Palestinian Territories

There is little to be added to the scorn rightfully shown in the United States and in Israel (which has cut all ties to UNESCO) toward the UNESCO vote this week that in essence wipes out Jewish and Christian history in Jerusalem by referring to it only in Muslim terminology. UNESCO’s own Director General Irina Bokova criticized the vote, saying “Jerusalem is the sacred city of the three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site...." The following nations voted yes: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Vietnam. Six countries voted no: Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States. These were the abstentions: Albania, Argentina, Cameroon, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Nepal, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and Nevis, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Ukraine. (Serbia and Turkmenistan were absent from the vote, presumably deliberately to avoid the issue entirely.) The Times of Israel reported a bit of good news in this voting pattern:   Losing a vote 24-6 is a clear diplomat defeat; there is no other way to describe it. But when one takes a closer look at the outcome of Thursday’s vote, there is another side to the story, in which a silver lining of sorts emerges that was almost lost in the chorus of outrage. Compared to the April vote on the same matter, which similarly turned a blind eye to the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, Thursday’s result marked a not-insignificant improvement, from an Israeli perspective.   Seven countries that just six months ago voted in favor of the resolution now abstained, among them heavyweights France and India. After an Israeli outcry over the April vote, Paris had admitted that its yes vote was a mistake and so the French abstention was not really a surprise. But Israeli officials did not expect countries like India and Sweden to refuse backing the Palestinian draft, which was sponsored by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan. (The other countries which surprisingly changed from yes to abstention were Spain, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Guinea and Togo.)   Israeli diplomacy must be given real credit for these switches. Still, what is Morocco doing lending its name to this kind of Palestinian activity? Why couldn’t France join Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands in voting no? It’s striking that no European country supported this resolution, but why couldn’t every one of them oppose it--having, one assumes, some knowledge of the true history of the Middle East?  And did Japan really have to join the jackals here? The vote shows that plenty of countries are tired of the Palestinian and broader Arab abuse of the UN system, but very few profiles in courage. One should take note that Albania, which abstained, is the only Muslim-majority country to do so, and deserves credit. And then there are the yes votes, which are appalling: outside the Muslim world, they were Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Vietnam, and of course Russia and China. This vote further discredits UNESCO, of course, but it also discredits the countries that supported or did not oppose a resolution that is entirely political and entirely divorced from history. One can hope (a dim hope, I suppose) that in some of those countries there will be discussion and debate over the vote. While damaging UNESCO the resolution gained nothing for the Palestinians. There was no reason to support it except the usual UN tropism against Israel. Still, that automatic majority is weakening--a result of years of effort by the Netanyahu government. And the best comment on all of this was made by Prime Minister Netanyahu in his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 22nd:   The UN, begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce. So when it comes to Israel at the UN, you’d probably think nothing will ever change, right? Well, think again. You see, everything will change, and a lot sooner than you think. The change will happen in this hall, because back home, your governments are rapidly changing their attitudes towards Israel. And sooner or later, that’s going to change the way you vote on Israel at the UN....I believe the day is not far off when Israel will be able to rely on many, many countries to stand with us at the UN. Slowly but surely, the days when UN ambassadors reflexively condemn Israel, those days are coming to an end....   Ladies and Gentlemen, distinguished delegates from so many lands, I have one message for you today: Lay down your arms. The war against Israel at the UN is over. Perhaps some of you don’t know it yet, but I am confident that one day, in the not-too-distant future, you will also get the message from your president or from your prime minister informing you that the war against Israel at the United Nations has ended. Yes, I know, there might be a storm before the calm. I know there is talk about ganging up on Israel at the UN later this year. Given its history of hostility towards Israel, does anyone really believe that Israel will let the UN determine our security and our vital national interests? We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York. But regardless of what happens in the months ahead, I have total confidence that in the years ahead, the revolution in Israel’s standing among the nations will finally penetrate this hall of nations. I have so much confidence, in fact, that I predict that a decade from now an Israeli prime minister will stand right here where I am standing and actually applaud the UN. But I want to ask you: Why do we have to wait a decade? Why keep vilifying Israel? Perhaps because some of you don’t appreciate that the obsessive bias against Israel is not just a problem for my country; it’s a problem for your countries, too. Because if the UN spends so much time condemning the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, it has far less time to address war, disease, poverty, climate change and all the other serious problems that plague the planet.  

