Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

02/25 Links Pt2: Lumish: Americans support Israel, but do Democrats?; How Not to Help Palestinians

From Ian:

Michael Lumish: Americans support Israel, but do Democrats?

Needless to say, western journalists did more than their part in the defamation game as Matti Friedman has so nicely illustrated. It is as if they honestly think that Arabs have every right to try to kill Jews and if Jews fight back, this represents a form of aggression.
Meanwhile, of course, the academics – such as the vile SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi, of Race and Resistance Studies fame, who advised the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) during a period when they were holding up signs calling for the murder of “colonizers” – were telling their students that Israel is a racist, imperialist, colonialist, apartheid, militaristic, racist state… despite the fact that it has far-and-away the best human rights record of any country in the entire region.
In any case, an ongoing campaign of defamation against the Jews painted them as modern monsters or the New Nazis and has succeeded in turning progressives and Democrats against one of the most persecuted people in human history… on moral grounds. The Jews of Israel may believe that they are acting in self-defense, but progressive Democrats know that they really act out of racism and white privilege, or Jewish Supremacism, or the shear lust for violence.
And this, ultimately, is why the Democrats have turned against the Jews.
They honestly think that the Jews of the Middle East richly deserve whatever beating they get.

Dexter Van Zile: How Not to Help Palestinians

Moon’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, also admitted (in 2006) that Israel was held to a higher standard than its adversaries. He said that “supporters of Israel feel it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies – and too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.” Bourke’s book otmits all of this, but portrays concerns about the UN’s bias against Israel.
“Pro, pro, pro” activists justify their intense scrutiny of the Israelis by saying that because they are the more powerful party to the conflict, Israelis must be subjected to more intense scrutiny. But if these activists are going to advocate for the creation of a Palestinian state, they have an obligation to determine whether or not the Palestinian people and their leaders will be able to live in peace with Israel once that state is created. Sadly, while there is ample support to indicate that Palestinians cannot live in peace with a Jewish state, Palestinian Christians and Evangelical activists are loath to confront this evidence.
Leaders in both Hamas (which controls the Gaza Strip) and the allegedly more moderate Palestnian Authority, which controls the West Bank, routinely broadcast anti-Semitic imagery in the media outlets they control, inciting hostility on the part of their own citizens toward the people with which they need to make peace. To her credit, Bourke acknowledges that Hamas seeks Israel’s destruction, but she makes no reference in her text to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini, the man who, despite promoting vicious anti-Semitism in Palestinian society, is regarded as a hero by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
Christians cannot be pro-peace if they are not pro-truth. Sadly, this is a lesson that activists in the “pro, pro, pro” movement must learn.

A shattered Palestinian society: Interview with Bassem Eid

I had the privilege of interviewing Mr. Eid after his last publication, which is a blog on Times of Israel that received a great deal of attention and that was the most popular blog for four days running.
In this interview, Mr. Eid provides an insider’s view of a Palestinian society that is divided and full of contradictions. Perhaps the biggest contradiction is that while Palestinians are still pursuing violence and revenge against Israel, they also have strong economic and even friendship ties with Israelis, and their culture has become strongly influenced by and integrated with the Israeli culture.
This interview and Mr. Eid’s work in general provide a view of the conflict that is starkly different from much of what is said by either side. It leads to us to realize that no one has ever really worked towards a feasible long-term solution for the Palestinians, not Israel (which is hardly unexpected considering the long-standing Arab hostility towards Israel), not the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), not the UN itself, not the international community, not the so-called pro-Palestinian activists in the West, not the regional powers, and not even the Palestinians’ own politicians and leaders.

David Ignatius looks for, and finds, reasons to support concessions to Iran

Last week, I posted about a nice interview by David Ignatius of the Washington Post of Israeli intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz where Israeli objections to an Iranian nuclear deal are spelled out in detail. Ignatius admitted that he had no counter-arguments, but he asserted that he still supported the deal.

Now, Ignatius' job was to find any arguments for what he already admitted he would support even if there weren't any.

