From Kenya to Rwanda Israel’s Partnership is about More than Just Money

Israel’s interest in becoming one of the leading partners in Sub Saharan Africa is no secret. From both a common interest in fighting against radical Islam  as well as infrastructure development specifically in the field of agritech.

“I call upon Israeli businessmen and women to head to Kenya and take advantage of the conducive investment climate prevailing,” Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta said during this week’s visit in Israel. “Kenya and Israel have learned much, and have much to share in these experiences. In this regard, we look forward to forging even stronger relations and cooperation in ensuring safety and security of our peoples.”


Although we see growing cooperation with leading forces in Africa like Kenya, Nigeria, and Ethiopia,  Rwanda has become perhaps the most integral to Israel’s overall connection to the continent. Small, but influential, Rwandans see their genocide in 1990’s as comparable to the Holocaust. The country has emerged from the destruction to be one of the leading voices in modernization and innovation.

One example of cooperation and Israel’s ability to massively improve Rwanda, is Energiya Global’s massive solar field in Rwanda.  The field’s construction started in 2014 and will power 8% of Rwanda.

Yosef Abramowitz, CEO of Energiya Global and Gigawatt Global said at the time, “It’s phenomenal for Rwanda because our energy is much cheaper than diesel. And then obviously we will get support from the youth village in charitable fundraising to give them the benefit of training. This way, graduates of the village will be able to spread the knowledge of bringing solar power all over Rwanda and then East Africa.”

Energiya’s project’s are just one example.  This month, Rwanda has given the green light to Israeli investors to establish an agricultural training center.  Besides that, increased interaction between hitech hubs in both countries are beginning to happen.

Besides technology, Rwandans believe in and feel very connected to Israel. Most Watutsis (the main tribal group in Rwanda) believe they in fact originate from Israel.  Whether that can be substantiated or not, is almost secondary.  

At the core of Rwanda’s closeness to Israel, is a shared biblical ethos that solidifies the growing camaraderie.  Rwanda like much of Sub Saharan Africa feels connected to the miraculous return of the Jewish people to their land and in many ways are inspired by Israel’s example. Will this provide the basis for a long lasting partnership?

Yes, it clearly already has.

 

Kurdistan Rising from the Chaos of War

First the Background

The Kurds, who have been itching for a sovereign state of their own, now find themselves in the unenviable position of being the chief agitators to Erdogan’s Turkey.  In the beginning of the turmoil in the Middle East Erdogan made a deal with the devil, ISIS.  The thought there was that Erdogan would be able to create a fundamentalist Sunni caliphate as a stop gap measure against the growing Iranian hegemony in the region.  Furthermore, the new caliphate would keep his arch enemies the Kurds in check.

Erdogan went about doing this by being the main corridor for ISIS bound fighters as well as the middle man for ISIS oil.  Of course Erdogan sold Kurdish oil on top of that. The Kurdish oil kept the Kurdish leadership in Northern Iraq beholden to Ankara.  This strategy is still in play, however Russia’s increasing intervention and Syria’s new found might against its Western backed foes has put a serious wrinkle in Turkey’s strategy.

Two Autonomous Kurdish Regions Are Too Many for Erdogan

As long as the Kurds relegated themselves to an autonomous province in Northern Iraq, Erdogan and Turkey’s military felt they had strategic strength.  Russia’s arming of the Syrian Kurdish Militia otherwise known as the YPG has alarmed Turkey.  Although the Kurdish population in Syria amounts to a small 1.6 million, the territory it has gained among the chaos has been significant.

The border between the Syrian Kurdish region and Iraqi Kurdish region, which has 6.6 million Kurds  has melted away, effectively giving the Kurds one long autonomous area stretching along the Southern border of Turkey.  With Turkey’s 15 million strong Kurdish population just to the North, Turkey is rapidly heading for destabilization.

After the Kurdish bombing in Ankara, the Turkish Prime Minister Davutoğlu said:

“We collected intelligence all night,” Davutoğlu told reporters in Ankara. “The perpetrators have been fully identified. The attack was carried out by YPG member Salih Necer, who came in from Syria.”

