Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.
JTA report on Clovis controversy over Palestine speaker fails readers
By Alison Weir | If Americans Knew | September 10, 2019
JTA calls itself “the definitive, trusted global source of news and analysis on issues of Jewish interest and concern.” Yet, it has failed to inform its readers fully and accurately about the controversy surrounding my upcoming talk at Clovis Community College in Fresno, California.
The event is entitled: “Uncovered, Israel’s Occupation of Palestine.” I have been researching and writing about Israel-Palestine for 18 years.
JTA’s recent article on the situation reports extravagant, unsourced claims made against me by five powerful Israel advocacy organizations: the ADL, American Jewish Committee, Simon Wiesenthal Center, StandWithUs and Progressive Zionists of California. (The groups have combined assets of over a quarter of a billion dollars.)
However, JTA fails to include information we had published (see below) addressing the groups’ claims. And although the writer of the JTA article, Associate Editor for Breaking News Marcy Oster,* quotes a number of individuals in her report, she failed to contact me for an interview.
While JTA’s article strongly suggests that I am “antisemitic,” the fact is that I have a life history of opposing all racism and bigotry, including antisemitism.
Our website specifically announces our principles: “We believe all people are endowed with inalienable human rights regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, or nationality. We believe in justice, fairness, and compassion and in treating all human beings with respect, empathy, and in the manner in which we would wish to be treated.”
I have attempted to phone and email JTA with the facts they omitted, but JTA has not returned my emails or phone calls. Their article has now also been published by the Times of Israel.
While I realize that JTA editors may consider me an adversary, their readers should be trusted to make up their own minds based on a full disclosure of the facts.
Anyone who wishes to learn the full story about the controversy would benefit from reading “Why are global organizations attacking a talk at Clovis Community College?“, “Weir says ADL claims against her are intended to hide Israeli crimes”, and “#IStandWithAlisonWeir is trending as the Twittersphere supports justice and free speech”.
*Update:
I’ve just learned that Marcy Oster, who wrote the article, lives in an Israeli settlement. (These are illegal under international law). Mondoweiss reports that Oster “is a settler and an advocate for settlers, living in an illegal community north of Ariel, deep in the West Bank.” The settlement Oster lives in is Karnei Shomron, which was established in 1977 on land confiscated from four nearby Palestinian villages.
JTA does not divulge this information about Oster.
*Update:
JTA has now added two paragraphs with some information from me at the end of its article. This addition comes from a piece by Jewish Journal that had been widely syndicated a few days ago. While JTA had quoted from the Journal article, originally it had omitted this particular information.
While this small addition is an improvement, the articles by both JTA and Jewish Journal remain profoundly slanted and leave out much relevant information.
(To see the information we had sent to Jewish Journal go here.)
The talk is on Wednesday. Sept. 18, 6pm, at Clovis Community College, CA 10309 N Willow Ave, Fresno, California 93730). It is free and open to the public.
The company that publishes JTA is 70 Faces Media, which says it is the ‘largest Jewish media organization in North America.’
Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew, president of the Council for the National Interest, and author of the best selling book Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel.
Israel bombs Gaza position for an entire hour: Palestinian sources

Press TV – September 7, 2019
Israel has launched a lengthy bombardment of positions in the Gaza Strip, sources inside the besieged enclave say.
Palestinian news agencies said late on Saturday that Israeli airstrikes targeted positions allegedly held by the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas north of the Gaza and deep inside the enclave.
Health officials said there were no casualties from the attacks that lasted close to an hour.
Israeli regime sources said the attacks hit Hamas naval facilities on the Mediterranean and two military compounds run by the group in central Gaza.
There was no confirmation from Hamas and its affiliated groups.
The relentless Israeli bombardment came after Hamas launched a drone operation targeting an Israeli military equipment stationed along the border with the occupied Palestinian territories.
It also came a day after Israelis launched attacks on five positions inside Gaza.
Regime sources have claimed the attacks were in response to Hamas operations targeting Israeli settlers and military forces.
However, attacks by Hamas have come in response to regime’s killing of people marching along the border to protest the Israeli occupation.
Two Palestinian teenagers were killed in such attacks by Israeli troops earlier on Friday in clashes that erupted east of the Gaza City.
Some 66 other Palestinians were wounded in Israeli gunfire and other attacks during the anti-occupation protest held the same day.
