
Charm Tenenbaum , Dec 29 , 2020 4:00 PM Share
US dollars Flash 90
The new Stimulus Package which President Trump isn’t really keen on, is ‘pork’ for a people who have trusted their leaders, proven to be most unhalal in their self-induced determination not to abide by any peace initiatives between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel.
$250M. American dollars, in the name of retiring Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) is to be spent on co-existence initiatives between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs. To be sure, any monies that the Palestinian Authority leadership ever received, history has shown, has been shifty finger food, also known as, the Palestinian Authority Leadership Treasury.
In 2018, Congress signed off on the Taylor Force Act, prohibiting U.S. Taxpayer Funds from going directly to the Palestinian Autority, which enjoys writing checks to surviving terrorists and the families of those that don’t survive their loved ones going to that ’72 Virgin Lie In The Sky’.
It was supposed to be NO MORE U.S. ‘BREAD’ TO THOSE HAVING BRED TERRORISTS.
The Palestinian Arabs have been bereft of a Life Coach from anyone they counted on to lead them. Only America and Israel have ever stepped up to the plate to show the Palestinians humanity.
David Samuel, in his article, “In a Ruined Country: How Yasir Arafat Destroyed Palestine” The Atlantic, September 2005, says: “The Ministry of Finance served most of Arafat’s reign as his personal cashbox through the corrupt practices of Arafat’s inner circle, so staggeringly large the amounts may exceed half of the total $7B in Foreign Aid-the biggest thief Arafat himself.”
Yep, Arafat lived his life as a leprechaun sitting atop his private tuffet-the treasury belonging to the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria aka ‘West Bank.’ Now, no doubt Abbas and his mattress lie in wait from his $4M perch in Ramallah, ‘West Bank’, hoping he will be able to bypass the terms that come with the $250M, wherein no longer can the festering reek permeating the masses from their leadership, have access to the money.
Rather than holding my breath to see what comes of the above, I have an idea: Since the United Nations has saw fit to offer aid to the Palestinian /Arabs for years now, via not one but two agencies: UNRWA, The UN Relief and Works Agency For Palestine Refugees in The Near East, and UNHCR, The United Nations Refugee Agency, why not put them to better use than they have been?
Let these two agencies under the UN auspices, pick up the tab for coexistence initiatives. What exactly have both of those agencies done in consideration of Peace, anyway? It is time UNRWA and UNHCR directed their monetary weight toward real peace in the region, rather than simply pitching tents for a failed public relations display.
Any wish for ‘tea in the sahara’ between Israelis and Palestinians is currently but a dream.
Author of the article: Michael Mostyn Publishing date:Dec 29, 2020 • Last Updated 6 hours ago • 2 minute read
Like a bolt from the blue, Canada’s Federal Court issued a stunning rebuke to the Palestinian Authority in December.
It all started out as a run-of-the-mill immigration case, but its effects could — and should — be far-reaching.
Khitam Khudeish, a long-time employee of the Palestinian Embassy in Baghdad, came to Canada in September of 2016, claiming refugee status on the basis of religious persecution.
Our country’s tribunals and courts review thousands of similar cases each year.
This case, however, was different.
It turned out that, for 22 years, Khudeish had been doling out funds on behalf of the PLO through its “Palestine Martyrs’ Families Foundation” (PMFF.)
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration became involved, suggesting that by aiding the PMFF, Khudeish made herself ineligible for refugee status under article 1(f) of the Refugee Convention, which bars those engaged in crimes against humanity — including terrorism.
The Minister argued — and the tribunal and Court agreed — that the PMFF exists for the primary purpose of encouraging terrorism against Israeli civilians.
Indeed, known more colloquially as “pay for slay,” the PMFF provides surviving terrorists and their immediate family with generous stipends, far in excess of the average Palestinian wage.