Of course the YPG has denied involvement.  Truth matters not though to Ankara, who needs some reason to put a stop to the de facto creation of a Kurdish republic to the South and perhaps even within Turkey.  The fear is compounded even more by Russia’s backing for Kurdish military operations.

If Turkey uses the pretense to attack Syria in order to push back Kurdish expansion, the die will be cast for an intense explosion in war activity throughout the Middle East.  The Kurds are seen by even America as in the right in relation to Turkey.  Erdogan may feel he has no choice, but his decision may end up taking him down one way or the other.

Is Merkel Feeling the Heat?

One should not think too deeply on Angela Merkel’s words in press conference with Bibi Netanyahu in Berlin today.  According to i24 News, the German Chancellor said:

“Now is not the time for a significant step forward [in the two-state solution].”

Angela Merkel has been known in the past as a major backer of the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The fact that she seems to be pushing the pause button should catch more than a few glances.  However, one should not take her pronouncement too far. In the intra-Europe sparring over the refugee crisis, Angela Merkel has been painted (mostly due to her own policies) as responsible for the catastrophic situation that Europe now finds itself.

With the Eastern European countries taking a far tougher approach than herself, she has been struggling to stave of not only a revolt in the EU, but one in her own country. Keep in mind, many Eastern European countries have sided with Israel over the labeling crisis and by doing so they have revealed how fractured the continent is.  Merkel achieves a lot with her statement.  By backing off of Israel, she can show her interlocutors that she isn’t as clueless about the sweeping hordes of Islamic migrants engulfing her continent.  After all Israel has been taking the brunt of radical Islamic violence for years.  Letting it drown in the region’s current typhoon of geopolitical chaos would prove how clueless European leaders really are. So Merkel gains the mantel of “principled leader” without forfeiting too much of her open borders policy.

Keeping Israel in Europe’s Orbit

As Israel continues to build on its economic growth with trade deals and energy agreements with a variety of new partners, Europe understands that Israel is in fact poised to surpass it as a global leader and influencer.  China and India don’t care about the to state solution, backing it only with lip service.  Russia does only what’s best for it and a strong Israel could very well be part of Putin’s plans for the region.  Europe is being cut out of everything and losing influence over Israel would not bode well for it.

Backing Israel on the two state solution is ultimately an attempt to lure Israel away from shifting alliances, especially ones that stand diametrically opposed to the EU’s policy in the Middle East.

Can the Turkey-Russian War Break the Alliance System?

Are we in 1914 or 2016.  Sometimes with all of the alliances it’s hard to tell.  Then again when it comes to Syria there are some outliers that might just throw the alliance system out the window. With the war in Syria on the verge of turning into a much wider conflict it is important to understand how all the sides are stacked.

Russia, Iran, Syria, Armenia

The Shiite-Russian alliance has been steadily growing for some time. The pervading assumption has been Russia’s need for a Mediterranean port being behind his support of Assad.  With Turkey’s downing of the SU-24, Putin’s calculus has changed.

Long an opponent of Turkey’s expansionism, Putin used the SU-24 incident to turn the screws on Turkey’s Erdogan. Armenia, a close ally of Russia is being beefed up as a potential launching pad for attacks against Turkey.  Besides its alliance with Russia, Armenia has historical redresses with Turkey going back to the 1915 Armenian Genocide.

Iran and the Syrian government’s forces have become Russia’s ground troops in taking back the strategic Western part of the country. Russia has avoided a repeat of its Afghanistan debacle by using the Shiite armies to do its work. Besides that, the Shiites are giving Russia real geopolitical leverage against the region’s Sunni powers.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Gulf States

What makes the stakes so high in Syria, is the exacerbation of the Sunni-Shiite conflict.  With Russia in full concert with the Shiite led countries, the Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey see no other choice but to go into the fray.  The reasoning is simple: the Shiites with a resurgent Russia need to be stopped now or risk being too formidable once their gains are entrenched.

