UNRWA Dean Finds Inspiration in Hitler

hitler unrwa

The UNRWA is a UN agency dedicated solely to the perpetual Palestinian refugees. It has a 900 million dollar budget and America is its single biggest donor.

In June, Obama decided to kick in an extra $123 million to the UNRWA bringing the total contribution for 2013 to $244.5 million. And 2013 isn’t over yet.

So what kind of things does all that money help pay for? Education. Like this kind of education.

Dr. Fares Haider is the Dean of Student Affairs for UNRWA in Jordan. Here is a poster he placed on his personal Facebook page:

The text says “‘The two most important rules in order to be successful – the first: never give up. The second: remember the first rule’. Adolph Hitler”

He captioned it “Military rules for success … good morning all.”

If you’re a bunch of terrorists who became homeless after trying and failing to wipe out the Jewish people… do you really want to take advice on not giving up from Adolf Hitler, the guy whose refusal to give up killing people led to a crushing defeat?

Also didn’t Hitler kill himself? Isn’t that the definition of giving up?

  • onegoodnathan

    the daily invocation of the hitler card? seems like Israel is doing just fine with the land grabbing and new settlements. maybe Israel should stop accepting the billions in US aid on principle–Americans wont hold their breath.

  • Veracious_one
    • onegoodnathan

      west bank, gaza, east jerusalem are occupied lands per international courts and an annual UN general assembly resolution. per international law you cannot annex land through force during war. Palestinians are living in an apartheid state in these occupied lands, Israel is in violation of the law.

      • Veracious_one

        Fitzgerald: Occupation? What occupation?

        Jihad Watch Board Vice
        President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the tendentious claims that Israel
        is maintaining an illegal “occupation” of Palestinian land — claims
        evidently believed by the President of the United States:

        A poster at Jihad Watch recently recommended that readers
        here acquire “knowledge of the day to day lives of the Palestinians and
        their experience under occupation.”

        “Occupation”? What “occupation”? All the territories the Israelis now
        possess are theirs by legal right — the right conferred by the League
        of Nations Mandates Commission, when it carefully defined the territory
        which would be set aside, from the vast territories in the Middle East
        that had formerly been in the control of the Ottoman Turks as part of
        their empire, and which had been won by the Allies. An Arab State, a
        Kurdish State, and a Jewish state were all promised. The Arabs got their
        state — no, in the end, they got far more than their state but rather,
        in 2005, 22 members of the Arab League, the most richly endowed with
        natural resources of any states on earth, enjoying the fruits of the
        greatest transfer of wealth in human history The Kurds did not get their
        state, because by the time things had settled, Kemal Ataturk was
        driving a hard bargain and would not permit it. The Jews got the Mandate
        for Palestine set up for the express purpose of establishing the Jewish
        National Home, which would inexorably become, all parties realized, in
        time a Jewish state. It did not seem wrong then, and does not seem wrong
        now, that the Jews should have a state of their own. They asked only
        for the right to have no barriers put up to their immigration, and no
        barriers put in the way of their buying land. That was it. That was the
        sum total of what they demanded. Until the 1948 war, when five Arab
        armies attacked, not a single dunam of Arab-owned land (and remember
        that nearly 90% of the land, in any case, remained the possession of the
        state or the ruling authority, as in the Mandatory period) was
        appropriated. No one should dare to write about this subject without
        having done the research on demography, land ownership, and law.

        The Israeli claim to
        the West Bank (as Judea and Samaria were carefully renamed by Jordan
        after 1948, in precisely the same way, and for the same reason, that the
        Romans, nearly two thousand years before, had renamed Judea as
        “Palestine” and Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina) is not that of a military
        occupier, though it is also that. The main legal and historic claim is
        that based on the League of Nations Mandate, which in turn, was based on
        a considerable historic and moral claim recognized by the educated
        leaders of the then-civilized world, who actually knew something of the
        history of the area, and were not nearly as misinformed as so many have
        been by the mass media, and the laziness and prejudice of journalists

        The notion of “occupation” of course evokes imagines of Occupied
        Paris, or Occupied Berlin, after the war. It implies no justification
        for the claims of the power with the military presence. But the claim of
        Israel to the lands it took in 1967 are based, for the Sinai, on the
        standard rules of post-war settlement, the rules which have obtained for
        centuries, whereby a victor in a war of defense keeps what he has won.
        If the Israelis chose not to, or were forced not to exercise that right,
        it does not mean that the right did not exist. It did, and it applies
        even more forcefully to Gaza and the West Bank. But the claim there is
        not based merely on the successful conquest of territory to which
        otherwise Israel had no claim. It did have a claim, a claim based
        clearly on the Mandate for Palestine — and like all the other League of
        Nations Mandates, was formally accepted, taken over as it were, by the
        United Nations when it came into being. This is a matter of record. It
        cannot be undone.