Hamas has launched two rounds of retaliatory attacks on Israeli positions over the past 48 hours. The group fired five rockets into the occupied territories on Friday night, setting off sirens in Israeli settlements along the Gaza border as well as in the city of Sderot.
The group also responded to Israeli attacks by launching a successful drone operation earlier on Saturday.
The Israeli military confirmed the drone attack inflicted damage to equipment stationed along the border while claiming there were no casualties to its troops.
Hamas appreciates European court decision to remove it from terror list
Palestine Information Center – September 7, 2019
GAZA – The Hamas Movement has appreciated the verdict of a European court in Luxembourg to cancel previous decisions designating it and its armed wing, al-Qassam Brigades, as terror entities.
Hamas spokesman Abdul-Latif Qanua stated in a press release that the decision was a positive step in the right direction and would contribute to supporting the Palestinian people’s national cause and their right to struggle against the occupation.
“All laws have given our Palestinian people the right to struggle against the Israeli occupation and defend their national rights,” spokesman Qanua said.
He called for necessarily building up on this decision to remove further unjust bias against his Movement.
“Hamas is an integral part of our Palestinian people and won fair elections, and it would be unjust and frivolous to have it on terror lists,” the spokesman added.
According to local websites in Gaza on Friday, the Movement’s attorney in Europe, Khaled al-Showli, said the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg decided last Thursday to remove Hamas and its armed wing from the world’s list of terrorism.
He also said that the court’s verdict was not final, but the previous decisions on the reinsertion of Hamas and its military wing on terrorist lists became “null and void.”
What We Know About the 30-Year-Old Ex-Coffee Fetcher Replacing Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan Architect
Sputnik – September 7, 2019
US Special Envoy for the Middle East Jason Greenblatt, one of the key figures behind the so-called Trump ‘Deal of the Century’ plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, announced his resignation on Thursday. Avi Berkowitz, a 30-year-old attorney and political advisor, is expected to replace him.
Greenblatt, 53, who has worked on the peace plan since late 2017 alongside Trump advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, said he would resign after the plan is made public, which US officials have said wouldn’t happen before the Israeli legislative elections set for later this month.
There are several things we know about Avi Berkowitz, who has served as an assistant to Kushner since January 2017, and has been a friend of his for years.
- Studying at an Orthodox seminary in Jerusalem for two years after graduating from high school, and studying at a rabbinical college in Baltimore, Maryland, Berkowitz has no reported experience in foreign policy. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 2016. He reportedly met Kushner as an undergraduate student at Queens College in the early 2010s, and joined the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Harvard Law School Graduation 2016!! #harvard2016 pic.twitter.com/peEAPkVAsA
— Avi Berkowitz (@AviBerkow) June 9, 2016
- In 2017, former White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks told Business Insider that Berkowitz’s duties at the time were mostly administrative, with the assistant said to have helped Kushner with “daily logistics”-related issues such as getting coffee, coordinating meetings, and assisting visitors as they were toured around the White House. According to one former White House official, these duties also included holding onto Kushner’s phone while he was in meetings.
Happy Birthday! pic.twitter.com/cHsBt3N3EG
— Avi Berkowitz (@AviBerkow) June 14, 2019
- Despite his youth and relative political inexperience, Berkowitz is said to already be one of just four people familiar with drafts of Trump’s Middle East peace plan, and tagged along with Kushner during his February 2019 trip to Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to discuss the plan.
- Along with Berkowitz, Brian Hook, the Trump administration’s special representative for Iran and a senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is also expected to play “an increased role” in the Mideast peace plan negotiations.
- Berkowitz’s promotion follows his elevation last year from ‘assistant to senior advisor’ Kushner to ‘advisor to senior advisor’ Kushner. It’s unclear what additional responsibilities or benefits the promotion may have entailed. It’s also unknown whether the peace plan chief promotion will entail a formal new title.
- According to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency analysis, Berkowitz is “cut from the same religious and ideological cloth as Kushner, Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman [US Ambassador to Israel], with all four men “raised in Orthodox Jewish homes, are all from the New York area, and all have deep pre-government ties to Israel and its religious institutions.”
2.5 years pic.twitter.com/y1djDoOWYv
— Avi Berkowitz (@AviBerkow) July 19, 2019
- Greenblatt himself has described Berkowitz as someone “qualified to do what’s expected of him, and it will continue to be very much a team approach kind of place… He’s developed quite a good relationship with the relevant Middle East ambassadors and diplomats. He interacts with them a lot because of his role with Jared and when I’ve seen those interactions, they’ve been very positive.”
