In the Middle East, bellicose threats and saber-rattling are a fact of life. Recent developments, however, are suggestive of a coming storm, even by the turbulent standards of the region.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who resides in Damascus, warned that the next conflict with Israel would include not just the Gaza Strip, but the entire region. Similarly both Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu’alem, and former pro-Syrian Lebanese minister Wiam Wahhab have both warned that Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv, would be targeted in any conflict involving Southern Lebanon, by “hundreds of missiles.”

Both statements may reflect the alleged transfer of 250 km range Fateh-110 missiles transferred from Syria to Hezbollah, as well as a renewal by North Korea to provide Syria with ballistic missile and centrifuge materials, which had ceased following the 2007 Israeli attack on a Syrian reactor.

Syrian made surface to surface missiles would add a superior range to the Hezbollah arsenal, and as they are fired from mobile launchers, would make an Israeli attempt to neutralize them much more difficult than similar operations conducted by the IDF in the Second Lebanon War.

The Lebanese army is unlikely to sit out if Hezbollah is targeted, given recent statements by Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who said that his government would support Hezbollah in the event of an attack:

“I think they’re [Israel is] betting that there might be some division in Lebanon, if there is a war against us,” Hariri said. “There won’t be a division in Lebanon. We will stand against Israel. We will stand with our own people.”

Hariri also called Israeli reconnaissance flights, a routine occurrence over southern Lebanon, “an escalating provocation.” Four days after the Hariri’s statement Lebanese Army anti-aircraft positions opened fire on IAF jets.

Hariri’s realignment with Hezbollah and Syria is worrying, and may represent the final demise of the March 14^th “revolution” which agitated for the end of Syrian occupation following the assassination of Hariri’s father Rafiq al-Hariri. Hariri’s realignment with Syria and Hezbollah follows a visit to Damascus, and may represent the political reality of a Lebanese government which includes Hezbollah cabinet ministers. Hezbollah’s influence over the government has only grown since Hezbollah’s showdown with the government in May of 2008 when it occupied large swathes of Beirut.

Tension is obvious on Israel’s northern border. One index for possible trouble, the cost of AK-47 assault rifles on Beirut’s black market. The price has risen to around $1200, 25% higher than it was just prior to 2006 Second Lebanon War. An unrelated warning comes from Saudi Arabia where Saudi officials have indicated that Hezbollah’s military forces have begun moving to high alert status.

On Israel’s border with Gaza, tensions are also rising. According to the Israeli security agency Shin Bet, terror related incidents increased by 57% in January of this year, an index which includes mortar and rocket attacks from Gaza. That recent rise does not include the recent development of explosives from Gaza being floated out to land on Israeli beaches, a tactic initiated by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Fatah’s Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

Israeli security has also recently revealed that it had successfully foiled a number of kidnapping attempts by Hamas, targeting Israeli soldiers. The kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on the Gaza border was a factor in the initiation of the June 2006 IDF operation “Summer Rains,” and a cross border attack and the abduction of the bodies of IDF soldiers played a role in the beginning of the Second Lebanon War.

Other recent events which may signal a coming conflict include the recent assassination in Dubai of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas commander and arms dealer. According to the Dubai police, al-Mabhouh was killed by an eleven man team all carrying European passports, at least some of which appear to have been counterfeit.  Two Palestinians in Jordan, including one who was a Fatah security official were also arrested for providing assistance in the assassination. Hamas has alleged that the attack was conducted by the Israeli Mossad, and Fatah and Hamas have traded accusation about the killing.  Mabhouh’s role as an arms provider for Hamas is of interest however, as arms smuggling to Hamas and Hezbollah has remained a major concern for Israel which has carried out several covert operations designed to hamper terrorist rearmament, including the bombing of two truck convoys and a vessel allegedly carrying arms to Hamas from the Sudan. Israeli commandos also interdicted the Francop, a freighter carrying arms, including heavy weapons, headed to Hezbollah from Iran.

It is likely the assassination, whether orchestrated by the Mossad or not, may be used as a provocation by Hamas for future terror attacks.