Sure enough, he found them:

The administration’s response is that the agreement is better than any realistic alternative. Officials argue it would put the Iranian program in a box, with constraints on all the pathways to making a bomb. Perhaps more important, it would provide strict monitoring and allow intrusive inspection of Iranian facilities — not just its centrifuges but its uranium mines, mills and manufacturing facilities. If Iran seeks a covert path to building a bomb, the deal offers the best hope of detecting it.

If the current talks collapsed, all these safeguards would disappear. The Iranians could resume enrichment and other currently prohibited activities. In such a situation, the United States and Israel would face a stark choice over whether to attack Iranian facilities — with no guarantee that such an attack would set Tehran back more than a few years.

The deal taking shape would likely allow Iran about 6,000 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz. The Iranians apparently wouldn’t install IR-2s, which operate twice as fast, and they would limit research on future models, up to IR-8s, that are on the drawing board. How these research limits would be monitored and enforced is a key bargaining issue. Another critical variable is the size of the stockpile Iran could maintain; U.S. officials want a very low number, with additional enriched material shipped out of Iran.
One official argues that the United States would be better off with 9,000 IR-1s and a small stockpile than with 1,000 IR-2s and a large stockpile. Netanyahu probably won’t address this issue in his speech to Congress, since he insists the only acceptable number of centrifuges is zero.

The entire parameters of the talks are being misrepresented as if the US has no alternative between largely accepting Iranian demands or war. Ignatius is ignoring that the sanctions have been having an effect. Iran's Supreme Leader has said that his goal for the negotiations are the removal of sanctions.

It is far from clear that Iran will go full speed ahead with enrichment activities if the sanctions remain in place or are strengthened.

Which brings up the biggest problem with this article - its revelation that the White House has no idea how to negotiate with Iran.

For administration officials to tell the Washington Post that there is no realistic military action (which they have been saying for years anyway) signals to Iran that there is no threat of military action, ever. Moreover, the public break of the White House with Israel over this issue effectively neutralizes the threat of Israeli military action - an unstated threat that could have improved the US negotiating position significantly. In other words, the US has given up on its major disincentive to Iran without getting anything in return, the exact opposite of how negotiations are supposed to be done.

Kerry tells Israel that they cannot criticize the agreement since it hasn't been finalized, but at the same time says that it will not share the details with Israel. What message does that tell Iran?

It tells them that the US trusts Iran more than Israel!

The unnamed officials who are telling Ignatius that this is the best deal possible are simultaneously telling Iran that the US has no stomach to either threaten military action nor to maintain the sanctions.

As far as the substance of the argument, that Iran could go full speed ahead with its nuclear weapons program without oversight, this is a false assumption as well. There are still IAEA inspections and reports that have been consistently pointing out Iranian violations, which affect how Iran acts to an extent. Those reports (or Iran's rejection of any future inspections) can and should trigger serious warnings of more extreme sanctions and of military action.

Beyond that, the reported agreement does nothing to limit Iran's weaponization program - building rockets whose purpose is solely to carry a nuclear payload, for example. Secret Iranian nuclear facilities will remain secret with or without this framework. But with the framework in place, the world will no longer pay attention to Iranian violations; if the US walks away from a bad deal then there would be more effort made in monitoring Iran through espionage and open-source methods.

Ignatius' piece hurts the US in these negotiations. It shows a fatalistic White House that is not serious about truly addressing the Iranian threat. It shows a desperation for a deal, any deal that Iran would agree to. It shows how no amount of logic or facts will sway the White House and its cheerleaders who would rather craft a bad deal than no deal. And it does not seriously address a single one of Israel's substantive points about the dangers of the deal.

That's pretty bad.

(ht David G)

Actually, Most Israelis Want To See Tel Aviv Nuked Also (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Actually, Most Israelis Want To See Tel Aviv Nuked Also
By the Rest of Israel

The rhetoric surrounding Bibi Netanyahu's scheduled speech to the US Congress about Iran's nuclear program represents just one more little storm obscuring one important detail: most Israelis want Tel Aviv to get nuked.