The Court affirmed that the PMFF “was created by the PLO to fulfill the criminal purpose of incentivising acts of terrorism against Israelis,” and even added that “the PLO had a criminal purpose.” The refugee claim was denied.
The Government of Canada cannot hide from this unambiguous result.
It is fond of saying that “Canada is a friend and ally of the State of Israel, and a friend of the Palestinian people,” but what sort of friend pays its people to murder the citizens of an ally?
One wonders whether friendship of this sort is, or should be, sustainable.
It is certainly inconsistent with any notion of a rules-based international order.
In March of 2018, the United States adopted the Taylor Force Act, named after an American victim of Palestinian terrorism, which blocks American aid to the Palestinian Authority until the PLO ends pay for slay.
(The Palestinian Authority is practically synonymous with the PLO, and Mahmoud Abbas chairs both.)
Australia and the Netherlands followed suit.
Since 2013, Canada has redirected its aid to the Palestinians away from the Palestinian Authority and toward independent NGOs and UNRWA instead — though those options also have their pitfalls.
Still, Canada must make its voice heard against the evils of pay for slay.
Firstly, Canada should designate the PMMF as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code, to ensure that none of its funds reach terrorist relatives residing in this country.
Secondly, Canada should publicly clarify that it will never restore aid to the Palestinian Authority, the PLO or any of their institutions until pay for slay is abandoned.
Thirdly and finally, if pay for slay is not quickly brought to a close, Canada should consider downgrading the status of the Palestinian General Delegation in Ottawa.
Normal diplomacy is simply not possible with those who distribute cash incentives for murder and terrorism.
The Palestinian pay for slay program is a blight upon the Middle East, ironically continuing even as Arab states rush to normalize relations with Israel. To safeguard its principles, Canada must act against pay for slay.
— Michael Mostyn is the Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada
UAE officials reportedly considering to let UN agency for “Palestinian refugees” to “gradually disappear.”
Elad Benari , Dec 28 , 2020 6:03 AM Share
Spacious UNRWA facilities, southern Gaza Flash 90
Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are working together to terminate UNRWA, the United Nations’ agency for “Palestinian refugees”, i24NEWs reported Sunday, citing the French newspaper Le Monde.
The US, which was previously UNRWA’s largest contributor, cut a full $300 million in funding to the agency in 2018, leaving it and asking other countries to help fill the gap.
After the US decision to pull the funding, UNRWA has relied on oil-rich Gulf kingdoms, including the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to plug the budgetary hole. However, according to Le Monde, the UAE has not transferred any funds yet this year.
According to the report, Emirati officials are considering to let the agency to “gradually disappear.”
The agency did not return i24NEWS’ request for comment.
Created in 1949, UNRWA supplies aid to more than three million of the five million registered “Palestinian refugees” in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and territories assigned to the Palestinian Authority.
However, it is also notorious for its anti-Israel activities. During the 2014 counterterrorism Operation Protective Edge, Hamas rockets were discovered inside a school building run by UNRWA.
Likewise, a booby-trapped UNRWA clinic was detonated, killing three IDF soldiers. Aside from the massive amounts of explosives hidden in the walls of the clinic, it was revealed that it stood on top of dozens of terror tunnels, showing how UNRWA is closely embedded with Hamas.
Israel has long regarded UNRWA as an impediment to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict.
(December 22, 2020 / JNS) Jewish and pro-Israel groups reacted to Congress passing the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act on Monday as part of the legislative package that included $1.4 trillion in government funding and about $900 billion in COVID relief.
The new legislation will provide $250 million over five years to expand coexistence between Arabs and Israelis and peace-building programs in the region and support projects to strengthen the Palestinian economy.
That part of the bill, which U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to sign into law, is named for retiring Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), a stalwart supporter for Israel in Congress.
“We could not be more pleased that Congress has passed this critical legislation and that it has been named after Congresswoman Nita Lowey, whom JCPA recently honored with our prestigious Tikkun Olam Award,” said Jewish Council for Public Affairs, president and CEO David Bernstein. “This legislation lays the groundwork for future peace in the Middle East that Nita has worked so hard for.”
