Tuesday, March 24, 2015
John Bolton on the Difference Between Israeli-Palestinian Border and the '67 Border Lines
John Bolton on the Difference Between Israeli-Palestinian Border and the '67 Border Lines
Obama: Jerusalem must remain the undivided, Israeli capital
Monday, March 23, 2015
The Gaza War 2014....The War Israel Did Not Want and the Disaster It Averted
The Gaza War 2014....The War Israel Did Not Want and the Disaster It Averted
Executive Summary
The Gaza War 2014: The War Israel Did Not Want and the Disaster It Averted is a researched and documented narrative that relates the truth as it happened. Israel was the target of thousands of rockets and mortar attacks against its civilian population, with some Israeli areas targeted that had three times the population density of Gaza. Israel clearly acted out of self-defense.
Though the images of the moment may have reflected massive damage in Gaza, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, announced on November 6, 2014, that Israel had gone to “extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and prevent civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict.” A team of senior U.S. officers was sent to learn from Israel’s tactics. An analysis of UN satellite photos taken during the war shows that 72 percent of all damaged areas in Gaza were “within two miles of the Israeli border.”
While this was a war Israel did not want, it was a war that inadvertently preempted a terrorist massacre inside Israel’s heartland, principally through a network of sophisticated tunnels built deep under the border, and intended to stream hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated terrorists, many on suicide missions, in the quiet of night, to destinations where they could kill as many innocent people as possible and leave Israel mauled as never before. This was potentially Hamas’ terrorist version of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Egypt and Syria launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli forces in Sinai and the Golan Heights.
Israel suffered 74 dead in the war. Had the Iron Dome system not intercepted 735 rockets fired from Gaza, the Israeli casualty count would have been incalculably higher. Had Hamas accepted the Egyptian ceasefire proposal of July 15, as did Israel, Palestinian wartime fatalities would have numbered less than 200, as opposed to more than 2,100 who died by the time Hamas agreed to a final ceasefire on August 27. Thus, Hamas was fully responsible for more than 1,800 Palestinian deaths.
Moreover, while UN and Palestinian sources claimed that 72 to 84 percent of Palestinians in Gaza killed during the war were civilians, there are strong reasons to argue that the percentage of civilian casualties was less than 50 percent, a low one-to-one combatant-to-civilian ratio that is unprecedented in modern-day warfare. In addition, we don’t know how many Palestinians in Gaza died as human shields or of natural causes during the 50 days of war, or how many were casualties of the 875 Palestinian rockets known to have landed inside Gaza.
Yet many in the international community uncritically accepted the narrative about the war advanced by Hamas and its allies. A discerning look at the facts of what happened, however, would lead to the conclusion that it is Hamas, not Israel, which should be in the dock for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
SEE THIS LINK FOR THE REST OF THIS GREAT PIECE..... http://jcpa.org//the-gaza-war-2014/
Executive Summary
The Gaza War 2014: The War Israel Did Not Want and the Disaster It Averted is a researched and documented narrative that relates the truth as it happened. Israel was the target of thousands of rockets and mortar attacks against its civilian population, with some Israeli areas targeted that had three times the population density of Gaza. Israel clearly acted out of self-defense.
Though the images of the moment may have reflected massive damage in Gaza, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, announced on November 6, 2014, that Israel had gone to “extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and prevent civilian casualties in the Gaza conflict.” A team of senior U.S. officers was sent to learn from Israel’s tactics. An analysis of UN satellite photos taken during the war shows that 72 percent of all damaged areas in Gaza were “within two miles of the Israeli border.”
While this was a war Israel did not want, it was a war that inadvertently preempted a terrorist massacre inside Israel’s heartland, principally through a network of sophisticated tunnels built deep under the border, and intended to stream hundreds, if not thousands, of dedicated terrorists, many on suicide missions, in the quiet of night, to destinations where they could kill as many innocent people as possible and leave Israel mauled as never before. This was potentially Hamas’ terrorist version of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Egypt and Syria launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli forces in Sinai and the Golan Heights.
Israel suffered 74 dead in the war. Had the Iron Dome system not intercepted 735 rockets fired from Gaza, the Israeli casualty count would have been incalculably higher. Had Hamas accepted the Egyptian ceasefire proposal of July 15, as did Israel, Palestinian wartime fatalities would have numbered less than 200, as opposed to more than 2,100 who died by the time Hamas agreed to a final ceasefire on August 27. Thus, Hamas was fully responsible for more than 1,800 Palestinian deaths.
Moreover, while UN and Palestinian sources claimed that 72 to 84 percent of Palestinians in Gaza killed during the war were civilians, there are strong reasons to argue that the percentage of civilian casualties was less than 50 percent, a low one-to-one combatant-to-civilian ratio that is unprecedented in modern-day warfare. In addition, we don’t know how many Palestinians in Gaza died as human shields or of natural causes during the 50 days of war, or how many were casualties of the 875 Palestinian rockets known to have landed inside Gaza.