When examining the growing tension in the region, it would be remiss to ignore Iran, the number one puppet master of Hamas and Hezbollah, and most destabilizing actor in the region, which has recently announced that it has begun to enrich its uranium stockpile above 20%. The move was accompanied by a number of virulent threats from Iran’s top leadership. Iranian Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei likely in reference to the enrichment decision warned, “The Iranian nation, with its unity and God’s grace, will punch the arrogance [Western powers] on the 22nd of Bahman [Feb. 11] in a way that will leave them stunned.”  Regarding Israel, in a meeting with members of Islamic Jihad, Khamenei reportedly threatened, “I am very optimistic about the future of Palestine and believe that Israel is moving on the precipice of wane and demise, and God willing its annihilation is for sure.”

Iranian President Ahmadinejad was reported on Iranian state media as echoing these statements, “The nation will deliver a harsh blow to the “global arrogance” on this year’s anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.”

These  are not idle threats, but are also are also followed up by actions. Iranian Basij Militia, posing as students, recently staged violent demonstrations against European embassies, reminiscent of the takeover of the American Embassy in 1979.  Iranian security forces have cracked down heavily on opposition and reformist organization this month, arresting as many as a thousand protestors on February 11^th, as well as shutting down all major email providers, and disrupting SMS (text messaging) during crucial points. U.S Intelligence chief Dennis Blair warned Congress recently that Iran possesses the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, many of which are adapted to deliver nuclear warheads.

In response to this missile threat, the United States has recently bolstered missile defense systems in the Arab Gulf countries and stepped up its naval patrols in the area. The growing concern regarding Iran’s military strength has been echoed by an increase in defense spending by all Gulf Cooperation Council countries, including expenditures on command and control, technology, communications and intelligence gathering.

None of these activities, taken separately, are necessarily indicative of a coming conflict, however together they are highly suggestive. It seems obvious that all parties in the region are gearing up in preparation, awaiting only a spark. Of course the Middle East is a region notoriously difficult to predict, and even the most experienced analyses have been overtaken by events. Nevertheless, the recent provocative statements by Iran, as well as its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, by Syria and Lebanon, when matched with their actions, suggests that there is more to recent events than just the usual incitement and grandstanding.

The Middle Eastern sands are indeed shifting in an ominous direction.

Kyle Shideler is a Senior Research Fellow for the Endowment for Middle East Truth

By Sarah Stern & Kyle Shideler, with Special Thanks to Arlene Kushner of the Center for Near East Policy Research

UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees, had been established on December 8^th 1949 to “carry out…direct relief and works programs” for Palestinian refugees by the United Nations General Assembly, (resolution 302-IV).  Its establishment came about because of the displacement of thousands of Arab refugees, many of whom had been incited to leave by their own leaders who highly exaggerated fears of the brutality and lethality of the Israeli “aggressor.”

The exact number of refugees in 1948 varies. According to the UN Mediator on Palestine, Ralph Bunche, the figure was 472,000. The Israeli estimate, according to the Mideast Web is 520,000 and in 1949, the United Nations Conciliation Commission put the number at 726,000.

Approximately eight months after UNRWA began its operations, on December 14, 1950, the United Nations General Assembly established another office for all refugees, The United Nations High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR).  According to the UNHCR website, “The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country.”

UNRWA, however, was not folded into this new agency. This was due, for the most part, because of pressure coming from the Arab nations. According to an explanation that had appeared on the UNRWA website, that was because Arab states, “feared that the non-political character of the work envisioned by the nascent UNHCR was not compatible with the highly politicized nature of the Palestinian question.”

The problem of the Palestinian refugee could have easily been resolved years ago, had UNRWA been folded into the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, particularly since the UNHCR is committed to “resolving refugee problems”, and part of the resolution of the problem is “integrating locally or resettling in a third country.”

That however, would not fit with the agenda of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, (now the Palestinian Authority). According to their own internal  documentation “In order to keep the refugee issue alive and prevent Israel from evading responsibility for their plight, Arab countries-with the notable exception of  Jordan-have usually sought to preserve a Palestinian identity by maintaining the Palestinians status as refugees.”  [1]

According to Arlene Kushner of the Center for Near East Policy Research, “As a matter of deliberate policy, most Arab nations have deliberately declined to absorb the refugees or give them citizenship, and have instead focused on the right to “return” to Israel.”