There have been many attacks on aspects of Palestinian President Abbas’s speech to the UN General Assembly last week, but it had one saving grace: candor. Let’s take just two examples. First, Mr. Abbas said this about the Temple Mount: Israel must cease its aggression and provocations against the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque," and Israel "continues to commit aggressions and provocations against our Christian and Muslim holy sites, especially Al-Aqsa Mosque. The continuation of the Israeli aggressions against our Muslim and Christian holy sites is playing with fire." This accusation--as we see, repeated twice--is false, but Mr. Abbas goes beyond merely stating it and turns it into a threat of violence. What else does "playing with fire" mean? Second, and in a way worse, is Mr. Abbas’s treatment of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his complete delegitimization of Israel. Here are some of his remarks on that:   By the end of this coming year....100 years have passed since the notorious Balfour Declaration, by which Britain gave, without any right, authority or consent from anyone, the land of Palestine to another people. This paved the road for the Nakba of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land. As if this were not enough, the British Mandate interpreted this Declaration into policies and measures that contributed to the perpetration of the most heinous crimes against a peaceful people in their own land, a people that never attacked anyone or partook in a war against anyone.   Therefore, we ask Britain, as we approach 100 years since this notorious Declaration, to draw the necessary lessons and to bear its historic, legal, political, material and moral responsibilities for the consequences of this Declaration, including an apology to the Palestinian people for the catastrophes, miseries and injustices that it created, and to act to rectify this historic catastrophe and remedy its consequences, including by recognition of the State of Palestine. In addition, Israel, since 1948, has persisted with its contempt for international legitimacy by violating United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II), the partition resolution, which called for the establishment of two states on the historic land of Palestine according to a specific partition plan. Israeli forces seized more land than that allotted to Israel, constituting a grave breach of Articles 39, 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter.  In the preamble of resolution 181 (II), paragraph (c) clearly states: “The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” Regrettably, however, the Security Council is not upholding its responsibilities to hold Israel accountable for its seizure of the territory allotted to the Palestinian State according to the partition resolution.  I appeal to you read this resolution once again.   Many Israelis have said for a long time that they could solve the "1967 issues" with the Palestinians but cannot possibly solve the "1948 issues"--meaning the Palestinian objections to the very establishment of the Jewish State. In his speech, Mr. Abbas showed this to be correct: his complaints went far beyond those related to issues in the West Bank or Gaza. He wants the Balfour Declaration of 1917 undone, wants the British to apologize for it, and complains of the UN’s partition resolution in 1948. His history is wrong here, when he complains that Israel seized more land than that which the partition resolution allotted to it--because he forgets that Israel accepted the resolution but was then attacked by the Arab states, which did not accept it. The Arabs lost that war and paid the price. Mr. Abbas’s account is false and misleading. Perhaps some day, a Palestinian leader might say something like this to the UN and to his own people: "We said no in 1947, when we could have had a state, and we chose war instead. We said no at Camp David in 2000, when we could have had a state, and we chose terrorism instead. We said no in 2008, after Annapolis. It is time to say yes." Until that happens, the "unsustainable occupation" that began in 1967 will continue. In fact, next year marks its fiftieth anniversary. A speech such as Mr. Abbas gave shows us why it has not been possible to make more progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As long as Palestinian leaders are inciting violence with fantasies about the Temple Mount and are mired in their inaccurate history of past victimization, from the Balfour Declaration to today, it is hard to see how progress is possible.  

Municipal elections are scheduled for October 8th in the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas has reversed its previous position and is now participating, and may win--not as Hamas, per se, but by putting forth "fellow traveler" candidates known to be close to Hamas. The elections will likely be close. The unpopularity of the Palestinian Authority and the ruling Fatah Party due to corruption, incompetence, and growing repression helps explain why West Bank voters might choose Hamas. In other cases voters may prefer Hamas’s Islamism to Fatah’s brand of secularism--or may prefer Hamas’s manifest desire to kill Israelis over Fatah’s and the PA’s tamer stance. And there is another factor: in many areas Hamas is presenting a single candidate while the non-Hamas vote is split among rival contenders. As The Times of Israel reported about Hebron,   These are the first elections in more than a decade in which voting is taking place at the same time in both Gaza and the West Bank, and Hamas and Fatah are going head-to-head....As in the other cities in the West Bank, the trouble in Hebron is that because there are so many secular slates of candidates, there is a reasonable chance that the more moderate camp of Fatah and groups of its ilk will split the secular vote, paving the way for victory by Hamas candidates.   Deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra is said to have said. In the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, most of these same conditions existed and the result was a narrow Hamas victory in the popular vote (44 to 41 percent) that produced a much larger Hamas majority in parliament (74 to 45). There is one difference from 2006 that is very much worth mentioning. The myth exists that the United States forced the Palestinians to hold those elections over the objections of the PA leadership. That’s false (as I explained at length in my book about Bush administration policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Tested by Zion). In fact the Palestinians had held a successful presidential election in January 2005 whose purpose was to establish the legitimacy of Mahmoud Abbas as Yasser Arafat’s successor. They wanted parliamentary elections, again to strengthen Fatah’s legitimacy, and were confident they would win. We did not force them to hold the 2006 elections. Today, at least that argument is over: no one is claiming that these elections of 2016 are being demanded by the United States and imposed by the Obama administration on a reluctant PA leadership. But the similarities to 2006 are very striking, including the most fundamental one: allowing a terrorist group, Hamas, to contest the election without the slightest nod to stopping its terror or giving up its rule of Gaza. This is wrong for many reasons, but here are the top two. First, Hamas may win power in a number of West Bank cities but Fatah will not be able to contest elections as freely in Gaza. In this sense the dice are loaded, or to mix metaphors Hamas can say heads I win in the West Bank and tails you lose in Gaza. Second, those who wish to contest elections should be forced to choose between bullets and ballots. This is what happened in the Northern Ireland agreements, where the IRA had to end its guerrilla and terrorist war and could then run for office. It is a mistake with global implications to allow terrorist groups to have it all: to run for office like peaceful parties, but continue their violent activities. That was the mistake we made in 2006, and it is being repeated. There is an argument for holding these elections, of course, and a powerful one. There have been no parliamentary or presidential elections in the West Bank and Gaza since 2006 and these elections provide at least a taste of democracy. They will tell us a good deal about Palestinian public opinion. And perhaps in some cases they will produce better, meaning more responsive and competent, municipal governments. But perhaps their clearest achievement will be to show that nothing has changed since 2006 and indeed for decades more: Fatah and Hamas are implacably at odds, Palestinians are split, the Palestinian "national" government and national movement are hopelessly divided, Hamas’s brand of rejectionism and terror remains widely popular, and a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is nowhere in sight. Well, one thing has changed since 2006: Abbas is ten years older and his time in office is closer to its end. Until succession issues are dealt with the notion of serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is completely unrealistic--whatever happens at the United Nations, whatever the French suggest or the Russians try, and whatever the Obama administration or its successor believe.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, or ELCA, is a church in decline--but whose enthusiasm for attacks on Israel never wanes. The decline is very clear in the numbers. The ELCA when formed in 1988 had over 5 million members, but is now down to about 3.8 million-- down over a fourth. The number of member churches is similarly in decline. At its triennial convention this past week, the ELCA built on previous anti-Israel resolutions to demand an end to aid to Israel from the United States. What passed is a resolution to:   --call on the U.S. President, in coordination with the United Nations Security Council, to offer a new, comprehensive and time-bound agreement to the governments of Israel and Palestine, resulting in a negotiated final status agreement between Israel and Palestine leading to two viable and secure states with a shared Jerusalem;   --To urge this church’s members, congregations, synods, agencies and presiding bishop to call on their U.S. Representatives, Senators and the Administration to take action requiring that, to continue receiving U.S. financial and military aid, Israel must comply with internationally recognized human rights standards as specified in existing U.S. law, stop settlement building and the expansion of existing settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, end its occupation of Palestinian territory, and enable an independent Palestinian state; and --To encourage this church’s members, congregations, synods, and agencies to call on the U.S. President to recognize the State of Palestine and not prevent the application of the State of Palestine for full membership in the United Nations.   A time bound agreement-- so facts on the ground, for example the strength of Hamas or even ISIS in the Palestinian territories would be irrelevant. Stop all construction in East Jerusalem--well, not really; just construction by Jews. "Enable" an independent Palestinian state, as if the only worry about such a state, and its only problems, come from Israel--not poverty, terrorism, corruption, and repression, for example. End military aid to Israel, regardless of the threats it faces from Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Iran, and other enemies of Israel’s and ours. And of course, these standards and these requirements apply to one single country: Israel. In a world awash in repression and human rights violations, only Israel. This resolution was passed by 82% of those voting. One wonders if the last few ELCA congregations, when there has been another 25 years of shrinkage, will pass an anti-Israel resolution just before turning out the lights.  