The Sunnis are 90% of the Islamic world, but the growing Shiite crescent creates a real strategic nightmare for them, effectively cutting the Sunni world in two and, of course, controlling key oil routes that will have a very real effect on future regional control.

NATO

Although conventional wisdom insists that NATO would issue the game changing Article 5 in the case of a Turkish-Russian war, it is not at all clear NATO will pick a side. Europe is very much dependent on Russian gas during the winter.  They are also trying to tamp down the off again on again conflict in East Ukraine and need Russia to help them.  As for Obama and the USA, getting into a war with Russia and the Shiites on behalf of Turkey and the gulf states is not something they want.  

With all of that being said, a full out war between Russia and Turkey will have large consequences for energy control, economy, and refugees.  NATO may have little choice but to jump into things on behalf of their most disliked member, Turkey, even if the gamble proves to be a negative one.

Greece, Cyprus, Israel

With Greece, Cyprus, and Israel’s new found partnership in energy, technology, and security all three of them are loath to pick sides in what is fast turning into a geopolitical typhoon.  Greece and Cyprus are arch enemies of Turkey and it is no surprise that Greece has made it clear that they see Russia as a friend and potential partner.  This of course puts Israel into an uncomfortable position.  At one hand, Israel has been seeking what is known as a neutral foreign policy for decades and, on the other hand, is still very much in the orbit of Europe and the USA.  

With Russian overflights of Israeli airspace increasing daily and new trade avenues opening up with the very countries aligned with Russia, it should no longer be surprising what side the government in Jerusalem picks. Then again, that would put it on the same side as its arch enemies, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.  Russia insists it has them in check, but trusting Putin has never been a good idea.

Of course, Bibi and Israel rather stay out of it and continue trading with all parties equally, but remaining neutral may no longer be an option.

Jordan

The King of Jordan has vacillated between the West and Russia.  In many ways for the same reason Israel has. Surrounded by ISIS and Al Qaida, King Hussein’s rule is the most tenuous in the Middle East.  Assurances for his family and his throne’s safety are key.  If Russia can promise protection, then Jordan may very well switch sides.

Kurdistan

Kurdistan has always been hard to read. Typically speaking, the Kurds (split between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq) have done their best to pick partners that would be willing to help them advance their independence agenda. In this case, Russia seems most willing to help defend and enhance Kurdish objectives; mainly because the Kurds are the single biggest domestic threat to Turkey.

If a Turkish-Russian war does materialize then the Kurds are Putin’s most important weapon.  They give Putin a Turkish domestic constituency primed for a violent uprising.  In addition, they are a formidable fighting force situated along the length of Turkey’s entire Southern border.  Coupled with the fact that Iraqi Kurdistan is oil rich makes them the lynchpin Putin needs.

What’s Next?

Full on war between Russia and Turkey and their respective allies seems almost certain at this point.  The question is: when? That depends much on Turkey’s actions in the next few days.  If the Turkish army continues to shell Northern Syria and even sends troops in then Russia will act. Russia will claim they have no choice but to capture the Bosphorous Straits, in order to defend against a Turkish closure to Russian vessels. At that point, the key actor to look at is NATO.  If they enter on the side of Turkey,  Russia will send their army into Ukraine. Once that happens all bets are off.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Imminent Threat of Expanding War

If the latest reports out of the Levant are true, Turkey has quite possibly sparked a global war. RIA Novosti reports by way of Sputnik News the following:

“Turkish artillery opened fire on the positions of the Syrian army in the Alia hills region of northwest Latakia. Several shells have fallen from Turkish territory.”

Latkia
Latkia

Given the fact that Turkey has been building up its armed presence on the Syrian border has been seen by many as a sign of impending invasion.  Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has made it clear they would like to move ground troops into Syria in order to fight ISIS.  The combination of the two Sunni allies potentially sending ground forces into the Syrian chaos guarantees an exponential expansion of the war.

