One of the most important statements on Mideast policy over the past four years. It's more than eight years in the making. USG finally upends the fiction of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Numbers & policy statements to be cited by scholars for years. Thread.
UNRWA claims to serve millions of “Palestinian refugees." These "refugees" are in some cases kept in poverty and hopelessness, told they are waiting for the day when they will return to their rightful homes within modern Israel (to end the Jewish majority of the state).
Of course, most people served by UNRWA don’t meet basic criteria for refugee status. Most are either citizens of other countries or live within Palestinian territories. Most were not displaced by conflict. Yet @StateDept has promoted UNRWA’s fiction for decades - with taxpayer $.
Flashback to May 2012: an amendment sponsored by former US Sen. Mark Kirk passed the Senate Appropriations Committee requiring the State Department to estimate how many people served by UNRWA were truly refugees. foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/24/sen…
Here's another good after-action on the fight over the Kirk amendment from @JRubinBlogger -- a fight that has continued until today. washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-tu…
At the time @JSchanzer wrote a compelling piece in @ForeignPolicy as to why the Kirk amendment was needed to end UNRWA's fictions. foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/21/sta…
The Obama administration sent a report in 2015 to the Hill but classified it to hide any numbers. This sparked outrage among UNRWA’s critics, but detractors of Israel who appreciate UNRWA as a tool of political warfare targeting Israel thought they were in the clear. Not so much.
In 2018, @FDD @JSchanzer & I called on the Trump administration to release the estimate of actual refugees served by UNRWA and make clear that UNRWA is not a refugee agency – it is a scam. wsj.com/articles/expos…
In 2020, @FDD @JSchanzer & I once again called on the outgoing administration to take these steps – cementing a lasting legacy on one of the most important remaining hurdles to Palestinian-Israeli peace. nypost.com/2020/11/23/how…
Today, the Secretary of State spoke truth. It's estimated fewer than 200,000 Arabs displaced by the 1948 conflict are still alive. Notably, this is the high estimate among researchers with <30,000 being the low. But the outcome is the same – UNRWA’s millions are not refugees.
Further, @SecPompeo rightly calls for UNRWA’s mandate to end. Keeping people in a false refugee status, impoverished & hopeless is a violation of Palestinian human rights. As we look at changing paradigms with the Abraham Accords, ending UNRWA’s mandate must be high on the list.
All of this raises serious policy questions for Congress and the incoming administration as it promises to restore funding to UNRWA. Why is funding to UNRWA provided from refugee assistance accounts and/or overseen by State's refugee bureau? This should change via appropriations.
If most of these non-refugee individuals are citizens of another country or residents of the Palestinian territories, why aren't we providing assistance to support these individuals bilaterally? What is the plan to move to bilateral assistance and who should oversee that?
And what of the Arab countries normalizing relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords that continue to fund UNRWA. The fiction of UNRWA and its mandate is built as a political weapon to delegitimize and destroy Israel. How does that align with the terms of the Accords?
I'll end with this: lifting the veil on UNRWA's fiction, recognizing its registrants aren't refugees & calling for an end to UNRWA's mandate is pro-peace and pro-Palestinian human rights. Anyone who says otherwise has an incompatible agenda with peace and Palestinian prosperity.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Richard Goldberg

Richard Goldberg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rich_goldberg

6 Dec 20
Just read this @DanielBShapiro, which essentially asks “why can’t we all just get along” if a Biden administration decides to go back into the Iran nuclear deal. Sounds nice on its face but the details reveal at least three major fallacies. Thread. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/1…
First, if you accept premise the Iran deal was "good" for US/Israel in first 5 years, but then good for Iran once sunsets kicked in, you’d have to conclude the deal today is now "bad" for US/Israel. The first sunset has already kicked in (arms embargo). The second comes in 2023.
Iran won't agree to extend sunsets already bagged. Nor will they agree to extend future sunsets when offered sanctions relief up front. Going back into a deal that is already expiring & giving up all leverage up front should be added to the dictionary as a definition of insanity.
Read 13 tweets
8 Nov 20
Four days later, I stand by this tweet. I was a Republican staffer on Capitol Hill when I served as a reservist in Afghanistan. My commander in chief was President Obama. I was honored to serve in the Trump administration. And I congratulate President-elect Biden and his team. /1
We have serious policy differences in America. How to create economic opportunity. How to empower everyone in our country to achieve the American dream. How to keep our country safe & secure. These differences will continue. High-minded debate makes us all better. /2
Violence is not who we are. Intimidation & threats are not who we are. Dehumanizing our fellow Americans is not who we are. This is an emotional period for many. Some joyous, others distraught. We should treat each other with respect as the president-elect encouraged tonight. /3
Read 5 tweets
21 Aug 20
THREAD. Reading E3 letter to the Security Council (which by the way shreds any credibility for those countries to ever opine on the virtues of international law again) it becomes clear that they (plus Russia and China) would have said a US snapback in May 2018 was invalid, too.
Obama, Biden, Kerry, Sherman, Lew & others vowed the US could snapback even if all other countries opposed it. Were they lying? Was that the understanding? Are these official lying today when they say we could have in 2018 but we can't now? Was this supposed to be a jump ball?
The answer is: you are supposed to read the language of a binding Security Council Resolution and defer to the complaint of a named party if at any time that party wants to snapback. UNSCR 2231 makes clear US can go directly to the Council to snapback, bypassing the JCPOA JC.
Read 8 tweets
16 Aug 20
THREAD. This is an important issue to tackle because I see variations of this argument out there. It basically concedes that the US *does* have the legal right to snapback based on the reading of UNSCR 2231 but that the snapback will be meaningless because Russia will ignore it.
First, procedure matters a great deal because the question of enforcement and legitimacy will have a lot to do with what has happened (or hasn't happened) at the end of the 30-day snapback period. Did the UNSC take a vote on a resolution to ignore a complaint as required by 2231?
In a scenario where no vote is held and the Council is divided on the legitimacy of a US complaint, I think this argument could be valid. But procedure dictates whether that scenario can occur. And due to the "double veto" power of a P5 member, I don't see how it can.
Read 9 tweets
16 Aug 20
THREAD. Wendy, did you ever read the Resolution you negotiated? Operative Paragraphs 9-12. A legally independent snapback is in the plain text of UNSCR 2231 as is the US' eligibility to trigger it (with no provision for ever changing that eligibility). undocs.org/S/RES/2231(201…
Here's @wendyrsherman on August 5, 2015: "If Iran fails to meet its responsibilities, we can ensure that UN Security Council sanctions snap back into place, and no country can stop that from happening.” Where did Wendy 2015 go? banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Here's @JohnKerry on 7/24/15: "if we’re not happy, we can go to the Security Council & we alone can force a vote on the snapping back of those sanctions. And the vote is already structured in the UN res that was passed the other day as a reverse vote." 2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/rema…
Read 6 tweets
12 Apr 20
The case against any IMF loan to #Iran is obvious to most Americans. Yet on the eve of IMF spring meeting, the regime's supporters are keeping up the fight. Here's a 'Top 10' (of many) reasons shareholders should oppose along with recent @FDD policy brief. fdd.org/analysis/2020/…
Iran doesn’t need the #IMF’s money to fight #coronavirus. Khamenei just tapped 1 bil euro from his sovereign wealth fund. More available in his $200 billion business empire. Why is this still a topic of conversation? en.radiofarda.com/a/khamenei-agr…
Iranian FM @JZarif recently tweeted the truth: the whole campaign has nothing to do with battling the virus; it’s about getting an international economic bailout without abandoning terrorism, nuclear expansions, missile testing, human rights abuses, etc.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!