I’ve written about a half dozen times in the past about UNRWA, the UN agency that deals with Palestinians: here in 2014 and here in 2015, for example. Simply put, UNRWA has long had employees who were sympathetic to Hamas, and who engaged in acts of anti-Semitism, but it has overlooked their actions and indeed often protected them. That appears to be the culture of the place. In the last week we’ve learned something new: that employees of other leading charitable and development agencies like World Vision and the UN Development Program (UNDP) may also be diverting funds to Hamas. Israel has detained employees of both World Vision and UNDP. Australia has frozen contributions to World Vision’s Gaza programs until the entire matter can be sorted out, and the German offices of World Vision have frozen their own programs in Gaza. Here’s the UNDP story:   Israel said Tuesday it had charged a United Nations staffer with helping the Islamist movement Hamas, the second indictment involving aid workers in Gaza in a week. Engineer Waheed Borsh, who has worked for the UN Development Programme (UNDP) since 2003, was arrested on July 16 and charged in a civilian court in Israel on Tuesday, a government statement said. The UNDP said it was "greatly concerned" by the allegations while Hamas, which has run the Gaza Strip since 2007, denied any involvement. The government said 38-year-old Borsh, from Jabaliya in northern Gaza, had been recruited by "a senior member of the Hamas terrorist organisation to redirect his work for UNDP to serve Hamas’s military interests". It said he had confessed to a number of accusations, including diverting rubble from a UNDP project in the coastal strip to a Hamas operation to build a jetty for its naval force. He is also alleged to have last year persuaded UNDP managers to focus home rebuilding efforts in areas where Hamas members lived, after pressure from the group.   And here is the World Vision story:   The Gaza head of the U.S.-based humanitarian aid organization World Vision funneled as much as $7 million a year over the past 10 years to Hamas’s terror activities, Israel’s domestic security agency said Thursday. The Shin Bet said the aid group’s Gaza director, Mohammed el-Halabi, is an active figure in Hamas’s military wing. He was indicted by Israeli authorities Thursday, accused of diverting some 60 percent of World Vision’s annual budget for Gaza to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that rules the coastal enclave. He was charged with transferring money and working with a terror group. Hamas is viewed as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union. Israel has fought three wars with Hamas since 2009. In addition to the $7 million a year in funds transferred to Hamas coffers, Shin Bet said, Halabi also handed over to Hamas piles of cash -- an additional $1.5 million a year. The Israelis also said he gave Hamas $800,000 taken from a United Kingdom donation to help build a Hamas military base. The money was designated for civilian projects in the Gaza Strip, Israeli authorities said.   The accused are innocent until proved guilty, although they are said to have confessed. What we can now see clearly is that none of these organizations--UNDP, World Vision, or UNRWA--was ever going to find the facts, fire people, clean out the Hamas agents, and solve these problems. That will require the intervention of donors, and those steps in Germany and Australia are remarkable only in that they have not been followed universally. "Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) called the allegations ’deeply troubling’ and said in a statement that it was ’urgently seeking more information from World Vision and the Israeli authorities. ’We are suspending the provision of further funding to World Vision for programs in the Palestinian Territories until the investigation is complete,’ it said." Quite right--but what about all the other donors? The larger question is the culture of foreign aid to the Palestinians, much of which falls under what President George W. Bush once called (in an entirely different context) "the soft bigotry of low expectations" and some of which falls under the category of terrorism, threats, and plain fear. As to plain fear, look at the last line of the first story, about UNDP: "He is also alleged to have last year persuaded UNDP managers to focus home rebuilding efforts in areas where Hamas members lived, after pressure from the group." Perhaps Hamas made him an offer he could not refuse. "Pressure from the group" in this context may well mean his life was in danger. The "soft bigotry" is the failure to hold the Palestinians to global standards.  We see this, for example, when it comes to the toleration--by every government, including our own and that of Israel--of the way the Palestinian Authority glorifies terrorism and terrorists, naming parks and schools after murderers and broadcasting on official stations all kinds of anti-Semitic hate. We see it in the failure to reform UNRWA. In these cases, World Vision and UNDP, we probably see both support for terrorism and plain fear. It’s likely that some percentage of local employees in Gaza are sympathetic to Hamas--and it seems likely to me that administrators don’t want to know it. If they came face to face with it, what would they do? Fire them? Turn them in to the Israelis? Start difficult and likely very long back-and-forth communications with headquarters, which likely doesn’t want to know and won’t thank the employee who insists on revealing the truth? Simpler to be blind to what is happening. There’s some evidence of that in these remarks by an Israeli legal group:   Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, president of Israeli legal advocacy group Shurat HaDin, said her organization warned World Vision four years ago its funding was being diverted to armed militant groups in Gaza. She said she discovered this while her group researched a lawsuit against the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which in the past was involved in attacking Israelis. She said the PFLP used front organizations that appeared as beneficiaries on the World Vision web site. Darshan-Leitner said she is exploring suing World Vision in the United States for aiding and abetting terrorism."Foreign NGOs want to give money to Gaza," Darshan-Leitner said, even as they "ignore all the signs that their money is diverted to terrorism."   Allegations are not proof and these cases need to go to trial. The sensible thing for donors to do is to freeze suspect programs immediately, as World Vision Germany and the government of Australia have done.The only way to solve this problem is for donors to withhold funding unless and until the independence of their programs can be assured. Yes, the people of Gaza would suffer, but they would know why: because Hamas is more interested in its own terrorist actions than in the welfare of Gazans. Aid donors have turned a blind eye for far too long.    