        Whatever else one wishes to say about the West Bank or Gaza, the word
        “occupation” is a tendentious, and cruel, misnomer. What it seeks to
        imply, what it seeks to implant in the minds of men, is clear: Israel
        has no rights here. This is nonsense. This is the very reverse of the
        truth. Read the Mandate, and the Preamble to the Mandate, for Palestine.
        Then read the records of the Mandates Commission — and especially how
        they reacted when the British unilaterally announced that the terms of
        the mandate would not be applied to Eastern Palestine — that is, the
        consolation prize given to Abdullah of the Emirate of Transjordan.

        Read it, and understand it.

        • onegoodnathan

          I have read on the british mandate for palestine. it designated a territory for a Jewish homeland to be under direct british rule–not a state. this mandate was to be terminated and replaced by UN resolution 181 calling for a 2 state solution partition plan. the league of nations mandate has no relevance today per international law set by the UN. like I said Israel is also in violation of the geneva conventions by acquiring land through war.

          I used to be brainwashed by zionist propaganda like this until I started to read and really examine the dynamics of the conflict. I am in support of a 2 state solution but this, and peace, will never have a chance to be achieved as long as Israel continues to violate UN resolutions and International law by occupying land that is not theirs.

          • Veracious_one

            Lebanon’s Daily Star carries an article today with the headline: “Jordan’s king to visit Occupied Territories, Israel.”

            The word “occupied” needs to be carefully examined. It is ordinarily
            used when the country deemed to be the occupier has no claim to the land
            it occupies, and is only there temporarily, following a conflict, with
            no intention or right to remain.

            Thus “Occupied Paris” or “Occupied France.” Thus “Occupied Germany”
            or “Occupied Japan” after the war. But to use the word “occupied lands”
            for lands which are part of the Mandate for Palestine is another matter.
            These lands were part of the two Ottoman vilayets that were
            deliberately set aside by the League of Nations, after the breakup of
            the Ottoman Empire, for the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
            This was done on the perfectly reasonable and indeed irreproachable
            theory that like the Arabs (who were promised one Arab State), the Kurds
            (who ultimately never got any state), and the Armenians (ditto, except
            for a Soviet republic, only recently made independent), the Jews could
            be given a state of their own. The moral, legal, and historic claim of
            the Jews — some of whom had left the Middle East after the
            Jihad-conquest by the Arabs in the 7th century, and some of whom had
            remained to live as dhimmis in Iraq, Syria, Judea itself, Yemen, and
            North Africa — would be seen by fair-minded person who had bothered to
            investigate the matter as an overwhelming claim.

            Indeed, when the
            British, who had made solemn commitments under their power as mandatory
            authority, simply closed off all of Eastern Palestine (which went to
            form present-day Jordan) in 1921, the Mandates Commission of the League
            of Nations was horrified. Arab propagandists –Rami Khouri, Rashid
            Khalidi, Saeb Erekat, and so on — like to refer rather quickly, and
            self-assuredly, to “occupied Arab lands” (or variants on the phrase)
            knowing that their interviewer or interlocutor will never stop to
            question them, about the long history of the word “Palestine” (and what
            it was defined as in Western Christendom) and the brief history of the
            phrase “Palestinian people,” about the real understandings, and
            weighings of claims, and equities, that lay behind the League of
            Nations’ decision to create, as it created other mandates in the Middle
            East and elsewhere, the Mandate for Palestine. Nor is much attention
            given by the BBC, or “The Guardian,” or RF1 or “Le Monde,” or NPR or any
            number of newspaper reporters, to another matter: the precise data on
            demography and land ownership (cadastral records) in what the Western
            world, but never the Islamic one until the last century, always referred
            to as “Palestine” or the Holy Land.