Yet many in the international community uncritically accepted the narrative about the war advanced by Hamas and its allies. A discerning look at the facts of what happened, however, would lead to the conclusion that it is Hamas, not Israel, which should be in the dock for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
SEE THIS LINK FOR THE REST OF THIS GREAT PIECE..... http://jcpa.org//the-gaza-war-2014/
Expert: The Time for Alternatives is Now
Expert: The Time for Alternatives is Now
Israelis have sought a chance to change the public discourse on a two-state Solution. Now is the time to talk about it, says one expert.
By Gedalyah Reback
PM Binyamin Netanyahu, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas / archive
Israel news photo: Flash 90
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may not have done it with finesse, but his very public challenge to the viability of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has opened a major window according to David M. Weinberg of the Begin-Sadat Center for Security Studies.
In Mr. Weinberg's mind, whether or not it is fair, Israel will have to respond assertively to the latest diplomatic challenge for the country - a country which technically doesn't even have a government.
"Israel's government must answer intelligently and responsively to international questions on peace with the Palestinians. They can't let the international community or the Palestinians dictate the terms of a framework for peace," he said.
That includes, according to Mr. Weinberg, major alternatives to the two-state solution.
"Obviously it's going to be a difficult period" to start for the new government, he says. "But, Israel cannot have duplicity or be vague about it. We need to be clear, smart and responsive."
Part of that framework has to include letting Israel not be beholden to the stopping points of previous failed attempts at peace. According to a recent blog post by Mr. Weinberg, "Israel’s baseline position at the outset of the talks should be that 100 percent of the West Bank belongs to Israel" by historical right, "political experience, legitimate settlement, and security necessity."
The objective here seems to be a reboot of the premise of talks and the notion that anything a Palestinian entity receives is a gift of the Israeli government, not a relinquishing of something Palestinians actually had a claim of sovereignty over.
Another major issue Mr. Weinberg reminds readers that needs to be highlighted is that the Gaza Strip's political secession from the PalestinianAuthority disrupts any attempt to actually resolve things.
"Hamas will have to be sidelined or sign-on to an eventual deal. Israel should not be in the business of birthing two Palestinian states."
There has been an often unmentioned issue that the Gaza Strip has to be a part of a final peace deal. This applies to supporters of a two-state solution as much as anyone, because Israel was expected to swap land adjacent to the coastal enclave as part of a final deal. While Mr. Weinberg does not mention this, this would also present problems because of the lack of definite acceptance by Hamas of any arrangement.
That, among other things, dovetails into the need to re-raise the possibility of alternatives like a “Palestinian-Jordanian federation” or “shared sovereignty with Israel” in Judea and Samaria. This might also open the door to other arrangements, like those of Economy Minister Naftali Bennett or Dr. Mordechai Kedar.
In Mr. Weinberg's mind, whether or not it is fair, Israel will have to respond assertively to the latest diplomatic challenge for the country - a country which technically doesn't even have a government.
"Israel's government must answer intelligently and responsively to international questions on peace with the Palestinians. They can't let the international community or the Palestinians dictate the terms of a framework for peace," he said.
That includes, according to Mr. Weinberg, major alternatives to the two-state solution.
"Obviously it's going to be a difficult period" to start for the new government, he says. "But, Israel cannot have duplicity or be vague about it. We need to be clear, smart and responsive."
Part of that framework has to include letting Israel not be beholden to the stopping points of previous failed attempts at peace. According to a recent blog post by Mr. Weinberg, "Israel’s baseline position at the outset of the talks should be that 100 percent of the West Bank belongs to Israel" by historical right, "political experience, legitimate settlement, and security necessity."
The objective here seems to be a reboot of the premise of talks and the notion that anything a Palestinian entity receives is a gift of the Israeli government, not a relinquishing of something Palestinians actually had a claim of sovereignty over.
Another major issue Mr. Weinberg reminds readers that needs to be highlighted is that the Gaza Strip's political secession from the PalestinianAuthority disrupts any attempt to actually resolve things.
"Hamas will have to be sidelined or sign-on to an eventual deal. Israel should not be in the business of birthing two Palestinian states."
There has been an often unmentioned issue that the Gaza Strip has to be a part of a final peace deal. This applies to supporters of a two-state solution as much as anyone, because Israel was expected to swap land adjacent to the coastal enclave as part of a final deal. While Mr. Weinberg does not mention this, this would also present problems because of the lack of definite acceptance by Hamas of any arrangement.
That, among other things, dovetails into the need to re-raise the possibility of alternatives like a “Palestinian-Jordanian federation” or “shared sovereignty with Israel” in Judea and Samaria. This might also open the door to other arrangements, like those of Economy Minister Naftali Bennett or Dr. Mordechai Kedar.