One is entitled to ask the question, is this actually a “right” due to the Palestinians or on excessive handicap that interferes with the individual’s ability to integrate into his host nation and get on with his life?

Attempts by Israel to provide permanent housing to Palestinians have in the past been meet with condemnation by the U.N General Assembly, and efforts by Israel to improve housing for Palestinians have led to threats by UNRWA to revoke refugee rights for any  Palestinians that would chose to accept such infrastructure improvements.  Why has the PLO /Palestinian Authority insisted on using the Palestinian refugees as pawns, keeping them in squalor, and not allowing them to re-settle into Arab lands?

The obvious answer is that they have deliberately exploited them for political gain.  My family does not try to regain its European citizenship that it lost as a result of World War II. There are certain realities and facts on the ground. There should be no more of a chance that a Palestinian will return to his grandfather’s orchards and vineyards in Haifa, than I will go back to our family’s estate in Europe.

It is clear that UNRWA has a fundamental focus on prolonging, rather than improving the Palestinian refugee problem.

UNRWA’s educational programs are similarly designed to oppose integration and resettlement, and to foster hatred.  In a 2008 survey,  The Committee for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, surveyed Palestinian textbooks, including those used at UNRWA administered schools. They found that Israel and Israel cities were absent from maps and charts, that Jerusalem was described as a Palestinian city. They also found, praise for jihad, holy war and martyrdom, and a continuous war against Israel as the occupier was encouraged. In an update in 2009, the committee announced that while some improvements had been made in areas noted in their survey, the fundamental nature of the text books had remained the same.

UNRWA’s ideological focus has also blinded the organization to the problem of terrorist infiltration into their bureaucracy.

The schools are one of the primary ways in which terrorist organizations have infiltrated and co-opted UNRWA.  Reports of UNRWA schools decorated with pro-Hamas and pro-Islamic Jihad posters and propaganda abound. The Hamas-affiliated Islamic Bloc has dominated the UNRWA union teacher’s section since 1990, gaining all available seats via election in 2003.

In many cases UNRWA buildings or personnel have been directly involved in terrorist activities. Examples abound. These include: teachers of UNRWA schools being none Hamas terrorists, UNRWA schools being places of refuge for Hamas terrorists  using UNRWA youth clubs as terrorist meeting places, UNRWA employees have served to transport weapons and explosives via UNRWA ambulances, weapons and explosives have been manufactured on the premise of UNRWA buildings. Videotaped footage of terrorists using UNRWA ambulances as troop carriers, and UNRWA schools as mortar launch sites is easily available for viewing. (Please see our EMET seminar on our website at www.emetonline.org entitled, “Ethics in the Field” with Colonel Bentzi Gruber which clearly explains this).

Such infiltration and war crimes have been extensively documented. Yet, UNRWA remains heavily funded by the western nations, even though these countries are engaged in their own struggles against Islamic terrorism.

UNRWA and its operations have certainly turned a blind eye to the fact that a large base of these terrorists operations are emanating from these camps, and the Western powers, for fartoo long, have been turning a blind eye toward them.

Fortunately, a recent development has occurred that give us a bit of optimism that some governments have begun to get wise to the unsavory ways of UNRWA.

The Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has led the way in confronting the multitude of problems that exist within UNRWA.  It announced in January that Canada would no longer transfer funds to The UNRWA,  instead choosing to allocate its funds instead as ”direct food aid to the Palestinians.” In the past Canada has provided as much as 5% of UNRWA’s annual budget. The announcement was made by President of Canada’s Treasury Board, Vic Toews, who stressed, “Canada is not reducing the amount of money it gives…but it is now being redirected in accordance with Canadian values.”

In Canada, the issue of UNRWA’s behavior came to the fore in 2004, after UNRWA Head Peter Hansen told a Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) reporter, “I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don’t see that as a crime… we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another.”

Since then, the extent to which UNRWA has consistently violated Western democratic values has been extensively documented, and the Canadians decided to take action.