Russia, Iran, and the Assad regime know the Sunni countries will not sit by and watch themselves become diced up by Russian backed Shiite forces.  The Sunnis have spent way too much capital in stopping the burgeoning Shiite crescent to not try to push it back when it matters most.

Russia is not Backing Down

With oil prices falling and a weakened West, Russia cannot afford to back off it’s growing entanglement with Syria, especially since they appear to be winning. This is Putin’s gamble and he wants and needs to win. They have proven that sheer force and a disregard to international norms when attacking civilian areas can defeat what they view as radicalism.  Putin is sending a message out to the Islamic militants within Russia, not to mess around.

Erdogan Needs a Win or Else

Erdogan really thought that he would have been able to woo Israel back into his fold.  Yaalon has now indicated that it will not happen.  Without an energy partner and a tightening embargo from Russia, Erdogan has to push back on the Syrian forces that are maligning ethnic Turkmen in Northern Syria.  Even more so, Erdogan has to show that he is still viable.  Bombing Syria and taking the Northern territory is the surest way to do that.  Of course it could very well ignite a conflict far more destructive throughout the entire region.

 

Is the Russian Turkish War About to Start?

After weeks of staying out of the news, Turkey has finally found a way back into the international headlines. Speculation is rising that Turkey is planning to possibly send troops into Syria.  TASS reports, “Turkey has denied the Russian Federation an observation flight over its territory that was to be held within the framework of the Open Skies Treaty, a senior Russian Defense Ministry official said Wednesday.”

Two possibilities lie behind the Turkish move. Either, Turkey is really preparing a ground invasion of Northern Syria in order to protect their Turkmen allies or they want to deny Moscow the ability to see the relationship between Turkish forces and ISIS.

“The route supposed, among other things, observation of areas adjacent to the Syrian border and airfields where NATO aircraft are concentrated. But after the arrival of the Russian mission in Turkey and the announcement of the planned route of the observation flight, the Turkish military denied the opportunity to conduct it citing an instruction from Turkey’s Foreign Ministry,” said Sergey Ryzhkov, chief of the ministry’s department for control of implementation of treaties.

“In this way, as a result of violations of the requirements of the Treaty and unconstructive actions on the part of Turkey, a dangerous precedent was created of an uncontrolled military activity of an Open Skies Treaty member state,” Ryzhkov said.

Although a few months ago a ground invasion of Turkish forces into Syria seemed outrageous, now no one seems to be laughing.  Erdogan is cornered.  Russia doesn’t sell gas to Turkey and Erdogan cannot seem to reach  a final rapprochement with Israel. Without affordable energy and increasing isolation to the North, North East, and the South, Erdogan must make a move. A move South will spark a war.  A Russian Turkish war could spiral out of control and draw in most of the region if not other world powers.

Erdogan Toprak, opposition member in Turkey has lent wait to the rising possibility that Turkey would send troops over the border. “The presence Hulusi Akar, Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces, among the people accompanying Davutoglu to Riyadh, as well as a group photograph featuring Akar posing together with a top Saudi official while wearing army fatigues and boots, sends a clear message: the Turkish Armed Forces are ready to take the lead role in a possible ground military action in Syria,” notes Toprak.

Essentially, the war between the Sunni’s and Shiites is about to be raised a few notches.

What Should Israel Do?

Stay out of it.  There are no good sides in this war.  Israel would be wise in keeping neutral, because there is no one that would be preferable. In a sense, Israel is watching two boxers go add it for 10 rounds, only to both fall to the floor. By staying out of the conflict, Israel can pick up the pieces after the conflict is finished.

 

Israel is Moving Beyond Turkey

Israel, Greece, and Cyprus held a top level three way meeting on building a gas pipeline from Israel and Cyprus to Greece, for exporting gas to Europe.  This has been brewing for a while and the reports that we pushed forward previously have come to fruition, indicating that Israel is not waiting for Turkey to decide if they want to be part of the growing detente.

“Our partnership is not exclusive in design or nature, and we are ready to welcome other like-minded actors to join our efforts to promote coordination and cooperation, as well as regional peace and stability,” the three leaders said in a joint statement.