Putting the Temple Mount on the Table
Mr. Weinberg also concludes that post with a very critical caveat: whatever Palestinian entity (or entities) that come of a peace process must share the Temple Mount. Critically, he says Israel must assert that Jewish prayer is "a basic human, civic, national and religious right" entitled to Jews.
"In Hevron there is a time-sharing arrangement whereby certain days of the year are exclusively for Jewish or Muslim prayer. Most days of the year there is a division of the site whereby both groups can use it. This is one possible model," he says.
"Another is for something on a more permanent basis, including the establishment of a small prayer area or a synagogue in the corner of the Temple Mount that need not interfere with the Muslim shrines."
His statements are actually a major indictment of the one-sided nature of past negotiations over the Temple Mount, in which Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered Israeli sovereignty merely "under" the Temple Mount and no presence on the plaza itself.
While the issue of prayer is still quite removed from using the Mount for actual rituals related to Temple service, it would still reflect a leap forward for some observers who might have seen negotiations as negating Jewish religious concerns about Mount Moriah.
Mr. Weinberg also concludes that post with a very critical caveat: whatever Palestinian entity (or entities) that come of a peace process must share the Temple Mount. Critically, he says Israel must assert that Jewish prayer is "a basic human, civic, national and religious right" entitled to Jews.
"In Hevron there is a time-sharing arrangement whereby certain days of the year are exclusively for Jewish or Muslim prayer. Most days of the year there is a division of the site whereby both groups can use it. This is one possible model," he says.
"Another is for something on a more permanent basis, including the establishment of a small prayer area or a synagogue in the corner of the Temple Mount that need not interfere with the Muslim shrines."
His statements are actually a major indictment of the one-sided nature of past negotiations over the Temple Mount, in which Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered Israeli sovereignty merely "under" the Temple Mount and no presence on the plaza itself.
While the issue of prayer is still quite removed from using the Mount for actual rituals related to Temple service, it would still reflect a leap forward for some observers who might have seen negotiations as negating Jewish religious concerns about Mount Moriah.
But any resolution to the Temple Mount that incorporates Jewish concerns over the site would inevitably involve Jordan, which maintains a custodial role over the site despite Israeli police authority there. According to Temple Institute Director, Rabbi Chaim Richman, “The accord between Israel and Jordan promises religious freedom of worship there. Yet, there is this strange, fictitious ‘status quo’ that non-Muslims – including Christians – cannot pray up there.”
This leads back to Mr. Weinberg’s suggestion for regional alternatives to a two-state solution, possibly also in line with suggestions made by centrist parties during the campaign to have a “regional agreement and separation from the Palestinians” which Yesh Atid spokesman Yair Zavid explained recently meant the party felt “the bilateral track had run its course.”
According to Mr. Weinberg's outline, it would be still only be a mere tokenrecognition to Jewish sanctity at the site; or as he called it, a "smidgen" of it.
According to Mr. Weinberg's outline, it would be still only be a mere tokenrecognition to Jewish sanctity at the site; or as he called it, a "smidgen" of it.
'Time has Come for an Alternative to Two-State Solution'
'Time has Come for an Alternative to Two-State Solution'
Right-wing leaders featured in new issue of Sovereignty Journal meant to stop leftist economic debate from creating 'Palestine.'
By Arutz Sheva Staff
Choosing Sovereignty
Choosing SovereigntyCourtesy of Women In Green
Days before the March 17 elections, the Women in Green (WiG) movement has published issue number five of its Sovereignty Journal, which features interviews with right-wing politicians and thinkers in an attempt to shift the public discourse towards declaring sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
The new issue, which will be distributed in 120,000 copies in Hebrew and English and can be requested from WiG, includes interviews with politicians Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein (Likud), Economics Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home), and Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis (Likud).
It also features interviews with the head of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Itamar Marcus, Prof. Moshe Arens, Prof. Eliav Shochetman and other right-wing thinkers, in addition to articles by Attorney Dafna Netanyahu and Jerusalem Post editor Caroline Glick.
WiG heads Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar emphasized that the journal issue is important given that the public is caught up in the leftist parties debating social and economic matters ahead of elections, and losing sight of how behind these issues the left aims to establish "a Palestinian terror state in the heart of the Land of Israel."
"As of now, the White House has been working hard to hide as much as possible the plans that are under consideration until the day after the elections and they are careful not to attack the Israeli right, since they understand that this would cause an increase of support for this camp, but after the ballots have been counted, the political pressure cooker is expected to burst," the WiG leaders said.
They said the new issue of the journal is meant "to strengthen those who carry the banner of battle against a nuclear Iran; to strengthen those who are leading the battle against the idea of dividing the Land and establishing a terror state in its heart; and to strengthen those who are leading the camp that is restoring the People of Israel to Zionist values, to settlement and to security."