            How many people discussing “Palestine” realize that in the Ottoman
            Empire, nearly 90% of the land in the vilayets (and a separate sanjak
            for Jerusalem) which formed “Palestine” was owned by the Ottoman state?
            How many know that until the 1948 war, what land the Jews could buy
            from Arab landlords was bought at exorbitant prices, and at what prices?
            How many know that the State of Israel is the legitimate and intended
            successor of the Mandatory authority, Great Britain, which in its turn
            had inherited the land owned by the Ottoman state? How many know that
            the entire settled population (i.e., exclusive of the Bedouin who
            wandered from Egypt to the Arabian desert) of the land that then went to
            form the “Palestine Mandate” could not, in 1850, have been more than
            100,000 in all? How many have bothered to read the accounts of
            travellers, from Volney to Chateaubriand, to Melville and Mark Twain,
            who all described the fantastic desolation and ruination of the Holy
            Land in the 19th century — until the revival of economic opportunities
            as the Jews began to come back? Arab in-migration, mostly illegal,
            exceeded Jewish migration into the very mandatory territory during the
            entire pre-World War II life of the Mandate.

            And, of course, there is always the little matter of that absurd
            phrase, and more absurd concept, the “Palestinian people” — a phrase
            which, if you care to look for it, you will find employed not once prior
            to the 1967 war by any Arab spokesman or leader anywhere, not in the
            world’s press, not in the Arab press, not in any speech or piece of
            paper offered up, among the hundreds of thousands of speeches and pieces
            of paper, offered up on the Arab side, including all those at the
            United Nations.

            Look through the entire U.N. records and try, in 1948, or 1953, or
            1956, or 1959, or 1966, to find a single mention of the “Palestinian

            And you won’t find one.

            Here’s an example of how to use the word “occupied” properly. But
            before reading the setnence below, first, banish all use of that
            post-1948 phrase “West Bank” and instead use, unembarrassedly and
            repeatedly, until it becomes second nature, and until you have forced
            others to use the terms as well (for it is all by dint of repetition
            that one succeeds in having right, or wrong, language employed) “Judea
            and Samaria.” These toponyms are not some invention of “Biblical
            settlers” deliberately changing history by making up terms. They
            appeared on all the maps throughout the Western world for nearly 2000
            years. In the Bible, of course, these placenames came naturally to,
            among others, Jesus.

            And why should you use those terms if they make you at this point
            just a little bit embarrassed and self-conscious, as if to use them is
            to identify yourself as some Bible-belt holy-roller, some o Jewish
            “settler” fanatic? The answer is that you have become a victim of
            incessant Arab propaganda, and have internalized what that propaganda
            has so successfully encouraged the world to believe about the venerable
            Biblical placenames “Judea” and “Samaria.” [They never got around to
            doing the same, amusingly, with the word “Gaza,” which is just as
            Biblical and just as identified with the Jewish history retold in the
            Old Testament, which is primarily a chronicle, a history, as are “Judea”
            and “Samaria” — apparently the Egyptians, still under inattentive King
            Farouk, never thought it necessary to rename it — after all, they had
            seized Gaza and never thought they might lose it again — as the
            “Northeastern Bank (of the Nile)”].

            But “Judea” and “Samaria” were used by the Jews for more than a
            thousand years before Jesus began to use those words, and so did all
            Christians for another nearly 2000 years, until the Arab Muslims came
            along in 1948 and began to make everyone forget those terms, be
            embarrassed by those placenames, and instead adopt, for two of the most
            important, though tiny places, in world history, the absurd phrase “the
            West Bank” — a phrase which, of course, has meaning mainly for the
            Jordanians, and is not even geographically accurate, describing as it
            does a kind of ear-shaped area, and not a “bank” of land, of similar
            width along its entire length, parallel to the river in question — the
            Jordan — at all.

            If the Arabs ever get their wish, following upon the next
            “Palestinian” equivalent of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, and go in for
            the kill, and seize Jerusalem, and then begin calling it Al-Quds (just
            as the Umayyads seized Christian monuments and claimed them for Islam,
            not least in Jerusalem), how long would it be before the remaining
            Christians and Jews in the world would be dutifully calling it “Al-Quds”
            and looking a bit embarrassed about using that old word “Jerusalem”?