Let's just be straightforward about it. The place is a moral train wreck with a stifling inferiority complex. It can't make up its mind whether it wants to be European, American, Mediterranean, Levantine, Jewish, secular, or anything else - and no matter which identity it chooses, it can never fully or effectively embrace it. Just nuke the place and spare the rest of the country all the angst and shame. I promise we'll all be better off as a result, radiation poisoning and all. It'll be worth it just to be rid of the awkwardness of having to witness the wannabe.

"The first Jewish city" - well, yeah, technically that's true, in the sense that it was Jews who founded it - specifically to throw away their Jewishness. It's a place that doesn't know who it is, a city that no matter how hard it tries to look like Maurice Chevalier, always ends up more like Woody Allen. We're talking about a place that got itself designated a UNESCO World Heritage site for its plethora of Bauhaus architecture - really? Bauhaus? That's worth preserving? What's next, an award for high levels of air pollution? For the largest number of major thoroughfares likely to experience flooding when it rains? A good post-detonation crater might do wonders for the Ayalon highway's drainage. Then UNESCO can declare that site a work of art and fund its preservation. It would actually be an upgrade in artistic sensibility.

It would be bad enough if the place weren't so hoity-toity about pretending to be something it's not. Listen, the fact that you're the only city in the Eastern Mediterranean that hosts a Gay Pride Parade does not automatically turn you into San Francisco. Except for the part where the rest of us are kind of waiting to see whether an earthquake will strike you.

All of Tel Aviv's attempts to be like New York - a financial district, a world-renowned philharmonic, you know the drill - have managed to make the city resemble the Big Apple in one respect: everybody else hates and resents the place. Congratulations.

Remember how, after 9/11, all of the US suddenly loved New York? How, after Hurricane Sandy, the hate and resentment seemed to subside? Therein lies the key to getting the remainder of Israel to feel something positive for Tel Aviv: destroy the place.

Come on, Khamenei. We're counting on you.

02/25 Links Pt1: Does Abbas want his legacy to be the third intifada?; EU, Qatar and Turkey

From Ian:

The US has been Committed to Land for Peace since 1948

As a result of the war, 550,000 Arabs fled the land between the river and the sea. The US and the Arabs were determined to reverse this exodus.
GA Res 194 was passed in Dec ’48. It is today quoted as the basis for the “right of return”.
Israel has usually contested this reading, pointing out that the text merely states that the refugees “should be permitted” to return to their homes at the “earliest practicable date” and this recommendation applies only to those “wishing to… live at peace with their neighbors”. Besides it was a General Assembly resolution and they aren’t binding.
The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) “to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland.”
The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps.
Even after the Oslo Accords, in the 'West Bank' and Gaza under full jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, the refugees continued to be confined to camps — despite the millions of UNWRA and international relief dollars which poured into PA coffers specifically for this purpose.
Two years after UNGA Res. 194, the GA passed Resolution 393 (Dec. 1950). Article 4 states that “the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near east, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the region.” It also called for the creation of a “reintegration fund” in Article 5.
But this resolution would undermine the “right of return” so no one talks about it.

Does Mahmoud Abbas want his legacy to be the third intifada?

If you were President Abbas and you knew that you couldn’t bring peace to your people, would you want to be remembered as the impotent corrupt leader of the PA, or would you erase your past and become known as the leader of the glorious third intifada? All of this may be moot as the Palestinian Authority may not be able to dictate events. As the Jerusalem Post reported: “The army has told the government that at any given moment the Palestinian Authority can collapse...
In one of the scenarios that the IDF presented, a small localized security incident, like an altercation between settlers and Palestinians, or the throwing of a Molotov cocktail could quickly escalate to rioting in the Galilee and the Triangle area. With the weakened Palestinian Authority a situation like this is liable to lead to terrorist organizations taking control of the West Bank.”
What should America do? Understand that the chaos of the Middle East and the weakness of the PA make this an inopportune time for final status negotiations.
America’s goal should be to convince Abbas not to start a third intifada and to help the Palestinians build the foundations of a future democracy, with rule of law, tolerance, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.
In short, America should lead conflict management, not impose solutions where none exist.