Trump’s Peace Plan
The Trump administration is expected to formally unveil its Israeli-Palestinian peace plan proposal after the legislative elections to Israel’s Knesset on 17 September. Details of the political portion of the plan formally remain a secret, but it is widely expected to abandon the two-state solution – which has been at the core of all previous negotiations in recent decades – in favour of financial incentives for the Palestinians. Kushner presented the financial portion of the plan at a conference in Bahrain earlier this year, with Palestinian negotiators boycotting the meeting. Kushner responded by calling the Palestinian side “hysterical and erratic.” In recent weeks, the Israeli government has also reportedly lobbied the Trump administration to recognise Israeli sovereignty over territories it controls in the West Bank. Palestinian officials have repeatedly criticised Israel over its settlement activities in the West Bank.
Euro-Med urges Switzerland not to yield to Israeli pressure
Palestine Information Center – September 5, 2019
GENEVA – The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called on the Swiss federal parliament not to bow to Israeli pressure to suspend Swiss criminal legislation authorizing the country’s courts to prosecute Israeli politicians and military figures involved in war crimes against Palestinians.
The Euro-Med said in a statement that it views the visit with a great concern the Israeli delegation’s visit to Switzerland, headed by Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz and accompanied by a legal team to pressure the authorities to suspend a criminal legislation allowing bringing lawsuits against Israeli commanders and soldiers involved in violations of human rights in the Palestinian territories.
According to the Monitor, Switzerland was one of the first countries to include in its domestic legislation legal provisions allowing for the prosecution of perpetrators of major crimes if they were not tried by the International Criminal Court.
The law, passed by the Swiss National Council in 2009, aims to strengthen the exercise of universal jurisdiction in the country by making the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court a national law. The step, by then, aimed to strengthen the fight against impunity of perpetrators of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The Swiss law is based on the principle of universal jurisdiction, which is the most flexible of judicial principles, since it does not require the existence of a close link between the suspect and the state in order to initiate the investigation. If a person violates the legal rules of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, they will prosecuted.
The Swiss domestic law allows the arrest of any suspect once entering the Swiss territory even if this person is not a resident or does not own property there.
Mohammed Imad, a legal researcher at the Euro-Med Monitor, said the visit of the Israeli delegation aims to face the rising human voices within a number of European countries calling for including in their countries’ legislation legal provisions that allow domestic courts to prosecute leaders and soldiers of the Israeli army involved in violations that may amount to war crimes, which were committed during attacks in the Palestinian Territories.
Imad urged the Swiss authorities to uphold their humanitarian legal stance against the Israeli violations targeting Palestinians and to reject any pressure that would affect the principle of criminal prosecution applied in the country.
Euro-Med pointed to several examples initiated by the Swiss judiciary, on the basis of its law that is based on universal jurisdiction. For instance, several human rights organizations concerned with the rights of Palestinians in Switzerland filed a lawsuit against former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert for war crimes during the 2008-2009 Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip.
As a result, Olmert canceled his trip to Switzerland, which was scheduled in July after warnings received from the Israeli attorney general that he might be arrested because of lawsuits against him.
In another example, a federal criminal court decided to detain the former Gambian interior minister, Osman Sonko, who sought refuge in Switzerland in 2017. He was believed to have personally supervised the torture of citizens during his tenure as interior minister between 2006 and 2016. He was arrested on the pretext of a report by an international organization accusing him of forming a torture group in Gambia.
Sonko is still being held to this moment in the Swiss prisons after rejecting claims that he had no links to torture in the Gambia.
Euro-Med called on the Swiss authorities to uphold their position regarding the prosecution of Israeli war criminals and urged the legislative authorities in the country to not bow to Israeli pressure.
The Euro-Med called on all European countries to follow the footsteps of Switzerland and include in their domestic legislation provisions that allow the prosecution of those involved in violations in conflict areas in contravention of international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Israel, Swiss officials discuss alternative to UNRWA
MEMO | September 5, 2019
Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz announced yesterday that Israel and Switzerland will work on finding an alternative to UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the Jerusalem Post reported.
These remarks, according to the Jerusalem Post, came following a meeting with the Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis in Bern.
During the meeting, Katz accused UNRWA officials in Gaza of cooperating with the Palestinian resistance in carrying out alleged attacks on Israel.
The Israeli newspaper claimed that Katz used quotes from previous remarks made by Cassis himself dating back to May this year when he claimed that the Palestine refugee agency is “part of the problem and not the solution”.