The above statement seems to leave the door open for Turkey at a later stage, but clearly at a reduced role.  The energy alliance is quickly growing into something far more concrete as  the three leaders talked about coordination on security, hi-tech, energy, and other important issues.

Israel-Greece-Cyprus

The alliance stands to quickly change the Eastern Mediterranean geopolitical reality, providing a sense of stability in a region engulfed by radical Islamic chaos. The burgeoning partnership is a testament to Israel’s increased standing in the World, despite the claims of isolation due to a lack of movement in the “peace process.”

Last month the Greek premiere Alexis Tsipras called Jerusalem, Israel’s historic capital, which many people saw as a sign that relations between the two countries were moving to a new level of cooperation.

Turkey in Trouble for Buying ISIS Oil

Israel’s defense minister Moshe Ya’alon and Greece criticize Turkey for buying oil from ISIS (Daesh) and, in doing so, funding the terror group. Ya’alon said “It’s up to Turkey, the Turkish government, the Turkish leadership, to decide whether they want to be part of any kind of cooperation to fight terrorism. This is not the case so far. As you know, Daesh [Islamic State] enjoyed Turkish money for oil for a very, very long period of time. I hope that it will be ended.” He added that Turkey “permitted jihadists to move from Europe to Syria and Iraq and back.”

These accusations come amid attempts by Turkey to improve Israel-Turkey relations mainly for the purpose of importing Israel’s natural gas. However, Erdogan and Turkey will need to meet specific demands made by Israel including cutting ties with Hamas, upgrading of the relations to full ambassadorial level and cancelling plans to take Israelis to court for the Mavi Marmara incident. Let’s see if Turkey will play nice.

Read more about the relations and future of Israel, Greece and Turkey as explained by the Israeli Ambassador to Greece.

Palestinian refugees from 1948 may have numbered less than 300,000

Most serious students of the history of Palestine would accept that the number of Arab refugees from Israel during and after 1948 claimed by Arab and UN sources—some 600,000 to 750,000—was exaggerated. It is very easy to refute that estimate and many have already done it. – Yehoshua Porath

It is a common misconception that around 650,000 Palestinian refugees were created because of fighting that took place in 1948. But a closer look at both the population data and statements made by UN officials at the time suggest that the true figure is much lower, possibly as low as 270,000.

The conventional figure of 650,000 cannot be true for more than one reason. Firstly, there were fewer than 660,000 Arabs living in the part of Palestine that eventually became Israel; and secondly, UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency), either through incompetence or deliberate manipulation, handed out multiple identity cards to the same persons, some of whom were not refugees at all but permanent residents who took advantage of the aid offered by UNRWA. This is attested by UNRWA officials.

Before taking a look at UNRWA’s role in the invention of the Palestinian refugee problem, it is worthwhile examining the population data of Eretz Israel/Palestine prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The Statistical Abstract of Palestine in 1944-45 set the figure for the total Arab population living in what would become the Jewish-settled territories at 570,800. Another set of figures based on a census taken in 1944 suggests there were 696,000 Arabs living in what would become Israeli-controlled territory. Tsvi Misinai, an Israeli researcher and historian, believes the figure to even lower. He believes that prior to the 1948 war, there were 390,000 Arabs living in areas that would fall into Israeli hands. (None of these figures include the number of Arab Palestinians residing in east Jerusalem, Gaza and Judea-Samaria. Figures vary, but the number of Arabs in those areas was probably 600,000, which brings the total number of Arabs residing between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to 1.2 million).

According to Misinai, there were in excess of 120,000 Arabs inside Israel’s borders by the end of the war, although most commentators believe the figure to be 160,000 or 170,000. (The discrepancy becomes less glaring when Israel’s repatriation of 20,000 Palestinian Arab refugees from Jordan is taken into account). This means that the number of Palestinian Arabs displaced from areas that came under Israeli control cannot be higher than 270,000.