EU, Qatar and Turkey

Meanwhile, Qatar's TV channel, Al-Jazeera, regularly incites terrorism against Egyptian President el-Sisi's pro-Western regime. El-Sisi's heroic pro-Western stance is apparently unreciprocated: the U.S. State Department just hosted an official meeting for his arch-enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, father of Hamas, while Al Jazeera -- in Arabic -- encourages terrorist attacks in Egypt and Sinai Peninsula by the Muslim Brotherhood, and preaches the destruction of Israel, non-stop.
It was Al-Jazeera that created the "Arab Spring" by twisting a story about a Tunisian fruit-seller, who set himself on fire because he could not get a work permit, into a story of Tunisian oppression. The station ran the story again and again, whipping up Tunisians to overthrow their secular leaders and bring in Islamist leaders. To the Tunisians' credit, like the Egyptians, after a few years of Islamist rule, they also threw the Islamist leaders out.
Recently, Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting a "documentary" series glorifying Hamas and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, its military-terrorist wing. The entire series is devoted to idealizing Islamist terrorism and encouraging mass-casualty terrorist attacks against Jews, in the name of radical Islamist ideology.
One of the stars of the series is the Palestinian arch-terrorist, Abd al-Karim al-Hanini, who was released from prison in Israel and found a safe haven in Qatar. He explains how to construct explosives from agricultural substances, such as chemical fertilizer and sulfur; how to fill an empty gas balloon with the explosives, and how to detonate the bomb mechanically, electronically or with a suicide-bomber (shaheed), in order to kill as many Israelis as possible.
Al-Hanini boasts about his terrorist activities killing Israeli civilians and soldiers, and details tactics that mujahideen will use in their jihadi "inner struggles," and presumably also their outer ones. These tactics can be used as blueprints by future terrorists. The series can easily be viewed by all intelligence agencies in the world, but so far no one has tried to prevent it from being broadcast -- or has even criticized Qatar for broadcasting it.
No one has even tried to prevent Qatar's participation in a global anti-terrorism forum.

A few weeks ago I counted the number of times various countries were mentioned in HRW's annual report, and showed how ridiculously skewed it was against Israel, placing it only behind Syria as worth the most mentions in a report on human rights.

Now it is Amnesty's turn, and they do the exact same thing:

Yes, anti-Israel sentiment among "human rights" organizations is obsessive.

The report mentions antisemitism and "Islamophobia" once each. Nothing about antisemitism in Muslim or Arab countries.

92% of Palestinian kids receive violent discipline

From the "State of Palestine Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014" (done jointly by UNICEF, the PA and the UNFPA) we see that there are many child marriages in the territories:

91.5% of PalArab kids experienced psychological aggression or physical punishment during the last one month in the survey.

And how terrible is life under "occupation"?

Stunting in children is about 7%, much lower than almost every Arab country. 95% of households have satellite dishes (94% in Gaza.) 99.9% of houses have electricity, finished roofs and finished floors.

The real problems in the territories get swept under the rug because of the world's obsession with Israel. If people loved Palestinians as much as they pretend, then issues like these would be in the forefront, and not buried in reports that no journalist would ever bother to read.

(h/t Irene)

Check out SJP's hypocrisy

A couple of days ago, posters appeared at a few university campuses including UCLA:

(It was later revealed that the David Horowitz Freedom Center was behind them.)

SJP has thrown its support behind terrorists like Rasmea Odeh. It has intimidated Jews and Zionists on campuses throughout North America. Also, as Frontpage notes:

UCLA SJP has hosted Amir Abdel Malik who once brandished a check made out to Hamas, Palestine and called for an anti-Semitic backlash.

It hosted Hatem Bazian, SJP’s co-founder, who raised money for Hamas and trafficked in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. It hosted Alison Weir who claimed that medieval Jews drank blood. It hosted Taher Herzallah who wrote that “Hamas’ rockets are an oppressed people’s audible cry for help.”

And that was just one year.

The epithet "#JewHaters" does not seem to be far off the mark, since they support antisemites.