Cassis claimed then that the UNRWA fuelled “unrealistic” hope among Palestinians of a “right to return” to Israel from refugee camps in the Middle East.
Katz claimed yesterday that the existence of UNRWA sustains the status of Palestine refugees, prolongs the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and retains the demand of the Palestinian refugees to return home.
The Israeli foreign minister has recently directed his ministry to lay down a document proposing an alternative to the UNRWA which he discussed with his Swiss counterpart.
Switzerland suspended payments to UNRWA in July after reports about misconduct among its officials.
Hizbullah Reminds Israel of Its Power
By Helena Cobban | Lobe Log | September 5, 2019
On September 1, Hizbullah fighters on Lebanon’s border with Israel fired two precision-guided missiles over the border, apparently hitting an Israeli “Wolf” armored personnel carrier (APC) and inflicting casualties of unknown severity on its occupants (see below). The strike came a day after Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah warned that the organization would retaliate for Israel’s killing, a few days earlier, of two Hizbullah fighters in Syria and Israel’s deployment of explosive drones against Hizbullah-related targets in eastern Lebanon and the capital, Beirut.
The Israelis responded to the attack on the Wolf by firing a number of rockets and artillery shells, seemingly at random, into uninhabited parts of southern Lebanon, with no casualties reported.
On September 2, Hizbullah released a video of the attack on the Wolf, which took place in broad daylight. The video shows Hizbullah operatives launching two guided missiles against a military vehicle, each of which causes a large explosion. Hours later, Nasrallah told his supporters that this cross-border action—the first since the extremely destructive Hizbullah-Israel war of 2006—represented a new stage in the struggle against Israel. He warned, too, that his fighters would henceforth feel free to bring down any of the scores of military drones that Israel deploys in Lebanese airspace each month.
Taken together, the events of late August through September 1 underscored that the situation of reciprocal (if highly asymmetrical) deterrence that has existed between Israel and Hizbullah since the end of the 2006 fighting remains in place.
This situation has significant impact not only for the peoples of Lebanon and Israel but also in the broader regional arena, in which the Israel-Hizbullah balance plays a key role. For though Hizbullah has always, since its emergence in 1985, been an authentic, indigenous Lebanese movement, it is also a key ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran. So if Israel, some parts of the U.S. government, and other regional actors such as Saudi Arabia are considering launching any significant military attack against Iran, then Hizbullah’s ability and willingness to join the battle by counter-striking against high-value targets inside Israel is a factor that anti-Tehran war planners have to take into account.
Iran does have, as I wrote here recently, a broader network of regional allies, of which Lebanon’s Hizbullah is only one part. But Hizbullah is unique by virtue of the special role its conflict with Israel plays in affecting strategic thinking and decision-making in Israel and elsewhere. Hizbullah, as everyone in the Middle East is aware, is the only body, governmental or non-governmental, that has been able to inflict significant military defeat on Israel—and not just once, but twice.
The first defeat became clear in May-June of 2000, when the Israeli military that had been occupying a strip of Southern Lebanon since 1978 simply pulled up its stakes and withdrew. The decisive earlier battle against Hizbullah that led PM Ehud Barak to take that decision had actually happened four years earlier. In 1996, Israel launched a scorched-earth attack against Lebanon that failed to either destroy Hizbullah or turn the Lebanese population against it. When Barak became PM, he judged, quite sensibly, that the casualties that Israel’s occupation force had continued to take in Lebanon since 1996 were all for naught.
In 2006, another Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert—who had far less military experience and military savvy than Barak—thought he would try his hand at diminishing the considerable amount of military and political power that Hizbullah had continued to accrue in Lebanon. With huge support from President George W. Bush and most European governments, Olmert launched another scorched-earth attack against Lebanon, once again aimed at either destroying Hizbullah or turning the Lebanese public against it. In the two years prior to 2006, there had been quite a lot of (Saudi-supported) anti-Hizbullah agitation in Lebanon, so perhaps Olmert hoped to gain advantage from that. If so, he failed miserably. Lebanese from all political and religious persuasions rallied strongly around Hizbullah.