Canada’s decision to remove funding from UNRWA, and to reallocate its funding in another manner has been a long time in the making. Other Western nations, such as our own, should follow Canada’s courageous  lead, and once and for all stop blindly aiding and abetting the scorpion pit of terrorism that UNRWA has become. There is no accountability as to where America’s precious tax payer money goes, once it leaves for these UNRWA camps.

There should, at the very least, be an independent system of transparency and accountability as to what happens in the UNRWA camps. We should with-hold our taxpayer’s dollars until the many problems of UNRWA are fixed.

UNRWA remains an impediment to the Palestinian people’s ability to successfully integrate into their host nations and to promote peace and their own economic and social development rather than focusing on the “right of return,” which is not at all grounded in reality.  This denial of reality forms an ideological basis in the incitement to hate and kill. As long as these impossible expectations are not fulfilled, the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis will continue for generations.

Canada’s decision should form the basis for a similar reappraisal by the United States and European countries. We should not continue funding UNRWA, until it eviscerates the stranglehold on the economic and educational development of the Palestinian people through feeding the people fantasies, rather than reality.

Like the wives of alcoholics who daily place whisky as an item on their shopping lists, as long as we continue to fund UNRWA without any conditionality, we are enabling the problem to continue.

For far too long UNRWA’s political policy of using the people they keep as refugees has been a weapon against Israel, to the great and lasting harm of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

This article is indebted to the extensive and preeminent research of Arlene Kushner in her seminal report, “UNRWA: Overview and Policy Critique,” Center for Near East Policy Research, October 2008.

---

[1] The Palestinian Refugees FACTFILES, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Department of Refugee Affairs, Ramallah, 2000, p.22.)

The United States Senate has unanimously passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009, S. 2799. The legislation incorporates a number of Iran-focused Senate initiatives including petroleum sanctions based on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act S. 908, originally sponsored by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Sen. Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Kyl (R-AZ), and others.

The bill prohibits the government from purchasing goods from companies which do business with Iran’s energy sector.

It also closes U.S markets to a number of Iranian products which were exempted from existing sanctions by President Bill Clinton, including Iranian made carpets, among others.

The Senate bill does provide the president with the authority to waive the application of sanctions if he determines such a waiver to be in the national interest, and by certifying to Congress the reasoning behind the waiver.

The legislation also includes divestment language to authorize local and state governments to divest from Iran, as well as to provide safe harbor for private fund managers who divest from Iran.

In a letter to President Obama written the day prior to the bill’s Senate passage a bipartisan coalition of senators including Sens. Bayh, Lieberman, Kyl wrote,

“We are convinced that 2010 will be the pivotal year in determining whether Iran is allowed to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Ultimately, it will be our choices that determine whether we are able to avert this tremendous threat to global peace and stability. We abhor the possibility that military action may be necessary to solve this problem. But we have no doubt that a nuclear-armed Iran will be catastrophic for our national security and the rule-based international order. In fact, we believe that at stake is nothing less than the entire global nonproliferation regime; this point is all the more important as we head into the 2010 review of the NPT. We must therefore exhaust every possible non-military means at our disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

The Senate version of the bill will still need to be reconciled with the House version, H.R. 2194, which passed 412 to 2 before being sent to the White House for the President’s signature. The House version was originally sponsored by Rep. Berman (D- CA) and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), among others. Both versions target Iranian petroleum imports, which are widely seen as the Iranian regime’s Achilles’ heel. Iran imports about 40% of its gasoline supplies because of a lack of refinery capability.

Overall, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act contains much of the legislation that those concerned with the rising belligerency of Iran have sought for some time. EMET urges the Congress to move quickly to see the Iran bills through conference committee and signed into law. We applaud the work being done by Secretary of State Clinton to bring Europe and well as China and Russia into an effective sanctions regime. Multilateral cooperation from Iran’s trading partners is vital. Whatever the outcome of the multilateral track however, we urge President Obama to make the most of all available tools, and implement unilateral sanctions fully in order to prevent the unimaginable, a nuclear-armed Iran.