But look at how UCLA's SJP reacted:

These posters are a clear example of hate speech directed against Students for Justice in Palestine, as well as supporters of Palestinian freedom and equality. They rely on Islamophobic and anti-Arab tropes to paint Palestinians as terrorists and to misrepresent Students for Justice in Palestine as anti-Semitic. It hardly bears repeating that SJP at UCLA is an organization that prides itself on its opposition to all forms of racism and bigotry, and which is open to and promotes the membership of students from all walks of life. As organizers, we are concerned that these acts are an attempt to delegitimize and slander the work that we have done to pass divestment on our campus. Furthermore, defacing school property and intimidating a specific group of students creates a deeply harmful environment that prevents student learning and community-building. Coupled with the recent uprise in Islamophobia on a national scale, we are concerned for the safety of our fellow students and student organizers.

The people who place fake "eviction notices" on dorms with large Jewish populations are complaining that they are being intimidated! The people who stage checkpoints and die-ins on campus are worried about the "harmful environment" that comes about from putting up posters that point out who they support!

Most of all, they are saying that calling out their affinity with Jew-haters is hate speech!

What a joke.

J-Street pretends to be patriotic

My latest email from J-Street includes this graphic:

How patriotic to want to stand by your president!

But when George Bush was president, J-Street didn't have quite the same patriotic impulses:

George Bush heads to Israel this week for Israel’s 60th birthday bash. And what’s the gift he’s bringing?

More of the same weak leadership and failed policies that have made America, Israel, and the Middle East less safe. Is that the kind of present you bring to a friend’s 60th birthday party? We don’t think so.

Thankfully, Bush is on his way out, and soon a new President will be able to chart a new course for America in the Middle East.

No photos of Bush with the American flag behind him. I wonder why?

Then again, since J-Street has no respect for leaders that Israeli voters choose, why should they have respect for any democratically elected leader? No, J-Street transcends democracy, to even higher ideals: Jeremy Ben Ami-ism.

02/24 Links Pt2: Mohammad Zoabi joins the IDF; Empowering Women, Palestinian-Style

From Ian:

Zoabi relative, despite threats, makes the decision to join the IDF

Mohammad Zoabi, the Muslim Israeli Arab who has repeatedly come out in support of Israel and has advocated for his fellow Israeli Arabs to do national service, will be joining the IDF soon, according to his personal Facebook page.
Zoabi, a cousin of anti-Zionist Arab Knesset member Hanin Zoabi, just finished "Gadna", the week-long program where future soldiers are given a taste of life in the field.
"Today i feel proud. Proud to be Israeli...proud that i was able to survive a week of living in an army base in the middle of nowhere."
Zoabi relayed some of his experiences via social media, describing some of the joys that "Gadna" entails.
"It was, indeed a difficult week. Sleeping with more than 14 people in the same room, eat army food and worse was, seeing gigantic bugs that i have never believed they existed in a small country like ours."

Mondoweiss and the “Antisemitism Strawman”

I know that Weiss basically thinks I’m a Palestinian baby killer. I know that he and his friends probably think I’m chomping at the bits, waiting for the next war so we can finally demolish Gaza (spoiler alert: I’m not). He blames me for living in a country that isn’t mine to live in. He blames me for enabling an apartheid government, which is insulting to those who actually lived through apartheid.
Guess what else he blames me and my country for?
The rise in attacks against Jews. Yes, ladies, gentlemen and others. Antisemitism is not at play, just like, if Obama is to be believed, radical Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. Jews the world over aren’t being targeted because of their Jewy goodness but because they somehow represent an extension of Israel and her policies.
That is like saying a woman’s rape in Iran is unrelated to mysogyny and in fact has everything to do with women in New York dressing provocatively. The wrongness of this sentence is layered, like an onion. First, it finds fault in a tangentially related group. Secondly, and more importantly, it insidiously implies that a man is justified in committing rape if the female in question is scantily clad.

Prosor at UNSC: "And the Oscar goes to...."