Of the 270,000, most had ended up in neighbouring Arab countries, with the rest having fled to Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Around 4,000 had voluntarily moved from west Jerusalem into houses abandoned in east Jerusalem. During the course of the war, 77,000 Arabs (mostly Bedouin) returned to their homes in what would become Israeli territory. As the war went on, another 81,000 Palestinians fled, 24,000 of which had already fled and returned, only to flee again. By the war’s end, there were 270,000 Palestinian Arabs who had lost their homes and/or their land.

At first glance, this seems a rather low figure. A report submitted by the UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte suggested that the number of Palestinian refugees totalled 330,000. Other contemporary reports put the number at around 424,000. Either way, it is statistically impossible for there to have been more than 430,000 genuine Palestinian Arab refugees from the 1948 war. This is the view of Dr Walter Pinner, who bases his figures on reliable census data carried out in the mid-1940s.

So we have a situation where no less than 270,000 and no more than 430,000 Palestinian refugees were created by the 1948 war. Misinai’s suggestion of 270,000 can be attributed to his rather low starting figure of 390,000 Arabs who resided in pre-state Israel. Perhaps if one takes into account the Arab migrants and citrus farm workers who had gone back to their country of origin, there may be a case for a final figure of 270,000. Plus, a reliable study undertaken in the mid-1960s suggests the figure of 270,000 may be close to the mark (more on this later).

Many books and websites quote a figure of 650,000 when discussing the number of Palestinian refugees created by the 1948 conflict. How did the figure of 650,000 arise?

One explanation is the attested fact that in the aftermath of the conflict, refugees were counted more than once. In order to receive extra funding, many refugees identified themselves twice before UNRWA officials. As a result, they received more than one identity card. One of the camp workers in Lebanon stated, “We try to count them, but they are coming and going all the time; or we count them in Western clothes, then they return in aba and keffiyeh and we count the same ones again.”

This was not the only fraud committed by the refugees. Another was the concealment of natural deaths so that families could continue to collect the deceased person’s food. Births, however, were always registered. In 1951, UNRWA reported that “it is still not possible to give an absolute figure of the true number of refugees as understood by the working definition of the word.” A reason given by UNRWA for the erratic data was that the refugees “eagerly report births and … reluctantly report deaths.” According to the July 23 1955 edition of the Cairo-based Mideast Mirror, “There are refugees who hold as many as 500 ration cards, 499 of them belonging to refugees long dead…. There are dealers in UNRWA food and clothing and ration cards to the highest bidder.”

Fraudulent claims were made regarding the number of dependents. It was alleged that refugees would “hire” children from other families at census time. In 1950, UNRWA director Howard Kennedy said that “fictitious names on the ration lists pertain to refugees in this area […] it is alleged that it is a common practice for refugees to hire children from other families at census time.”

The situation in Jordan was especially difficult because western Jordan was already populated by Arab Palestinians, so distinguishing a refugee from a non-refugee was particularly arduous. An UNRWA official noted that the Jordan ration lists alone “are believed to include 150,000 ineligibles and many persons who have died.” A similar situation arose in Lebanon. In a 1950 report to the UN General Assembly, the director of UNRWA noted that “many Lebanese nationals along the Palestinian frontier habitually worked most of the year on the farms or in the citrus groves of Palestine. With the advent of war they came back across the border and claimed status as refugees.” UNRWA conceded that up to 129,000 Lebanese workers may have falsely claimed Palestinian refugee status.

In fact, this developed into a widespread trend. Because the UNRWA refugee camps were better than standard housing, some non-refugee residents of Judea-Samaria and Gaza declared themselves refugees in order to gain access to food, as well as medical and educational benefits. Many permanent residents of Judea-Samaria and Gaza came to carry both an UNRWA refugee card that had the address of a refugee camp and a regular ID card with their actual identity and address.

Another problem was the unrecorded movement of peoples, especially the Bedouin tribes who moved between Gaza, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon, thereby increasing multiple registrations. Even the UN acknowledged that 15,000 Bedouins were actually non-existent, that they were fictitious persons or people already registered. In the words of UNRWA, the movement of people introduced “a double source of error into any estimates of the number of persons who could have become refugees.”