            In any case, if you are reading, and still with me, and prepared to
            use the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” as you should, you are then ready to
            pronounce the sentence below, which uses the word “occupied” with
            historical accuracy, and with due attention to the legal rights, under
            the Mandate, of the various parties. In other words, this sentence does
            NOT do what the BBC and much of the European press does, when they
            repeatedly inform us — quite inaccurately, I’m afraid, that the
            “Palestinian people” are “struggling” to “get back” their “occupied

            The sentence is as follows:

            “In Judea and Samaria, lands that were part of the original Mandate
            for Palestine, and hence intended by that Mandate for the express
            purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home, and now occupied in
            large part by Arabs, the Israelis should work to give those local Arabs a
            degree of autonomy that would be superior to that which the Arabs give
            to all the non-Arab minorities — Sudanese blacks, Berbers, Kurds, and
            so on — living under their rule, but should be discouraged from
            yielding up control of any of the territories they now possess, for in
            order to prevent war in the future, the Muslim Arab forces will be
            inhibited only where the doctine of “darura,” or necessity, can be

            A long sentence but worth the wait, or perhaps one should say it is worth its weight.

          • onegoodnathan

            haha…are you capable of an original thought?

            fact–the british mandate for palestine is irrelevant, it was legally superceded by UN resolution 181

            fact–according to the geneva conventions definition those lands are occupied and Israel is in violation of seizing land during war.

            fact–according to the international court of justice the settlements in the west bank are illegal, & it isnt even a close adjudication .

            fact–Israel and the US are consistently the only 2 states voting against UN 2 state resolutions. even Iran has voted in favor

            the semantics in these conjecture laden responses you quoted mean next to nothing and do not address Israel’s repeated illegalities perpetrated in the eyes of the world’s governing bodies.

            you can stay brainwashed to your propaganda or wake up to the realities of having even an opportunity for peace.

          • Veracious_one

            here is an eerie déjà vu about an unmistakable and oft-repeated
            process in the Arab–Israel conflict. The process started in 1937 and
            has repeated itself with minor variations many times over the subsequent
            74 years. The process is as follows: Arabs go to war with Israel,
            promising Israel’s destruction and the annihilation of its Jews. Israel
            wins the war and offers peace. Arab leaders reject Israel’s peace
            offer, renew their promises of destruction and annihilation; and after a
            while they go to war again, and lose again, and Israel again offers
            peace. Repeat this process 31 times and you have the history of the
            Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell.

          • Veracious_one

            The mask has not merely slipped in
            Gaza. It is entirely off. Jihad, jihad, jihad. Use the word. The Arabs
            and Muslims are using it, day after day, not least in Gaza. It is a
            Jihad. It is prompted by the tenets of Islam, and those tenets do not
            say “compromise with the Infidels.” Those tenets do not say “leave them
            with a tiny rump state.” Those tenets do not say “Push them back to the
            pre-1967 armistice lines” or “Push them back until they are sufficiently
            small.” No, Islam tells Muslims not to countenance, not to endure, any
            Infidel state, any state which permits non-Muslims the right to
            determine their own destiny, any entity or institution which would allow
            non-Muslims that modicum of power that would keep them from being
            reduced to the status of dhimmis — no, neither the Qur’an, nor the
            Hadith, nor the example of Muhammad himself, permits such an

            Some, but not enough, Israelis, have come to understand this — not
            enough in time to prevent the Gaza disaster. But whether the Israelis do
            or do not come to comprehend their enemy and the relentless Jihad
            against them, that is no reason for the rest of us, the Infidels outside
            the Middle East, not to recognize the nature of the war against Israel
            and how it merely prefigures, and is not the cause of, the larger
            world-wide Jihad against all Infidels, to be conducted with whatever
            means prove most efficacious. It does not make sense to pursue open
            military challenges to the West. It does make sense to divide and
            demoralize and terrorize not only that West, but all parts of the
            Infidel population, whether or not they are within dar al-Islam: the
            Christians who remain in the Middle East, along with the Jews in Israel,
            as well as the Hindus and Buddhists and Confucians in such Muslim-ruled
            countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, or even within
            Infidel lands where a small Muslim population still manages, as in
            Europe or Thailand or the Philippines or even India, to conduct attacks
            on Infidels despite the disparity in numbers.