“If the Oscars for Maintenance of International Peace and Security were given at the UN, I would not be surprised if these candidates were awarded a prize:
In the Best Actor Category – for acting like a peace loving country while developing nuclear capabilities, denying the Holocaust, and threatening the destruction of another member state… the Oscar goes to Iran.
In the category for Best Supporting Actor – for its unrelenting support to the Assad Regime in killing hundreds of thousands civilians… the Oscar goes to Hezbollah.
In the category for Best Visual Effects – for making women disappear from the public sphere, the Oscar goes to… surprise surprise… Saudi Arabia. No competition there.
And finally, for rewriting history, the Oscar for Best Editing goes to… the Palestinian Authority. But the truth is – the Palestinian Authority already received enough prizes from this institution.”
Watch an excerpt of Ambassador Prosor’s speech at a Security Council Session devoted to maintaining international peace and security, marking the UN’s 70th anniversary (h/t Bob Knot)

Obama won't help secure Israel because Israel insists on security?

I'm trying to wrap my head around this TOI report:

The ongoing dispute between the White House and the Prime Minister’s Office over how to tackle Iran’s nuclear program is preventing the two countries from discussing security guarantees for Israel as part of the emerging Iran deal, a source close to Obama Administration told Israel’s Channel 2 Tuesday.

A source in the White House told Israel’s Channel 2 that those tensions could harm the ability of the US to ensure Israel’s security as part of any nuclear deal.

“The dispute with Netanyahu prevents all possibility for discussing security guarantees for Israel as part of the emerging Iran deal,” the source was quoted saying.

Why is that, exactly? Is there such a diplomatic bottleneck that only a single person with limited time can work on both issues?

Once again, this sounds more like how third grade bullies act than world leaders.

Not that I know what "security guarantees" could mean. Does it mean more Patriot batteries? F-35s? Those don't "guarantee" anything if Iran decides to smuggle in a suitcase nuke through a ship to Tel Aviv.

The only guarantee that makes any sense is one where Iran cannot possibly acquire a nuclear weapon, no matter what. And no one is claiming that this is the deal that is being negotiated.

But Iran is being rewarded for treating the US like a trained monkey during years of negotiations - and Israel is being punished for pointing it out.

UNSC actually appoints someone who doesn't hate Israel as ME envoy

The PFLP isn't happy:

The appointment of Nikolay Mladenov as United Nations envoy to the so-called “Middle East peace process” is the antithesis of any effort to lead to real peace with justice in the region, said Comrade Kayed al-Ghoul, member of the Political Bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Mladenov is known for his statements in support of the Zionist state and justification of its crimes against the Palestinian people since he was foreign minister of Bulgaria.

Palestinian Arabs aren't happy:

The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) did not object to the appointment of new UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process Nikolay Mladenov, although he was described by Tayseer Khaled, a member of the PLO’s Executive Committee, as “persona non grata” — not trusted by the Palestinians and not qualified for the job.

Although protocol allows the PLO the right to reject diplomatic representatives to the organisation, observers cannot understand why it accepted Mladenov. There is no convincing answer except a futile desire by the PLO to appease the UN and Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, at a time when PA diplomatic efforts are focused on the UN and its agencies.

Mladenov not only failed in a similar mission as UN envoy to Iraq and resigned, he is someone who describes himself — and is described by the leaders of the Israeli occupation — as “a good friend of Israel”. As Bulgarian foreign minister, Mladenov suggested a “military alliance” between Bulgaria and Israel. He has often spoken about his bias towards “Israel’s right to exist” and its right “to defend itself” against Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation. He even admitted to being a Free Mason, served Jewish billionaire George Soros, and publicly advocated the US’s “constructive chaos” policies in the Arab world. In fact, his Jewish origins may be the least controversial aspect of him.

I don't know about whether Mladenov has Jewish ancestry or is a "Free Mason." It is amusing that his saying that Israel has a right to exist, and the right to defend itself, is considered to be "bias."

But, astonishingly enough, he is a reasonable person who really was unanimously chosen by a UN body to act as envoy and as representative to the Quartet.

He spoke at the 2013 Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism in 2013. In this video you can see how normal Mladenov is, and you can understand why Palestinian Arabs hate him. (Yes, it is worth watching the whole thing.)

(h/t Irene for correction)