Edelstein revealed in his interview "diplomats and journalists of the world that I meet accept the discussion of an alternative to the Oslo theory. Even if they do not change their positions, they understand that this is a legitimate stance."
"I present the practical argument that proves to them that the idea of two states is no longer relevant. I explain to them that the time has come to try something else. Up until now we have tried to short-cut the Oslo process, with the Disengagement and other steps. It did not work. Let’s try another way," he concluded.
Bennett warned that "a Palestinian state would collapse the Israeli economy. Ben Gurion Airport would be paralyzed, there would be no tourism, there would be no commerce, we would return to the economic collapse of the days of the second intifada and they would run away from here."
"There is absolutely no basis for determining that any other body on earth should have sovereignty over the western Land of Israel other than the Jewish people," stated Prof. Shochetman. "This is how it is according to international law."
Attorney Dafna Netanyahu noted that in Judea, Samaria and Gaza there is "a sort of state in an embryonic stage."
"Hamas’ and the PA’s (Palestinian Authority) principle goal is one thing: the destruction of the State of Israel, killing the Jews that are in it, and aided by the Muslim territorial contiguity that would be created from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea – turning it into a bridgehead of the Arab nation’s and Islam’s attack on the Western world," she continued. "One need not be a prophet in order to know what a monster would be born from the Palestinian 'embryonic state' in Judea and Samaria."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192083#.VQ_OaGTLfH_
Right-wing leaders featured in new issue of Sovereignty Journal meant to stop leftist economic debate from creating 'Palestine.'
By Arutz Sheva Staff
Choosing Sovereignty
Choosing SovereigntyCourtesy of Women In Green
Days before the March 17 elections, the Women in Green (WiG) movement has published issue number five of its Sovereignty Journal, which features interviews with right-wing politicians and thinkers in an attempt to shift the public discourse towards declaring sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
The new issue, which will be distributed in 120,000 copies in Hebrew and English and can be requested from WiG, includes interviews with politicians Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein (Likud), Economics Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home), and Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis (Likud).
It also features interviews with the head of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Itamar Marcus, Prof. Moshe Arens, Prof. Eliav Shochetman and other right-wing thinkers, in addition to articles by Attorney Dafna Netanyahu and Jerusalem Post editor Caroline Glick.
WiG heads Yehudit Katsover and Nadia Matar emphasized that the journal issue is important given that the public is caught up in the leftist parties debating social and economic matters ahead of elections, and losing sight of how behind these issues the left aims to establish "a Palestinian terror state in the heart of the Land of Israel."
"As of now, the White House has been working hard to hide as much as possible the plans that are under consideration until the day after the elections and they are careful not to attack the Israeli right, since they understand that this would cause an increase of support for this camp, but after the ballots have been counted, the political pressure cooker is expected to burst," the WiG leaders said.
They said the new issue of the journal is meant "to strengthen those who carry the banner of battle against a nuclear Iran; to strengthen those who are leading the battle against the idea of dividing the Land and establishing a terror state in its heart; and to strengthen those who are leading the camp that is restoring the People of Israel to Zionist values, to settlement and to security."
Edelstein revealed in his interview "diplomats and journalists of the world that I meet accept the discussion of an alternative to the Oslo theory. Even if they do not change their positions, they understand that this is a legitimate stance."
"I present the practical argument that proves to them that the idea of two states is no longer relevant. I explain to them that the time has come to try something else. Up until now we have tried to short-cut the Oslo process, with the Disengagement and other steps. It did not work. Let’s try another way," he concluded.
Bennett warned that "a Palestinian state would collapse the Israeli economy. Ben Gurion Airport would be paralyzed, there would be no tourism, there would be no commerce, we would return to the economic collapse of the days of the second intifada and they would run away from here."
"There is absolutely no basis for determining that any other body on earth should have sovereignty over the western Land of Israel other than the Jewish people," stated Prof. Shochetman. "This is how it is according to international law."
Attorney Dafna Netanyahu noted that in Judea, Samaria and Gaza there is "a sort of state in an embryonic stage."
"Hamas’ and the PA’s (Palestinian Authority) principle goal is one thing: the destruction of the State of Israel, killing the Jews that are in it, and aided by the Muslim territorial contiguity that would be created from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea – turning it into a bridgehead of the Arab nation’s and Islam’s attack on the Western world," she continued. "One need not be a prophet in order to know what a monster would be born from the Palestinian 'embryonic state' in Judea and Samaria."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192083#.VQ_OaGTLfH_
THE EIGHT STATE SOLUTION
THE EIGHT STATE SOLUTION
A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL
DEVELOPED BY DR. MORDECHAI KEDAR FROM BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY
Israel faces three immediate threats today: the possibility of a nuclear Iran, well over 100,000 rockets and mortars poised from three directions (Iran, Lebanon, Gaza plus terrorists in Syria and Egypt) and the Two State Solution.