This week the State Department engaged in a remarkable assault on Israel. Both in tone and in content, it marks a new hostility--and plenty of sheer ignorance. The comment was entitled "Recent Israeli Settlement Announcements" and the full text ran as follows:   We are deeply concerned by reports today that the Government of Israel has published tenders for 323 units in East Jerusalem settlements.  This follows Monday’s announcement of plans for 770 units in the settlement of Gilo.   We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace. These  steps by Israeli authorities are the latest examples of what appears to be a steady acceleration of settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a two- state solution. In just the past few weeks, we have seen reports of the advancement of plans for 531 units in Ma’ale Adumim, 19 in Har Homa, 120 in Ramot, and 30 in Pisgat Ze’ev; the advancement of a plan to retroactively legalize an outpost near Ramallah; and the issuance of tenders for 42 units in Kiryat Arba. We are also concerned about recent increased demolitions of Palestinian structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which reportedly have left dozens of Palestinians homeless, including children.‎  More than 650 Palestinian structures have been demolished this year, with more Palestinian structures demolished in the West Bank and East Jerusalem thus far than in all of 2015. As the recent Quartet Report highlighted, this is part of an ongoing process of land seizures, settlement expansion, legalizations of outposts, and denial of Palestinian development that risk entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict.  We remain troubled that Israel continues this pattern of provocative and counterproductive action, which raises serious questions about Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.   Wow. This statement not only protests certain recent activities (of which more in a moment) but actually accuses Israel of  no longer being interested in a negotiated settlement. The history of Obama administration efforts gives the lie to that accusation: it’s quite clear that the Palestinians refused to come to table repeatedly and ultimately defeated Secretary Kerry’s efforts to get something going. Here is what Obama negotiator Martin Indyk said in 2014, as reported in Haaretz:   "Netanyahu moved to the zone of possible agreement. I saw him sweating bullets to find a way to reach an agreement," said Indyk. Abbas, for his part, did not show flexibility, Indyk added.   "We tried to get Abu Mazen to the zone of possible agreement but we were surprised to learn he had shut down. We were ready to go beyond policy positions the U.S. had taken on the core issues to bridge the gaps and resolve it, and therefore there was something in it for him – and he didn’t answer us. Abbas [effectively] checked out of the talks in mid-February," said Indyk.   So Abbas checks out, Abbas destroys Obama’s and Kerry’s efforts, and the State Department two years later is saying Israel’s commitment is in doubt. Why? Because this construction is going to make the two-state solution impossible and "risks entrenching a one-state reality." That conclusion reflects pure ignorance. The position of the United States is, and has been under Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, that Israel and the Palestinians should engage in land swaps as part of a final status agreement. Just as one example, President Obama told AIPAC in 2011 that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." Swapping for what? Swapping for major Israeli settlement blocs--such as Maale Adumim, population 40,000. The notion that peace is more distant if Israel builds in Maale Adumim is ridiculous. Or how about construction in Gilo? Same: this is a Jerusalem neighborhood of 40,000. Construction there is no obstacle to a two-state solution. Same for Har Homa. In 1997, the United States vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions demanding that construction in Har Homa stop...and it might be recalled that the president at that time was a Democrat, and was the husband of the current Democratic nominee. Besides, the State Department’s criticism regarding Har Homa is about 19 units. 19 units! One might wonder if the Department has no other matters to concern it these days. Checking the State web site, I find no similar five-paragraph attacks or critiques on any subject. It seems nothing is as dangerous to the world as construction in Israel and in settlements. The Department’s criticism also cherry picks numbers to make its argument that there "appears to be a steady acceleration of settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a two- state solution." In June, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics reported that "the number of housing starts in West Bank settlements for the first quarter of 2016 dropped by 53 percent compared to the same period last year," as the Jerusalem Post reported. On the other hand, "the number of completed homes in Judea and Samaria rose by 14.9% in the first quarter of 2016, for a total of 610 units, compared with 531 such structures in the first three months of 2015." Ahh, complexity. Housing starts fell; housing completions rose; and then there is the subject of permits for planning and construction, which very often do not result in actual construction. Note that the occasion of the State Department’s outrage was that the Government of Israel "has published tenders" for new construction--not begun, much less completed, the construction. Those tenders may result in actual permits for construction, and may produce the housing units, or may not--and the numbers may change. It is also pretty clear that Netanyahu policy has been to depress the amount of construction in outlying areas of the West Bank, a policy that has made settler groups angry and that might, in a different world, have led the State Department to thank him. But not in this world, where housing construction is a threat to peace. The Department’s criticism is politically quite