AIPAC also applauded it as part of the annual $3.8 billion in U.S. assistance to Israel.
However, the Zionist Organization of America slammed the legislation named in honor of Lowey, claiming it will circumvent the Taylor Force Act, which was passed in 2018 to halt almost all U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority due to its program of “pay for slay”—rewarding terrorists and their families.
ZOA also accused the organization that lobbied for the bill, ALLMEPS (Alliance for Middle East Peace) and its network of NGOs, including Combatants for Peace, Holy Land Trust, One Voice International and Parents Circle Families Forum, as “forums for promoting anti-Israel propaganda.”
Nevertheless, the Taylor Force Act prohibits the funding from going to including, but not limited to, the P.A. or any individual or group the secretary of state determines to be involved in or advocating terrorist activity.
Kevin Bishop, a spokesperson for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told JNS, “As the author of the Taylor Force Act, Senator Graham will continue to insist that American funding cannot be used for pay for slay.”
“Am I my brother’s keeper?” Yes! (Genesis 4:9) Tevet 10, 5781/December 25, 2020
When we ask someone a question, we expect to receive an answer. But sometimes the answer is not forthcoming. Such was the case when Cain, having just slain his brother Abel, answered G-d’s question, “Where is Abel your brother?” with a question of his own: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9)
Cain didn’t receive an answer from G-d because it was a question that omniscient, all-knowing G-d could not answer. It was, and remains a question that only man can answer. Clear as it was that G-d was every bit as invested as was Cain in receiving an answer to the question, G-d was kept waiting twenty two generation of man before He received the answer to Cain’s question. Only man can answer the question “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The compassion and responsibility required to care for a fellow human being’s welfare must come from within. But clearly, being our brother’s keepers is a prerequisite for any human cohort, whether biological brothers, or brothers in faith, neighbors, fellow citizens, or fellow members of humanity. We all have compassion, we all step up to the plate to come to one another’s aid, we all feel a responsibility to be there for one another.
It seems only natural. But we all also experience bouts of jealousy, envy, disdain, selfishness, vanity, prejudice and antipathy toward one other. These negative impulses which pull us apart are also natural. It’s all part of being human, of being invested by G-d with a free will and the ability to choose our own path, for good or for otherwise. From the story of Cain we come to learn that being one’s brother’s keeper was not automatically understood. Man had to grow into an understanding that we all need to look out for one another, and even today, when everyone knows the answer to Cain’s question, we witness epic failures of man to be there for his fellow man.
Perhaps G-d expected, when He created man and commanded him to be fruitful and multiply, that being our brothers keepers would be the obvious default human behavior. We can only imagine G-d’s crushing disappointment when, one generation into human existence, brother killed brother and didn’t even comprehend, without G-d’s intervention, that he had done anything wrong. This was G-d’s second disappointment, as it were, following Adam’s decision to defy G-d’s will, eat the forbidden fruit, and go it alone in the world.
G-d understood that to for creation to realize its full potential, to be infused with G-d’s presence and with man’s knowledge of G-d’s presence, these two unforeseen blips in man’s nature had to be overcome. Man had to learn to live with G-d. And man had to learn to live with man. These twin challenges are what fuel the first twenty three generations of man, whose story is told in the book of Genesis.
Rediscovering man, who first hid from G-d in the Garden of Eden, was G-d’s first task. And this ultimately occurred only when “G-d tested Avraham, and He said to him, “Avraham,” and he said, “Here I am.” (ibid 22:1) The ensuing test of the binding of Yitzchak which concluded when “Avraham named that place, HaShem will see, as it is said to this day: On the mountain, HeShem will be seen,” (ibid 22:14) when the moment when man and G-d embraced.