That was not the only thing that went wrong with the war from Olmert’s point of view. Some three weeks into the conflict, it became clear that even the Israeli air force’s destruction of critical Lebanese infrastructure (gruesomely celebrated in Israel thereafter as the “Dahiyeh Doctrine”) could not force Hizbullah to cry “uncle.” Olmert and his advisors decided to send in Israeli ground forces. But the ground units all proved woefully ill-prepared for their task. It soon became clear that neither they nor the air force could stop Hizbullah’s well-trained rocketeers from continuing to fire missiles deep into Israel’s interior.
Thirty-three days into the campaign, both leaderships agreed it was time to stop. They negotiated a ceasefire through the mediation of the Lebanese government and the United Nations. The ceasefire’s basic structure was a return to the status-quo ante. All the Israeli troops recently deployed into Lebanon had to immediately withdraw. All hostilities and cross-border military actions had to cease. The United Nations beefed up its southern Lebanon peacekeeping force, which since 1978 had been a fairly ineffective presence along the border.
For Israel, the 2006 war was a crushing defeat—and for its ground forces, in particular, a humiliation. (One explanation for the three vicious assaults Israel launched against Gaza in 2008, 2012, and 2014 was that the country’s military leaders sought to regain from Israel’s citizens the high esteem they had always previously enjoyed—esteem that had been very badly dented in 2006.)
For Hizbullah, the 33-Day War of 2006 was unquestionably a victory, though one bought at a high price in the human and material losses suffered by all the Lebanese people.
The essential victory that Hizbullah won in 2006, as in 1996, was that it faced down Israel’s extremely hi-tech military and survived with its core military and political networks and its ability to inflict significant destruction inside Israel all intact—and without having made any political concessions. This is, of course, why Israel and its acolytes and supporters in the West all hate it so deeply.
In the limited military exchange that Hizbullah and Israel engaged in on September 1, the underlying facts about the reciprocal deterrence that has existed between them since 2000 were on full display.
For some years now, the Israeli military has been taking advantage of the chaotic situation in Syria to mount sporadic attacks against various targets there, including some that they claim are connected to Hizbullah or the Iranian military. At periodic meetings that Israeli officials have conducted with their counterparts in Russia, which has long been allied with the Syrian government, the two sides have sketched out rudimentary “rules of engagement” for such raids. In July, the Israelis extended their campaign to interrupt Iran’s export of weapons and advisors yet further, sending F-35s to attack two locations in Iraq that were allegedly being used by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In July, and again in late August, it struck at Hizbullah operatives inside Syria, killing at least two of them.
Of all the targets thus attacked, only Hizbullah retaliated directly against Israel. It did so in a measured and limited way that nonetheless served to remind Israelis of their continuing vulnerability to Hizbullah’s military muscle and military/political smarts.
Israel’s reaction to the announcement Nasrallah made on August 31, that Hizbullah “would retaliate” for Israel’s killing of its operatives in Syria, was intriguing. As was widely reported in the (always military-censored) Israeli media, the Israeli military ostentatiously announced that it would pull troops back from front-line positions facing Lebanon, in what seemed like a deliberate move to de-escalate tensions.
Israel’s responses to the Wolf attack, which happened the very next day, were also intriguing. Firstly, in the military sphere, its retaliation against Hizbullah/Lebanon was notably restrained, a fact that could perhaps be attributed to PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s reluctance to get Israel into yet another complex imbroglio in Lebanon with his country’s next general election coming up September 17—except that, in the context of, say, Gaza, Israeli leaders have often seemed to judge that launching an attack could be a valuable part of an election strategy.
Secondly, in the informational sphere, Netanyahu went out of his way to deny that the attack on the military vehicle had caused any casualties. The video that Hizbullah made and distributed of the incident seemed clearly to show that the vehicle was an APC, and that the two missiles that struck it caused massive explosions. Other news footage from inside Israel showed injured soldiers being carried out and evacuated to a nearby military hospital. But Israeli spokesmen, faithfully parroted by reporters from the local and foreign media—all of whom are subject to Israeli military censorship– described the vehicle as merely a military “jeep” and said the footage showing apparent medevac operations had been faked by the military, using dummies.
This strange claim seemed aimed either at reassuring Hizbullah that its operation had already “succeeded” enough that it need not launch any follow-on attacks—or, perhaps more plausibly, at damping down any desire Israelis might have had for a large-scale retaliation.
But throughout this whole episode, Israel’s leaders were still clearly signaling that they agree that “You don’t mess with Hizbullah.”