The first two threats seem obvious, but why do we think that the Two State Solution could lead to the demise of our beloved Israel? After all, it's been the mainstay policy thrust upon Israel with various international initiatives and roadmaps to peace. But in reality it would bring about the opposite result.
The creation of an artificial Palestinian state requiring the uprooting of Jewish families where no Arab population currently exists would lead to indefensible borders for the Jewish homeland. The more moderate PA and Fatah want a Palestinian state as a precursor for the ultimate demise of Israel. Hamas remains opposed to any agreement which establishes a border recognizing the Israeli state. Any proposed re-unification between Hamas and Fatah is an obvious ploy that further threatens the survival of Israel and the Jewish people. The recent attacks against Israel by Hamas are now coordinated with the militant pro-Syrian, Iran-backed Islamic Jihad. Plus the Popular Resistance Committee is yet another terrorist group operating from Gaza.
The Arab Spring has brought about a much less stable region. Israel can no longer allow the rest of the world to dictate policy that makes it more difficult for the Jewish nation to survive. Israel must declare it’s own independent solution with regards to the so-called Palestinian movement and militant jihadism that appears to be on the accendancy. Doing nothing only invites intervention from abroad.
Prior to statehood in 1948 the larger territory was known as the British Mandate of Palestine. The Jewish people, who have been on this land continuously for 3,287 years, were often referred to as the Palestinians from the early 1920's until statehood in 1948. Here are just two examples that prove this important distinction. The Palestine Post was founded by an American Jew in December 1932 in the Mandate of Palestine and supported the struggle for a Jewish Homeland. In 1950, two years after the State of Israel was declared, the paper was renamed The Jerusalem Post. And what started as the Palestine Symphony Orchestra is known today as the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.
The Arabs who emigrated to the territory in the late 1800's and early 1900's to live and prosper among the Jews never wanted to be recognized as the Palestinians until it became a convenient tool in their opposition to the Jewish Homeland. In 1964 the PLO was formed which finally transformed the mantle of Palestinian from the pre-statehood Jews to the post-statehood Arabs.
Historically there never existed an Arab or Islamic state of Palestine with a capital in Jerusalem. The capital of "Jund Falastin" ("The District of Palestine") under the Islamic 7th century occupation was the city of Ramle, 30 kilometers to the west of Jerusalem. It is very important that this historical truth be recognized as a basis for peace.
There is no Occupied territory west of the Jordan River. There is Disputed territory as a result of wars thrust upon Israel by jealous Arab neighbors. Today Arabs live within the State of Israel and in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. These Arab population centers are not going away and neither is the State of Israel.
Gaza is already a state-like entity, since Hamas took it over by force from the PLO in June 2007, thus breaking the Palestinian Authority into two separate entities. If Israel is forced to leave Judea and Samaria as part of a peace agreement, it becomes very possible that the more militant Hamas would eventually take over from the current PA/Fatah regime just as they did in Gaza, either by elections or by force. No one can guarantee otherwise.
Due to tribal rifts and local patriotism there will never be a successful unity government among the Palestinian Arab population centers in Judea and Samaria or Gaza. Like the PLO in the past, the PA/Fatah and Hamas do not represent the true ambitions of the majority of peaceful Arabs who just want a better future for their children within a traditional framework and local governance. The failed Two State Solution is rapidly heading to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Successful Arab leadership must be independent, local and firmly rooted with a traditional and homogenous sociological foundation. Israel and the world should recognize and support local leadership in the Arab Palestinian population centers that desire lasting peaceful relations as independent city-states. Because of ongoing corruption and an overt anti-Israel agenda, the leaders of the PLO, PA/Fatah and Hamas have devoted almost a half century in a futile attempt to eliminate Israel and destroy all that her citizens have accomplished.
The eight city-states would comprise the areas of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho, Tul-Karm, Kalkilya, the Arab part of Hebron and the Gaza strip. Local residents would become citizens of these eight independent countries. Any Arab leadership that attempts to circumvent or dominate the development of these Palestinian Emirates would inhibit a future of security and economic opportunity for the citizens of these eight independent countries.
The Arab refugee situation can only be solved if there is lasting stability in the region. In 1948 approximately 500,000 Arabs were uprooted in advance of an Arab attack on Israel. At the same time over 800,000 Jews were thrown out of neighboring Arab countries, and most of the Jewish refugees successfully resettled in Israel. The Arab refugees have since been discriminated against by the Arab countries in the region in conjunction with the biased policies of UNRWA, so not A SINGLE Arab refugee has ever been resettled. The former director of the refugee agency in Jordan, Sir Alexander Galloway, actually stated, “The Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore… as a weapon against Israel.” The obvious failure of the peace initiatives, which have been based on false assumptions for so many decades, has only perpetuated the Arab refugee problem and human suffering.