By 1950, the UN disclosed that it was “not possible to give an absolute figure of the true number of refugees as understood by the working definition.” According to a report, the percentage of error in the UN statistics was “possibly as much as 50 per cent and represents a serious operational difficulty.”

Nonetheless, the UN kept revising its figures upwards because it pursued a maximalist position on who was a refugee, which ranged from a “needy person” who “has lost his home and means of livelihood” to “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948.” Even refugees who still had a house but had lost some or all of their land were considered refugees. In addition, Arabs who had settled in Palestine illegally prior to 1948 were also given refugee status. No wonder the figures were artificially high.

In 1966, Dr. Walter Pinner identified a huge number of fraudulent refugee claims. Basing his findings on  UNRWA’s own reports, he discovered that 484,000 refugees were Arabs from western Jordan and Gaza Strip; another 117,000 were unrecorded deaths; 109,000 were people who had been resettled in 1948 and were no longer refugees; and a further 225,000 had subsequently settled elsewhere and become self-supporting. After subtracting the inauthentic claims, he concluded that there were 115,000 “old and sick” refugees, and 252,000 “other unsettled genuine refugees,” totalling 367,000 legitimate refugees as of 1966.

Once the natural rate of increase between 1948 and 1966 has been subtracted, the number of genuine Palestinian refugees from 1948 cannot be much higher than 300,000. In which case, Tsvi Misinai’s figure of 270,000 may not be far off the mark.

Significantly, UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold did not refute Dr Pinner’s findings, nor did he issue any corrections to Dr Pinner’s figures. He did, however, acknowledge receipt of Dr Pinner’s work, so it cannot be claimed that the UN wasn’t aware of his analysis. It is probable that the UN, at least in private, agreed with Dr Pinner’s findings but did not want to admit that UNRWA had been defrauded of millions of dollars.

All told, the conventional figure of 600,500 Palestinian refugees from the 1948 conflict comes from the double counting of refugees, the non-recording of deaths, the vague and expansive use of the term ‘refugee,’ the counting of people who were not refugees, the counting of former refugees who had resettled elsewhere, and the untracked movement of peoples between Jordan, Gaza, Lebanon and Judea-Samaria.

The implication is that many of today’s Palestinian refugees actually derive from people who did not reside in Palestine at the time of the war or had lived there for only two years, which means more than half – possibly even two-thirds – of those who claim to be Palestinian refugees in 2016 are not descended from Palestinian refugees at all. (What is also galling is that the living conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps are much better than the conditions of their non-refugee Arab neighbours who do not receive international aid. Indeed, many of the Palestinian refugee camps are not camps at all, but are fully-functioning neighbourhoods.)

The Arab states themselves have been major players in the refugee fraud. Greed was one motivating factor because UNRWA money was, in effect, free money. In 1961 UNRWA director John H. David admitted that Arab countries overstated their refugee figures in the 1950s to get more funds. But the refugee crisis was useful for another reason: It was a way of exerting international pressure on the State of Israel to repatriate the so-called refugees, thereby demographically destroying the Jewish state. This explains why the Arabs didn’t permanently rehouse the refugees in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, which were under Jordanian and Egyptian control respectively between 1948 and 1967.

The sordid history of the Palestinian refugee situation means the Israeli government must be extremely wary about compensating or repatriating Palestinians who claim to be refugees. Many of them are frauds or the descendants of frauds. If the Israeli government does decide to compensate or repatriate some of the refugees as part of a peace deal, then a detailed investigation needs to be conducted to ensure that only genuine claimants are assisted. In return, a wider compensation package is needed in which the descendants of Jews who lost their homes, savings and livelihoods in Nazi Europe (not just Germany) are compensated, and the Jews forced from Arab lands in the 1940s and 1950s are likewise recompensed. In addition, there needs to be some recognition that many Jews were killed and displaced in the 1948 war – a war instigated by an alliance of several Arabs nations to destroy the Jewish homeland.