stupid. It continues the Obama administration’s absolute refusal to distinguish between construction in isolated settlements in the West Bank in areas that must become part of Palestine if a State of Palestine is ever created; construction in major blocs that Israel will obviously keep in land swaps; and construction in Jerusalem. It treats them all equally as the "steady acceleration of settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution." Moreover, it refers to construction in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, as settlement construction, and refers to Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as "East Jerusalem settlements." There are no "East Jerusalem settlements;" the term "settlement" loses meaning when applied to Jews building homes in their nation’s capital city. Why is this approach stupid? For two reasons. First, it’s false: construction in outlying areas of the West Bank may indeed appear to be a problem in creating a Palestinian state, but construction in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem is not, nor is construction in major blocs Israel will keep. Second, this failure to make distinctions means Israelis will disregard U.S. complaints instead of listening to them. If the State Department criticized construction by settler groups in remote West Bank areas, it would actually have most Israelis on its side. But when it treats Jerusalem neighborhoods and a place like Maale Adumim as indistinguishable from any and every settler activity no matter how remote, Israelis will mostly shrug and wonder why the Americans are so dumb. And that’s actually a good question. Why are we, or rather why is the State Department? I suppose State is just following orders from the White House, but that only raises the stakes; it does not answer the question. Who is the intended audience for this attack on Israel? If the answer is Israelis and their government, it will fail due to its continuing refusal to make logical distinctions. If the answer is Americans, including members of Congress, then this attack--launched by a lame duck administration during this convention week-- will have zero effect. So here’s a theory: the intended audience is European governments, and others around the world. This kind of assault makes their own assaults on Israel easier: they can see us and raise us in the level of criticism of Israel. They can be encouraged in planning attacks on Israel in the UN General Assembly in September. They can offer six-paragraph screeds where they explain how these new housing units threaten peace, security, and the two-state solution. The State Department statement came the same week that the Palestinian Authority announced it would sue the British government over the Balfour declaration. It is true that this was in many ways a comic announcement, but it displayed a complete lack of serious intent to move forward toward peace or peace negotiations. In that sense it is completely consistent with the way the Palestinian Authority and the PLO have behaved throughout the Obama years. With all the misery and bloodshed in the Middle East; with all the terrorist attacks Israel must face; with chaos in Iraq and Syria; with a PLO thinking not about talks but about lawsuits against the UK, it’s remarkable that housing construction strikes State as the critical problem we face. Meanwhile, also this week, a Saudi delegation visited Jerusalem. As The Times of Israel reported, "a retired Saudi general visited Israel this week, heading a delegation of academics and businessmen seeking to encourage discussion of the Saudi-led Arab Peace Initiative." When the Saudis have a more realistic approach to Israel than the State Department, American policy is far out of whack.          

The unseriousness of the PLO’s desire for peace with Israel was demonstrated in a comic manner this week. Here’s the news item from the AP:   The Palestinian president says he will sue Great Britain over the 1917 Balfour Declaration and its support for a Jewish national home in the Holy Land.   Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki made the announcement on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas at Monday’s opening of the Arab League summit in the Mauritanian capital of Nouakchott. Malki said the suit would be filed in an international court. He didn’t elaborate.   Perhaps Mr. Malki "didn’t elaborate" because he recognizes, at some level, the lunacy of this approach. Is it to be the International Criminal Court, where perhaps they could seek a warrant to arrest Lord Balfour? Problem: he died in 1930. Perhaps he has heirs whose property might be attached. In fact, he never married and had no children. Or perhaps the PLO might try to attach all the streets named for Balfour throughout Israel, or the community there called Balfouria after him. And this PLO approach might become a model: perhaps Germans still unhappy with the Versailles Treaty might sue England and France. Like the Balfour Declaration, that was only a century ago--and Versailles was an actual treaty, not a mere "declaration." If declarations are actionable in international courts, there will be a bonanza for lawyers. Every country in Latin America might sue the United States over the Monroe Doctrine, or perhaps every European country the Monroe Doctrine prohibited from intervening in this Hemisphere might sue us. Lawyers could ponder the difference between a "doctrine" and a "declaration." But there is something more serious to ponder: that the Palestinian leadership is wasting its time and energy on this nonsense instead of trying in practical ways to improve the lives of Palestinians. Suing Lord Balfour, or to be more exact suing the United Kingdom over the Balfour Declaration of 1917, is a substitute for decent governance and the evasion of even an effort to provide it. I imagine that Palestinians are fully aware of this and understand that this initiative is a form of bread and circuses. It’s likely that they will not find this whole episode as ridiculous and amusing as we in the West do.