Complex problems require simple, workable solutions. The development of the Palestinian Emirates is a viable alternative based on the sociology of the different clans and tribes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. This initiative will bring about a stable peace to the region and added security for Israel.
Thank you for supporting the development of the eight independent Palestinian Emirates.
http://palestinianemirates.com/
A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL
DEVELOPED BY DR. MORDECHAI KEDAR FROM BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY
Israel faces three immediate threats today: the possibility of a nuclear Iran, well over 100,000 rockets and mortars poised from three directions (Iran, Lebanon, Gaza plus terrorists in Syria and Egypt) and the Two State Solution.
The first two threats seem obvious, but why do we think that the Two State Solution could lead to the demise of our beloved Israel? After all, it's been the mainstay policy thrust upon Israel with various international initiatives and roadmaps to peace. But in reality it would bring about the opposite result.
The creation of an artificial Palestinian state requiring the uprooting of Jewish families where no Arab population currently exists would lead to indefensible borders for the Jewish homeland. The more moderate PA and Fatah want a Palestinian state as a precursor for the ultimate demise of Israel. Hamas remains opposed to any agreement which establishes a border recognizing the Israeli state. Any proposed re-unification between Hamas and Fatah is an obvious ploy that further threatens the survival of Israel and the Jewish people. The recent attacks against Israel by Hamas are now coordinated with the militant pro-Syrian, Iran-backed Islamic Jihad. Plus the Popular Resistance Committee is yet another terrorist group operating from Gaza.
The Arab Spring has brought about a much less stable region. Israel can no longer allow the rest of the world to dictate policy that makes it more difficult for the Jewish nation to survive. Israel must declare it’s own independent solution with regards to the so-called Palestinian movement and militant jihadism that appears to be on the accendancy. Doing nothing only invites intervention from abroad.
Prior to statehood in 1948 the larger territory was known as the British Mandate of Palestine. The Jewish people, who have been on this land continuously for 3,287 years, were often referred to as the Palestinians from the early 1920's until statehood in 1948. Here are just two examples that prove this important distinction. The Palestine Post was founded by an American Jew in December 1932 in the Mandate of Palestine and supported the struggle for a Jewish Homeland. In 1950, two years after the State of Israel was declared, the paper was renamed The Jerusalem Post. And what started as the Palestine Symphony Orchestra is known today as the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.
The Arabs who emigrated to the territory in the late 1800's and early 1900's to live and prosper among the Jews never wanted to be recognized as the Palestinians until it became a convenient tool in their opposition to the Jewish Homeland. In 1964 the PLO was formed which finally transformed the mantle of Palestinian from the pre-statehood Jews to the post-statehood Arabs.
Historically there never existed an Arab or Islamic state of Palestine with a capital in Jerusalem. The capital of "Jund Falastin" ("The District of Palestine") under the Islamic 7th century occupation was the city of Ramle, 30 kilometers to the west of Jerusalem. It is very important that this historical truth be recognized as a basis for peace.
There is no Occupied territory west of the Jordan River. There is Disputed territory as a result of wars thrust upon Israel by jealous Arab neighbors. Today Arabs live within the State of Israel and in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. These Arab population centers are not going away and neither is the State of Israel.
Gaza is already a state-like entity, since Hamas took it over by force from the PLO in June 2007, thus breaking the Palestinian Authority into two separate entities. If Israel is forced to leave Judea and Samaria as part of a peace agreement, it becomes very possible that the more militant Hamas would eventually take over from the current PA/Fatah regime just as they did in Gaza, either by elections or by force. No one can guarantee otherwise.
Due to tribal rifts and local patriotism there will never be a successful unity government among the Palestinian Arab population centers in Judea and Samaria or Gaza. Like the PLO in the past, the PA/Fatah and Hamas do not represent the true ambitions of the majority of peaceful Arabs who just want a better future for their children within a traditional framework and local governance. The failed Two State Solution is rapidly heading to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Successful Arab leadership must be independent, local and firmly rooted with a traditional and homogenous sociological foundation. Israel and the world should recognize and support local leadership in the Arab Palestinian population centers that desire lasting peaceful relations as independent city-states. Because of ongoing corruption and an overt anti-Israel agenda, the leaders of the PLO, PA/Fatah and Hamas have devoted almost a half century in a futile attempt to eliminate Israel and destroy all that her citizens have accomplished.
The eight city-states would comprise the areas of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho, Tul-Karm, Kalkilya, the Arab part of Hebron and the Gaza strip. Local residents would become citizens of these eight independent countries. Any Arab leadership that attempts to circumvent or dominate the development of these Palestinian Emirates would inhibit a future of security and economic opportunity for the citizens of these eight independent countries.