Man and G-d were once again in the same place, together. But what about man and man? Brothers were still unable to live together. Yishmael was banished from Yitzchak’s presence, Esau swore to kill his brother Yaakov, and the hatred Yosef’s brothers had for him threaten to tear asunder the embryonic community of man who walks with G-d that G-d is so longing for and has promised to Avraham, even before it has a chance to be born.
G-d knows that the cure will be painful, but as we witness reading the saga of Yosef and his brothers, He is very busy working behind the scenes putting events into place that will help to facilitate the reconciliation of Yosef and his brothers. The brothers are envious of Yosef the dreamer.
Nevertheless, Yaakov instructs Yosef to “Go now and see to your brothers’ welfare.” (ibid 37:14) Yosef loses his way, but tells a stranger “I am looking for my brothers.” (ibid 37:16) The brothers, seeing Yosef in the distance, plot to kill him, only to sell him into slavery.
That’s the end of the story until the brothers meet up again with Yosef in Egypt, and Yehudah, having sworn to Yaakov to guarantee the safety of his brother Binyamin, is compelled, in the opening of this week’s Torah reading, Vayigash, to confront the all-powerful Yosef, come what may, and perform the ultimate act of responsibility toward his brother.
At last Cain’s question, the question that not G-d, but only man can answer, is answered with a resounding “Yes! I am my brothers keeper!” The brothers huddle together, hugging and kissing, and G-d is surely with them. When brothers dwell in peace together, G-d is always with them, with us. The book of Genesis is nearly completed, and G-d’s two first concerns have been positively resolved.
Man has learned to live with G-d and man has learned to live with and care for his fellow man. Resolving these two crucial issues, however, has required bringing Israel and his sons down to Egypt, exiled from their promised land. Turning the reunited brothers into a nation and leading them back to the land of Israel is the next challenge with lies ahead. That challenge is the book of Exodus.
Paul’s egalitarian Hellenistic theology says, first of all, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus;” and second that, one cannot “keep all the Law;” yet the Torah (Devarim – Deuteronomy 30.14) says, “But the word (haDevar – the prophetic word) is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest [la’asotho – finish it] do it.” (while Paul in Romans 10.8 omits “that you may do it” and adds to the Torah, which is prohibited by [Devarim 4.2, 13.1, the very Sefer he quotes from,] “that is the word of faith….”;) and the Navi Y’kezkel (Ezekiel) says “But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him; for his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.”
Hoshea 14.3, just like Tehillim (Psalms) 51.18 says T’shuva – repentance or a return to G-D is as efficacious as sacrifices, ” Take with you words, and return unto the L-RD; say unto Him: ‘Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.”
Paul also misquotes the Navi Yeshiyahu (Isaiah) and says, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” [Romans 11:26]; while Isaiah 59.20 says, “And a redeemer will come to Zion, And unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, Saith the L-RD.” The passage continues: “And as for Me, this is My covenant with them, saith the L-RD; My spirit that is upon thee, and My words וּדְבָרַי which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the L-RD, from henceforth and for ever.”
Clearly, Paul’s Hellenistic theology contradicts the Torah, the Nevi’im and Ketuvim (TaNaK). He doesn’t understand the basic rules of construction and interpretation of the Torah as is evident from his linguistic blunder in Galatians 3 where he limits the word zerechah (thy seed) to mean Moshiach (“anointing”) in plain contradiction to B’rashith 13.15, 15.13 and 22.17. Paul’s Linguistic Blunder is compounded by the fact that B’rashith (Genesis) refers to Avraham’s seed in the plural “shall be as the stars in heaven and as the sand on the seashore” – Both 13.15 and 15.13 seed in the singular is qualified in the plural as them (a collective unity, that is, an afflicted NATION as in Yeshiyahu – Isaiah 53 the Suffering Servant) and as they. (According to Rabbi Yishmael’s Rules of Interpretation, this is known as a gezeera shavah, which is also called hekesh, comparison! That is, where one passuk [verse] is unclear, two verses containing similar words come to clarify the unclear passuk!) 13 “And He said unto Abram: ‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;” 14 “and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance.” (See Shmoth – Exodus 11.3, 12.35-36) Clearly, the passuk says thy seed in the singular for stranger, yet is qualified by theirs and them in the plural. How else are we to understand the phrase, “I shall surely bless you and greatly increase your offspring zerechah (thy seed) like the stars of the heavens and like the sand of the sea shore; and your offspring zerechah (thy seed) shall inherit the gate of it’s enemy….” ?