The Middle East Quartet has just issued its first report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace efforts, and briefed the Security Council yesterday. The UN’s report on the report begins this way:   Continuing violence, terrorism and incitement, settlement expansion, and the Palestinian Authority’s lack of control of Gaza are hurting the Middle East peace process, the United Nations envoy today said summarizing the first ever report by the diplomatic Quartet – comprising the United Nations, Russia, the United States and the European Union – to the Security Council.   “The main objective of this report is not about assigning blame,” Nickolay Mladenov, Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, told the 15-member council. “It focuses on the major threats to achieving a negotiated peace and offers recommendations on the way forward.”   The Quartet was created way back in 2002 by Colin Powell, and had managed to go for 14 years without issuing a report. (I was a participant from 2002 to 2008, joining the Russian Quartet representative, the UN representative, and at every meeting a large group of Europeans--representing the EU Council, the EU Commission, the EU foreign minister, and so on. Videos of the EU delegation to the Quartet might have enlarged considerably the Brexit vote in the UK.) This report actually has some very good aspects, but in the end does not manage to go beyond the conventional wisdom. The report contains a powerful denunciation of terrorism, and a strong discussion of "incitement," meaning the ways the Palestinian authorities glorify terror and the murder of Israelis. Here is part of that section:   Incitement to Violence. Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks are often glorified publicly as “heroic martyrs.” Many widely circulated images depict individuals committing terrorist acts with slogans encouraging violence. The spreading of incitement to violence on social media has gained momentum since October 2015, and is particularly affecting the youth....   Some members of Fatah have publicly supported attacks and their perpetrators, as well as encouraged violent confrontation. In the midst of this recent wave of violence, a senior Fatah official referred to perpetrators as “heroes and a crown on the head of every Palestinian.” Fatah social media has shown attackers superimposed next to Palestinian leaders following terrorist attacks. The Palestinian Authority leadership has repeatedly made statements expressing opposition to violence against civilians and senior officials have publicly maintained a commitment to non-violent resistance. Regrettably, however, Palestinian leaders have not consistently and clearly condemned specific terrorist attacks. And streets, squares and schools have been named after Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism.   I do not recall seeing as candid a statement about Palestinian incitement in any UN document before. The report also occasionally includes a sensible statement that, if pursued, might lead somewhere. Here’s an example:   The Quartet stresses that while a permanent status agreement that ends the conflict can only be achieved through direct bilateral negotiations, important progress can be made now towards advancing the two-state solution on the ground.   In English (which is not exactly the language in use at the UN) this sentence can be translated thus: the negotiations are going nowhere and everyone knows it, so let’s concentrate on pragmatic steps that might actually be taken. Were the Quartet, and the EU and United States, to do this, Palestinians and Israelis would be better off. In fact the main problem with this report is that it is all about what’s "hurting the peace process," when in fact there is no peace process. There hasn’t been one since 2008, when PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas rejected the offer from Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, and 2009, when the Obama administration set a total construction freeze as a precondition for direct negotiations. The report continues an old pattern of equating morally the construction of a home and the murder of an Israeli civilian. It does this in several ways. The very first sentence quoted above shows this: the problems are violence and terror and settlement expansion, you see. I build a bedroom, you murder a child in her bed; we are in the eyes of the Quartet apparently equal obstacles to "the peace process." It is perhaps unfortunate for the Quartet but gives a deep insight into what is really preventing peace that the report was presented the day the following happened:   Hallel Yaffa Ariel, a 13-year-old American citizen, was stabbed to death while she was in her bed in Israel. According to the State Department, a 17-year-old Palestinian assailant allegedly broke into her home in the West Bank and killed her before he was shot by security guards.   There was another attack, same day, near Hebron, that killed a father and injured his wife and children in their car, which came the day after an attack in Netanya...and on and on it goes. It should be possible for the Quartet and for UN bodies to express opposition to settlement expansion without equating it with terrorism and murder. The "peace process" will go nowhere until such terror stops, and until the Palestinian Authority insists on what the Quartet correctly demands: an end to the incitement of and reward for murder.  

Since leaving the White House in January, 2009, I’ve been telling audiences that Palestinian president and PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas will never, never sign a peace agreement with Israel--no matter what its content. Those still in doubt might reflect on the events of this week. Abbas and Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, were both in Brussels, and European President Martin Schulz thought it would be nice to get them together. Rivlin’s post is ceremonial, but that’s all the more reason for a ceremonial gesture toward reconciliation. Abbas simply refused. Rabin could shake the hand of the terrorist Arafat, but Abbas could not shake the hand of the ex-parliamentarian, now president, Rivlin. Abbas and Rivlin both spoke to the European Parliament, where Abbas demonstrated yet again how close to signing a peace deal he is. He reported that Israel had cut off water to the West Bank for Ramadan in order to harm Palestinians, a charge the Palestinian Ministry of Information continues to repeat. The most remarkable line was this one: “The Palestinian people have experienced mass murder on an historic scale and unparalleled attacks under the eyes and ears of the international community, which gives Israel immunity. The Palestinians are going through dark days and live under the tyranny and racism of the occupation. Just a week ago, several rabbis in Israel asked their government to poison the water in order to kill the Palestinians.” Poisoning the wells: this medieval libel against Jews still lives, we see, in the Palestinian president’s rhetoric. And as to "mass murder," there is plenty of it in his neighborhood, not least in Syria where perhaps 500,000 Muslims have been murdered. Among them are Palestinians, who lived there in camps. But of all that he had of course nothing to say. Abbas has benefitted greatly by comparison to his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, and Arafat’s record of corruption and terror. But the Palestinian Authority under Abbas is compiling its own record of corruption, and while Abbas continues to denounce terror in every speech, his Palestinian Authority continues to honor and celebrate terrorists who kill Israelis. Abbas lacks charisma and he wears a suit and tie, unlike Arafat, but those qualities should not be mistaken for any intention ever to sign a peace deal. Abbas has now ruled far longer than Arafat, and the Israelis and Palestinians are no closer to peace. His refusal to meet with Rivlin and his despicable speech this week are reminders that he spurned Ehud Olmert’s peace offer in 2008 and refused the efforts of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry to bring him to the peace table. So my views have not changed since 2009: Abbas will never sign a peace agreement. Life in the West Bank can be made better, Israel and the Palestinian Authority can move toward improved relations, terrorism can be fought, Palestinian autonomy can be negotiated, but there will be no peace negotiated by Mahmoud Abbas. The sooner Western governments come to grips with this fact, the sooner pragmatic approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can advance.