            Why is it that the
            Western world and Americans in particular fail to comprehend this and
            waste time actually ignoring the problem of Islam and pretending that
            the matter can somehow be solved if alternative regimes — a primitive
            democracy rather than a primitive despotism in Iraq, for example — will
            somehow help to contain the threat of Islam? It will do no such thing.
            The way to contain Islam is not to better the lot, still less to
            sacrifice one’s own men and materiel and money to do so, of Muslims,
            however plausible some of the westernized representatives (Shalabi, Rend
            al-Rahim Francke, Kanan Makiya, Allawi himself), the unrepresentative
            representatives, may be. Rather, the way to contain Islam is to play
            upon and exploit the natural divisions within this or that Muslim state
            or population, so as to turn Muslim against Muslim, or, in the case of
            the Kurds, by supporting them to the hilt, to make the case of all
            non-Arab Muslims everywhere who wish to shake off the dominance of the
            Arab supremacist ideology for which Islam has always been a vehicle.

            While the mask is off in Gaza, Western dhimmis are doing their utmost
            to keep it in place. I just finished watching a propaganda piece on the
            Bill Moyers show. It was all about some “Palestinian” Arab widows
            trying to make a go of it as the start-up owners of a pickle factory. I
            did not count the many occasions on which it was suggested — no, stated
            — that everything depended on Allah, the number of times “Inshallah”
            (God willing) and other phrases were inserted into conversations, not as
            mere rhetoric, but as expressions of deep belief. Inshallah-fatalism is
            not conducive to economic activity. It has its points: it can reconcile
            one to a miserable condition and even to the injustice of the very
            belief-system that is almost entirely responsible for that miserable
            condition. But industriousness, entrepreneurial flair, and the constant
            attention to detail that modern economies require are simply
            incompatible with the lessons and tenets of Islam, and the overall
            attitude of inshallah-fatalism cannot be ignored, for it pervades

            After the propaganda show was over, Moyers interviewed one Azza
            Karam, an Egyptian woman described as connected to the U.N. Commission
            on Arab Development (or some such name). She of course, when asked about
            the possible connection between the teachings of Islam and the
            miserable condition of these widows and of women under Islam, referred
            to “tribal culture.” One would think that the cities of Islam — from
            Cairo and Tunis and Damascus, all the way to Karachi and Dacca and
            Jakarta, owed the treatment of women to some “tribal culture.” And even
            if one could pretend that “tribal culture” rather than Islam was
            responsible for the treatment of women in, say, Iraq (which does have a
            tribal culture in many areas), could the same be said for Cairo? And
            even if we were to pretend that this “tribal culture” explained the
            position of women in the Middle East and North Africa, what “tribal
            culture” is there in Jakarta?

            And even if we were, just for the hell of it, to pretend that it was
            “tribal culture” that explained the mistreatment of women everywhere in
            dar al-Islam, then how would we explain the same mistreatment of Muslim
            women in the Muslim areas of London, Paris, Milan, and Barcelona? The
            lingering effects of “tribal culture”? And what about the treatment of
            Western women who marry Muslim men, whether those women “revert” to
            Islam (i.e., convert) or not? Is their mistreatment, which has been so
            widely reported (not least after they flee those marriages that are
            often of convenience — to the green-card seeking Muslim groom), the
            result of their “tribal culture”?

            The viewer saw Azza Karam’s attempt to defend Islam at all costs —
            in her constant refusal to even permit the slightest hint that just
            maybe, there was something in the Qur’an, in the Hadith, in the Sira,
            that might cause Muslim men to act as they do (and there is, there is),
            and put the kind of restrictions they do on Muslim women — as the
            transparent taqiyya it is. But no matter how often one views this
            spectacle — of the Muslim who is intelligent, personable (up to a
            point), and seemingly part of the same rational universe, and yet who
            suddenly reveals that coute que coute, that person is going to lie
            about, to dissimulate, to hide, the truth about Islam, for Islam must
            never ever be subject to a hint of criticism – it is always stunning.

            Really, Azza Karam’s performance was astonishing, and most
            enlightening. One hopes that many non-Muslims will be able to — as we
            old vaudevillians say — catch her act. The things she does with masks
            are breathtaking.

  • flyingtiger

    Churchill said never give up.

  • PCguy

    nathan, have you looked at a map of the middle east lately? …or do you know anything about Israel and middle eastern history?

    • onegoodnathan

      pls educate me