The Arab refugee situation can only be solved if there is lasting stability in the region. In 1948 approximately 500,000 Arabs were uprooted in advance of an Arab attack on Israel. At the same time over 800,000 Jews were thrown out of neighboring Arab countries, and most of the Jewish refugees successfully resettled in Israel. The Arab refugees have since been discriminated against by the Arab countries in the region in conjunction with the biased policies of UNRWA, so not A SINGLE Arab refugee has ever been resettled. The former director of the refugee agency in Jordan, Sir Alexander Galloway, actually stated, “The Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore… as a weapon against Israel.” The obvious failure of the peace initiatives, which have been based on false assumptions for so many decades, has only perpetuated the Arab refugee problem and human suffering.
Complex problems require simple, workable solutions. The development of the Palestinian Emirates is a viable alternative based on the sociology of the different clans and tribes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. This initiative will bring about a stable peace to the region and added security for Israel.
Thank you for supporting the development of the eight independent Palestinian Emirates.
http://palestinianemirates.com/
Resetting the Mideast Peace Process
Resetting the Mideast Peace Process
By David M. Weinberg
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Netanyahu should capitalize on his sweeping victory to reset the diplomatic table by outlining a pragmatic process that Israel can participate in, and to draw clear Israeli red lines as to acceptable contours of a solution. Doing so is especially urgent since Israel is already facing a renewed international campaign for West Bank withdrawals.
Prime Minister Netanyahu activated a cacophony of global clucking and groaning by his statement late in the election campaign that he no longer viewed establishment of a Palestinian state as a realistic or possible path to peace in the near term. There would be no Israeli territorial withdrawals during his tenure, he said.
While Netanyahu made these hawkish comments in the context of a last-ditch attempt to draw voters to Likud from the hard right, they nevertheless probably faithfully represent Netanyahu’s worldview and assessment of the situation.
Netanyahu, like most Israelis, would prefer a two-state solution in order to bring clarity of borders, stability, and quality of life to Israelis and Palestinians. However, given the track record of Palestinian leaders who have consistently rejected good-faith and far-reaching Israeli peace offers, most Israelis do not believe that a realistic compromise with the Palestinians is in the offing. Two thirds of Israelis no longer see Mahmoud Abbas as a partner for peace, according to all polls.
Moreover, under current circumstances Israeli withdrawals would likely lead to establishment of a second “Hamastan” in the West Bank (or worse, an ISIS type regime) – not to a stable and peaceful reality.
So Netanyahu is accurately tapping into a mainstream, dominant Israeli mindset that is realistic and cautious. Indeed, if you factor out Israeli Arab and Haredi voters, one in every three Israeli voters opted for Likud.
For good reasons (born of bitter experience), Israelis distrust Palestinian intentions; for very good reasons, Israelis are wary of the Islamic terrorist armies that have encamped on the Jewish state’s borders; and for crystal-clear reasons, Israelis are suspicious and resentful of the Obama White House.
It has been this way ever since the Palestinian terrorist war against Israel of 2000-2004 (the second intifada); the rejection by Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas of sweeping Israeli peace proposals three times over the past 15 years; the emergence of Iranian-dominated enclaves on Israel’s northern and southern borders following Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza; and Obama’s decision to wedge “daylight” into US-Israel relations while sprinting towards strategic partnership with Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran.
In truth, Herzog was no more likely to bring about establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian state over the next two years than Netanyahu is.
So it’s time for Israel to re-articulate its thinking about the process of achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. Netanyahu should capitalize on his sweeping victory to reset the diplomatic table by outlining a pragmatic process that Israel can participate in, and to draw clear Israeli red lines as to acceptable contours of a solution.
Doing so is especially urgent since Israel is already facing a renewed international campaign for West Bank withdrawals. The Obama administration is not-so-subtly threatening to throw its support behind a new United Nations Security Council resolution recognizing Palestinian independence and demanding rapid withdrawal to the 1967 lines (with some itsy-bitsy possible land swaps mentioned as a sop to Israel).
And Obama is likely to revert to his infamous May 2011 “winds of change” speech, in which he demanded that first Israel withdraw – a “full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces” to allow for “a sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state” – and only then hash out Jerusalem and refugee issues with the PA.
This, of course, would mean continuation of the conflict and no real Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist. It would simply provide another opportunity for Palestinians to swarm the 1949/1967 lines and to ramp up BDS and law fare efforts until Israel commits suicide through refugee “return” or the division of Jerusalem. The Palestinians could also interpret administration distancing from Israel as an invitation to violence. And Obama could use the violence not only to heighten pressure on Israel but to cut off the American arms pipeline.