The Associated Press reports this week on the arrival of the first families moving into Rawabi, a new city being built in the West Bank. Rawabi is a marvel in many ways. I visited there in January, toured around a bit, and spoke with the founder, Bashar al-Masri. Rawabi is about 5 miles from Ramallah, and will eventually house 25,000 residents. (Its web site is here.) Construction has been slowed by grudging cooperation from Israel, and even today Rawabi has not been permitted to construct an adequate access road and to connect to sufficient water supplies. But the project is an extraordinary achievement, well designed for living and shopping, with common spaces such as a beautiful open air amphitheater. The AP story states that Rawabi isn’t just about real estate but is part of the statehood dream, and here I disagree. The "statehood dream" is in the hands of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, which are both far too incompetent and corrupt to have built Rawabi. It is successful in large part because it is a private sector project that has as little as possible to do with Palestinian politics. Rawabi is in my view more about Palestinians’ desires for a normal life, in a new city where they can live well despite the political problems that surround them.   Rawabi (Courtesy: Bayti Real Estate Investment Company/Massar International)   Rawabi’s own web site says it well:   Rawabi, is a new community for Palestinian families that will provide opportunities for affordable home ownership, employment, education, leisure and an attractive environment in which to live, work and grow.....The City Center offers a retail business district with hotels, cinemas and a convention center, all supported by the latest smart technologies and a high-speed fiber-optic network. Rawabi also features education and medical facilities, houses of worship, public green spaces and recreation facilities – creating new Palestinian economic and cultural destination.   As the largest private sector undertaking in Palestinian history, Rawabi will expand the local economy’s linkages to the global knowledge economy. It will introduce new technologies to the Palestinian construction sector and encourage international firms, particularly in the high-tech, health care and renewable energy sectors to take up a key role in bolstering current economic activities. Through attracting investors and technology suppliers; Rawabi plans to generate more than 5,000 permanent jobs, creating quality of life and making a long-term, sustainable contribution to national prosperity. Bayti Real Estate Investment Company, the developer of Rawabi, is jointly owned by Qatari Diar and Massar International. It was established to jumpstart the development of the Palestinian real estate sector with a mission to create affordable, accessible, family- friendly communities and create several thousand direct and indirect employment opportunities for Palestinians, providing multi-level stimulus to the national economy....   Notice: no politics here, and one wonders why the AP felt it necessary to insert it. Rawabi is a wonderful and impressive achievement, which Israelis should be applauding rather than intermittently slowing and obstructing. (Some of the obstructions come from residents of nearby Israeli settlements, whose objections are presumably ideological: they want more Israeli towns built near them, not more Palestinian towns.) The message to Palestinians, I would think, is that life in the West Bank can be greatly improved by Palestinians; Rawabi is certainly a rejection of the theology of victimization that makes Palestinians into helpless objects of Israeli action. Rawabi demonstrates that despite the failures of Palestinian politics, Palestinians can be actors, and agents of positive change.

Domestic pressures facing Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas mean France’s bid to reboot Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will likely be a nonstarter, says CFR’s Robert Danin. 

The invaluable group Palestine Media Watch (PMW) reports today on torture in the West Bank and Gaza. PMW carries an exposé from the Ma’an news agency, and here is the key portion: General Director of the Independent Commission for Human Rights Dr. Ammar Dwaik explained that torture like "whippings, hanging a person from his hands while they are tied behind his back, verbal abuse, sleep deprivation and whipping the soles of feet" is being carried out in Palestinian detention centers by individuals despite the fact that it is against the law. The report stated that this happens with the knowledge of PA security forces. This is not the first time such allegations have been made against both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. What’s worth noting is the reaction from Washington and among the donors to the PA: silence. And what’s even more noteworthy is the reaction from the innumerable groups attacking Israel for human rights violations: more silence. Such abuses, which would arouse a global round of denunciations of Israel if Israel acted this way, arouse yawns when committed by the PA. There are some lessons here. One, as noted, is that official Palestinian human rights abuses get next to zero attention. Another lesson is that this immunity carries a price--and the price is paid by Palestinians. Instead of evolving steadily toward a more democratic political system that respects human rights, the Palestinian system has stalled. There are no elections, there are widespread human rights abuses, there are few or no corrective mechanisms, and there is global indifference.  Governments and organizations that say they want to help build peace in the Middle East should realize that withholding criticism of the PA for its abuses is not a way forward. It is a guarantee that human rights conditions in the West Bank will continue to deteriorate.