This has wider implications for the regional balance between Israel and Iran. One essential fact in that balance is that the alliance between Hizbullah and Iranian leadership goes far deeper than any mere coalition of convenience and is, in practice, unbreakable at this point. Another is that Hizbullah’s home turf and principal area of operations directly abuts Israel—and it cannot be defeated there. Remember, after all, that Hizbullah first emerged in the mid-1980s under the difficult circumstances of a harsh Israeli occupation of one third of Lebanon—and that it showed first, that it could successfully organize to throw off that occupation and, then, that it could repel the next big attempt Israel made, in 2006, to destroy it.
Much about the regional balance has changed since 2006. The biggest change has been the heartbreakingly protracted civil war in Syria, a conflict that weakened the Syrian government which had long been a key part of the Iran-led coalition and considerably weakened Damascus’s ability to protect the Syrian homeland from incursion by all manner of hostile foreign forces, including those of Israel, the United States, and Turkey. (Syria’s civil war has, however, provided Hizbullah and the IRGC with valuable opportunities to act and train in complex urban-conflict environments.) Another change has been a considerable weakening of U.S. military-political power in Iraq, with the diffusion of some U.S. military capabilities into Syria. All these changes—along with others that have taken place in the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere in the region—undoubtedly affect the balance of power between Israel and Iran. But the inescapable facts, that Hizbullah can cause wide damage within Israel’s heartland and withstand the strongest counter-attacks that Israel can launch against it, still remain.
Veteran Middle East analyst and author Helena Cobban is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and the CEO of both Just World Books and the nonprofit Just World Educational. JWE’s website Justworldeducational.org makes freely available to the public a variety of resources on war, peace, justice, and the Middle East.
Top designer of Trump’s Middle East peace plan Jason Greenblatt resigning
RT | September 5, 2019
A chief author of US President Donald Trump’s still under-wraps Middle East peace plan, Jason Greenblatt, will leave his post in government after the contentious deal is unveiled – though it’s unclear why.
The president announced Greenblatt’s resignation by tweet on Thursday afternoon, stating his top negotiator and longtime legal adviser would soon leave “to pursue work in the private sector” after nearly three years in his administration, but did not elaborate on his reason for leaving.
The future of the “deal of the century” Greenblatt has been working on for just shy of two years remains uncertain, as Palestinians have ruled out accepting American mediation, believing any agreement they can come up with will favor Israel. They have reasons to expect that, too – from Trump’s scandalous decision to recognize the contested city of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, to his repeated proclamations of loyalty to the state of Israel.
Even in his send-off tweets for Greenblatt, the president thanked him for “His dedication to Israel” separately from “seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” apparently seeing nothing untoward in declaring his favor for one side of a highly contentious dispute the US is supposedly trying to arbitrate.
Greenblatt will not leave until the administration’s long-awaited Middle East peace plan is finally unveiled, senior officials told Reuters.
The release of Trump’s peace plan has seen several delays over the summer. While the economic component of the plan – including a $50 billion aid package for the Palestinians – was unveiled at an international conference in Bahrain in June, the Trump administration has withheld the deal’s political aspect, and now says it will wait until after Israel’s September 17 election to publish those details.
Greenblatt, formerly a top legal adviser to the Trump Organization, is among 4 officials who know the full details of the plan, the others being the US ambassador to Israel David Friedman, the president’s son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner, as well as Avi Berkowitz, a Kushner aide.
Berkowitz will reportedly fill Greenblatt’s post as representative for international negotiations, while Iran envoy Brian Hook will also take on a larger role in crafting the peace deal, according to NBC.
UNRWA’s existence might be contested, but it is essential for Palestine refugees
By Francesca Albanes and Terry Rempel | MEMO | September 4, 2019
These are dire times for UNRWA, the UN agency established to care for refugees displaced from Palestine at the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. As the Agency approaches its seventieth anniversary, with its mandate up for renewal by the UN General Assembly in the autumn, recent allegations of misconduct and abuse of power by senior UNRWA staff have brought renewed criticisms and a volley of polemical attacks against it. This has made the task of caring for 5.5 million refugees even more difficult and hijacked the space for informed and level-headed debate on both the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Allegations of misconduct and abuse of power made worse
Pending the results of a UN headquarters investigation into allegations of wrongdoing, several European donors have suspended their contributions to UNRWA. Reports that New Zealand may soon do the same have heightened concern among refugees and others about UNRWA’s financial stability, after the US – hitherto UNRWA’s largest donor – withdrew its funding last year. Similar investigations of staff of other UN organisations have not provoked a comparable donor response. As others have rightly noted, it is the refugees who will ultimately pay the price for the current quagmire.