No, the writers of the Christian scriptures didn’t know basic Hebrew grammar, history or theology! In fact they plainly contradict (in Acts 15) the requirement of the Torah that those who, although not of the “seed of Avraham, Yitzchaq and Ya’acov” wish to partake of the Korban Pesach (Passover Sacrifice) must be circumcised:
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Pesach to the L-RD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.”
“And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the Pesach unto the L-RD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land. Why did the “Y’rushalayim (Jerusalem) Council ignore the plain meaning of the Torah “And One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.”? Because, as Peter said, “which neither we nor our fathers were able to keep” since Paul believed circumcision binds one to keep the entire Torah and one who does not is under a curse. Paul’s theology is that “he became a curse for us” which, according to Christian theology means that he was sinless. Yet, we find that G-D is without iniquity as it says “a G-D of truth and without iniquity.”
Because G-D does not change and Christianity claims “the word became flesh” (John 1.14) to “become sin for us who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21) the Jewish Nation, Israel can not accept a “G-D” whose very nature changes from a pure limitless deity to a sinful human being.
That “change” would contradict the passuk Devarim (Deuteronomy) 32.4 “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a G-D of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Moreover, the Christian passuk, “he became sin for us” is in direct contradiction to Devarim (Deuteronomy) 32.4 “a G-D of truth and without iniquity,” – Without iniquity means he could not become sin as that would mean there is a change in the nature of G-D and thus be in contradiction to Malachi 3.6! Thus, we see that Jesus could not be deity (G-D) since G-D does not change and G-D is not a man.
If the Torah did not mean one could not keep the Torah then why did it say “but you can do it”?
Congress rushed to pass a coronavirus relief bill on Monday, which includes $50 million a year in aid to Palestinians and programs that benefit them.
By World Israel News Staff
On Monday, Congress passed a $2.3 trillion piece of coronavirus relief legislation that spanned over 5,500 pages and included hefty payments for Palestinians.
The bill was introduced to authorize $600 stimulus checks for Americans and a $300 per week unemployment supplement, in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars in small business loans.
The bill also contained reams of provisions to assist foreign entities.
Among these provisions is authorization for $250 million in payments to Palestinians.
These payments are to be doled out over the course of five years, allegedly to stimulate employment in the Palestinian sector and encourage dialogue with Israelis.
The bill, titled the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act of 2020, creates something called the “People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund,” administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
The partnership “provide[s] funding for projects to help build the foundation for peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians and for a sustainable two-state solution.”
The act also creates a “Joint Investment for Peace Initiative” that would fund “projects that contribute to the development of the Palestinian private sector economy in [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza.”
Under the legislation, the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and any Palestinian terror groups, such as Hamas, cannot receive earmarked funds.
Currently, the Taylor Force Act prevents the U.S. from using taxpayer money to aid the Palestinian government because it pays salaries to violent terrorists and their families.
For example, under PA regulations, the government must provide a monthly salary to the killer of Esther Horgan, an Israeli mother of 6 who was violently murdered earlier this week.
The Palestinians’ refusal to end this program forced the Trump administration to cut off aid.
Lately, Palestinian Arab leadership has shown it understands that it has to make the best of the fact that it was beaten. Op-ed.