Vigilant against the misuse of public funds and accountable to their domestic constituencies, donors are at the same time reasonably expected to withhold judgement until the UN Secretariat has completed its investigation. Lost in the political invective is the fact that it was UNRWA’s internal oversight mechanisms that identified and reported the allegations to the UN Secretary-General in the first place. UN regulations and rules do provide means to address the situation without the need to suspend funding.
Citing the recent allegations as more evidence that UNRWA is “irredeemably flawed”, longstanding critics have redoubled their attacks against the Agency. Unsubstantiated claims of inefficiency and charges of incitement and terrorism have been recycled for more than a decade. Never is it mentioned that UNRWA staff who are found to be in violation of UN rules and regulations are dismissed immediately.
These critics claim that UNRWA perpetuates the refugee “problem” and that getting rid of the Agency will somehow solve it. Dissolving the Agency, in this misguided view, is the easiest way to rid themselves of the refugee issue. Yet, the reality is rather that only when there is a just solution to the refugee question will UNRWA no longer be required.
The need for informed and level-headed debate
Relying almost entirely on voluntary donations, the Agency’s ability to meet the needs of the growing number of Palestine refugees is further strained by humanitarian emergencies in areas where it operates, downturns in the global economy and the seven-decade-long absence of durable solutions. In the spirit of international responsibility sharing, both the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, adopted by all 193 members of the General Assembly in 2016, and the UN Secretary-General, have called upon states to ensure that UNRWA has “sufficient, predictable and sustainable” funding pending a just and durable solution to the refugee question. While the Agency has undertaken measures to broaden its donor base, explore additional funding streams and establish new partnerships at both corporate and private levels, primary responsibility for funding UNRWA remains with UN member states.
A Palestinian man carries food aid given by UNRWA in Rafah, Gaza on 22 January 2017 [Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu Agency]
The prospect for just and durable solutions for Palestinian refugees remains a chimera seventy years on. Israel’s adamant denial of their right of return has in turn rendered local integration in the Arab host countries and resettlement in third countries politically impracticable. The responsibility for a political solution of the refugee situation, as well as of the unresolved question of Palestinian self-determination, lies with states. There is little that UNRWA can do by itself to help the refugees out of the current impasse until political conditions allow refugees to make free and informed choices about their future. Meanwhile, UNRWA can neither be blamed for the lack of a political solution nor should be seen as a substitute for the lack of political will within the international community.
Like Palestine refugees cared for by UNRWA, about 16 million refugees worldwide (seventy-eight per cent of the global refugee population) find themselves in a “protracted refugee situation”. The similar absence of a political solution makes UNHCR’s mandate for them no less compelling. Whether UNRWA could do more within its existing mandate or whether this should explicitly include the promotion of durable solutions raises difficult and politically sensitive questions, requiring careful and objective examination.
Moving beyond uncertainty
When it considers UNRWA’s mandate in November, the General Assembly has an opportunity to better serve Palestine refugees by helping remove the uncertainty and air of perpetual crisis that surrounds them and the Agency. Discussions about how to achieve a just resolution to the refugees’ plight can no longer be postponed.
Meanwhile, UNRWA must be enabled to continue to care for the refugees, armed with a new institutional vision and strategy, one that fully involves refugees in discussions concerning their future. After decades of broken promises, it is time for the international community, through the United Nations, to translate declarations of support for the refugees into concrete action.
How to confront Israel’s annexation of the occupied West Bank
By Dr Youssef Rizqa | MEMO | September 4, 2019
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing everything possible to annex parts of the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is still doing everything possible to coordinate with Israel’s security agencies, suppressing every new resistance cell, most recently the one in Nablus.
If the PA can preserve the Arab nature and character of the West Bank by suppressing resistance and security coordination, then there is no reason for it to complain about Netanyahu’s annexation call. How can the PA complain about Israel to the world, while it helps Israel, facilitates its security measures and prevents its own citizens from resisting illegal settlements and the Judaisation of their land? If the PA is resorting to the outside world and complaining about Israel, why doesn’t it let its people in the West Bank help it to thwart Israel’s plans?
The PA’s policy is strange, as Abbas is fighting Israel abroad in Western countries and international forums, but not at home; nor does he allow the Palestinian factions and citizens to exercise any kind of legitimate resistance to the Israeli occupation. Does he hope to liberate the West Bank of the Israeli settlements by complaining to Western countries? If that was even remotely possible, why couldn’t he prevent Israel from annexing Jerusalem or stop the US from moving its embassy to Jerusalem, even though the entire world, including Britain and France, do not recognise Israel’s annexation of the Holy City?
The correct response to the Jerusalem issue is to activate national resistance, while the appropriate response to Netanyahu’s call to annex parts of the West Bank is to activate the resistance and withdraw from security coordination. There is no other solution that can preserve the Arab nature of the West Bank and prevent illegal settlement expansion.
Abbas cannot walk down the right path — which must surely be the path of his own people — while taking the crooked path, travelling between Western and Eastern capitals and begging them to put pressure on Israel. He has forgotten that countries with specific ideologies and which believe Zionism’s Biblical myths are not influenced at all by external pressure.
Israel and its supporters have the power to exert pressure and influence over others in, for example, the US, where support for the occupation state is strong, as well as among the governing classes in France, Germany and Britain. Ideology must be tackled with ideology; myths must be disproved by established historical facts; and resistance must be used to prevent settlement expansion and Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.
This article first appeared in Arabic in Felesteen on 2 September 2019
Hundreds Take Part in Direct Action against UK Arms Trade with Israel

IMEMC News & Agencies – September 3, 2019
The UK Department for International Trade has officially invited the government of Israel to DSEI, despite a UN report earlier in the year stating that Israel’s repression of unarmed Palestinian protestors may have constituted “war crimes or crimes against humanity”.
Organizers Palestine Solidarity Campaign and War On Want are seeking to highlight Israel’s systematic violations of human rights and international law and call on the UK Government to implement a 2-way arms embargo with Israel.
Hundreds of human rights activists are currently protesting the UK’s trade in arms with Israel outside Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEI), the world’s largest arms fair, held at ExCel London every two years.
Under the banner “Stop Arming Israel”, a day of creative action and protest organised by campaigning groups Palestine Solidarity Campaign and War on Want is taking place outside the fair throughout Monday 2nd September. Protesters have blocked roads in order to stop trucks carrying weapons from getting inside the fair.
Organisers of the event claim that DSEI is a site where violations of international law and human rights are flaunted by companies, including Israel’s Elbit Systems, who market their weapons as ‘battle-tested’, meaning that they have been tried and tested in attacks on Palestinian civilians.
They are also voicing opposition to the UK Government’s role in co-hosting the event. Israel has appeared for the first time on the Department of International Trade’s list of official invitees for DSEI, only months after the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Gaza protests found evidence indicating that Israeli forces fired on unarmed Palestinian protestors unlawfully, using force that may have constituted war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Ryvka Barnard, Senior Campaigns Officer (Militarism and Security) at War on Want, said: “The DSEI arms fair brings together the most destructive elements of the global arms trade, responsible for countless deaths and immeasurable destruction around the world.
Companies displaying their wares include the likes of Israel’s Elbit Systems, which has produced internationally banned weapons such as white phosphorous and artillery systems that can be used for cluster munitions. Elbit and other countries boast that their weapons are battle-tested, meaning that they fine-tune their products by testing in live combat situations. The people of London don’t want our city to be used as a marketplace for companies turning crimes against humanity into profit.”
Huda Ammori, Campaigns Officer at Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: “The UK Government can talk all it wants about respecting human rights, but its deadly arms trade with Israel reveals the truth. The UK Government is showing a total disregard for Palestinian lives, and is fully complicit in the atrocities committed against them by the Israeli state. We need a 2-way arms embargo now, and we need all other complicit companies and institutions – from HSBC to UK universities – to cut ties with the Israeli arms trade too and to stand on the side of human rights. That’s why we’re taking action at the DSEI arms fair.”
Activities throughout the day include street theatre, political discussions, banner-making and dabke dancing (Arab folkloric dance). The day’s events will lead into a street party this evening featuring a performance by award-winning poet Sabrina Mahfouz and a DJ set from Ben Smoke.
The ‘Stop Arming Israel’ protests begin a week-long set of protests against the DSEI arms fair, with a different theme each day, highlighting the diverse communities opposing the hosting of DSEI in London, PNN reports.






![A Palestinian man carries sacks of flour during a food aid distribution by UNRWA in Rafah, Gaza on 22 January 2017 [Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu Agency]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/20170122_2_21435532_18209699.jpg?resize=933.5%2C622&quality=75&strip=all&ssl=1)