Nave Dromi , Dec 22 , 2020 10:46 PM Share
UAE MP criticizes Palestinian leadership i24NEWS
There has long been this belief held that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs might never end because the Palestinians never give up and accept reality.
This position does hold a lot of merit, because it could easily account for successive Palestinian leaders foregoing having their own state if they were also called on to countenance a Jewish one as well. It could account for the fact that although the Palestinians have launched countless conflicts, intifadas and attacks against Israel and its citizens, they rarely gain much from it.
The Palestinians remain very proud of the concept of Sumud, usually translated “steadfastness” or “steadfast perseverance” which means they will never give up until ultimate victory.
However, recent events have demonstrated that the Palestinian Arab leadership can understand when it is beaten.
When the Abraham Accords were first launched in August, the reaction of Palestinian leaders was scathing. They called it a stab in the back, terming it “a betrayal against Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Palestinians” and recalled their ambassador from Abu Dhabi. It was a rare moment of unity amongst all Palestinian leaders and factions.
There was a similar response when Bahrain joined its Gulf neighbors, and the Palestinian ambassador was recalled from Manama.
The Sudanese Israeli agreement was equally condemned.
The Palestinians took a tried and tested route to ensure their condemnation came with teeth by turning to the Arab League, amongst other institutions, to back their position. Their argument, not without merit, This [the Abraham Accords] was a rare case when they got nothing from the international arena. It was one of the heaviest blows for Palestinian diplomacy in recent times. was that these agreements went against the Arab League Initiative, which pledged the full relations of its member states only after an agreement has been made with the Palestinians first.
Even though the Palestinians held the rotating presidency of the Arab League, and the Arab League foreign ministers have endorsed every draft resolution the Palestinians have put forward, the resolution condemning the Abraham Accords was defeated and dropped.
Arab League Assistant Secretary-General Hossam Zaki explained that the Palestinians were pushing for a maximalist position in the resolution and would seek no compromise, so it could not be supported.
It was the usual ‘all or nothing’ approach of the Palestinians that Israeli leaders, security officials and diplomats are familiar with. This was a rare case when they got nothing from the international arena.
It was one of the heaviest blows for Palestinian diplomacy in recent times.
Nonetheless, it was a defeat that they learned from and eventually accepted.
When, only a few weeks ago, it was announced that Morocco and Israel would establish full relations, the Palestinian Authority and its leaders were noticeably silent.
No fiery communiques, little action on Twitter and no ambassadors removed. Local Palestinian media commentators reported on directives from the highest levels that were sent out commanding all Palestinian Authority or Fatah officials to resist commenting on the latest normalization deal.
They saw the congratulations arrive from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who welcomed the announcement, saying that the deal was an “important step towards more stability and regional cooperation”. They understood that the deal could not have happened without Saudi approval.
The Palestinian leadership understood that any further negative reactions or condemnation would achieve little and harm their standing and diplomatic relations.
The Palestinian Authority understood its defeat and was now making sure not to exacerbate it.
This should be a good lesson for Israel in how it sees its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. It should demonstrate that Sumud is little more than a slogan and that if the correct pressure is applied, the Palestinian Arab leadership accepts defeat and will accept the reality that it is faced with.
This should provide a tailwind for the Israel Victory concept, which simply applies the logic that the conflict will end only when the Palestinians give up on their over 100 years of violent rejectionism.
Many have thought that it is not in the Palestinian DNA to give up, and the only way the conflict ends is through great pain and suffering.
The way the Palestinian Arab leaders have reacted to their stunning defeat in the diplomatic arena should press us to doubt that.
This conflict can end, ensuring a better future for both Israelis and Palestinians. Too much blood has been shed and is still being shed as we sadly witnessed with the recent brutal murder of Esther Hurgan.
Israel must pursue the victory concept because it can and will end the conflict.
We know this now, because recent events have demonstrated that the Palestinians do understand defeat.
Nave Dromi is an Israeli commentator and director of the Middle East Forum’s Israel Office.