Worse still, there are voices growing among Diaspora Jewry – take the Obama shill, Peter Beinart, for example – to support the administration in “punishing” Israel for its failure to comply with Obama’s push for a Palestinian state. Yes, “punish.” Out of “love” (sic) for Israel, of course!
So the pressure is on, and Israel must respond intelligently. Here are some guidelines and red lines that the fourth Netanyahu administration could adopt:
* Not prejudging the outcome of negotiations: Remember this mantra? It was a staple of regional peace diplomacy for decades, and among other things, it meant that a two-state solution was a possible, but not a definite, outcome of a process of direct negotiations between the parties. Thus, establishment of a Palestinian state couldn’t be rejected as a possible solution, but it couldn’t be defined in advance as the only possible endgame of talks. Israel should insist on an open-ended process. Perhaps the parties themselves and the international community will yet find different solutions more workable, and even more attractive, as time goes on?
* Regional solutions: Unconventional alternatives to the struggling two-state paradigm must be on the table, including: a Palestinian-Jordanian federation; shared sovereignty with Israel in the West Bank; a three- or four-way land swap involving Egypt and Jordan; and, possibly, a combination of all these approaches. The major Western powers must be willing to drive serious exploration of such alternatives. Arab states too must be willing take responsibility for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and consider investment of tangible resources in “regional” solutions.
* Performance-based process: Remember the “Road Map” articulated by the Bush W. administration? It was a path forward based wisely on incrementalism and reciprocity. It outlined staged moves towards peace by both sides. It sought to create provisional arrangements in the West Bank at each stage, allowing for verification and, if necessary, pauses, in the process if the parties shirked their responsibilities. Israel should insist again on such a guarded, incremental approach.
* Baseline: Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should not begin from any 67 year old armistice line forced upon Israel by Arab aggression; nor “from the point that talks last left off” seven years ago under a previous, defeatist Israeli government; nor from the defensive “security fence” forced upon Israel by Palestinian terrorism; nor from any borders high-handedly dictated in advance by the international community.
Israel’s baseline position at the outset of the talks should be that 100 percent of the West Bank belongs to Israel, by historical right, and that this right is richly buttressed by political experience, legitimate settlement, and security necessity. Only then can Israel hope to obtain a sensible compromise.
* Finality: Israel should demand up front a Palestinian letter stipulating that the Palestinian Authority recognizes that the purpose of negotiations is the termination of all claims between the parties, and that any agreement will have to contain an “end-of-conflict” declaration. Nothing less. Netanyahu should drive home this point: Only a crystal clear message from the Palestinians that the conflict is permanently and fully over might merit the ceding of territory by Israel.
* Gaza: Israel should stipulate that implementation of any accord that might be reached with the Palestinian Authority will be contingent on extension of the accord to Gaza, which means that Hamas will have to be sidelined or sign-on to an eventual deal. Israel should not be in the business of birthing two Palestinian states.
* Security: The radical Islamic winter buffeting this region, and its inroads into the Palestinian national movement, means that the security envelope that surrounds Israel and the Palestinian areas must be militarily controlled by Israel, fully and indefinitely. This includes the Jordan Valley.
* Violence: Any purposeful deterioration of the security situation in the West Bank allowed or abetted by Abbas will be met with a crushing Israeli military response. This will, among other, destroy all the fine infrastructure projects and governance institutions built at great expense in recent years in the PA by Western donor governments and NGOs. Similarly, Hamas should know that Israel plans to once again destroy its ongoing re-armament and tunnel construction program, mercilessly.
* Diplomatic armistice: Israel has no reason to negotiate with, or consider making concessions to, the Palestinians as long as the PA is waging diplomatic warfare against Israel at the International Criminal Court and UN institutions. A complete armistice in this regard must be declared by the PA as a precondition for new peace talks.
* The Temple Mount: The Palestinians must be willing to share the place most holy to the Jewish People. As a pre-condition of Israel’s joining the talks, Jewish prayer must be facilitated on the vast Temple Mount plaza, either through a time-sharing arrangement (similar to that in place at the Cave of Machpela in Hebron), or through a small synagogue tucked away on the fringes of the plaza. Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount (which is under Israeli control, after all) is a basic human, civic, national and religious right; and it won’t overshadow the two large, dominant Moslem structures on the Mount. This would be one way the Palestinians could demonstrate a smidgeon of recognition of the Jewish People’s ancient ties to the holy site and to the holy land.
In sum, Netanyahu should leverage his convincing win in this week’s national election to reframe the parameters of how and what Israel is prepared to negotiate with the Palestinians.
David M. Weinberg is director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom newspapers. His writings are archived at www.davidmweinberg.com
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/resetting-the-mideast-peace-process/
By David M. Weinberg
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Netanyahu should capitalize on his sweeping victory to reset the diplomatic table by outlining a pragmatic process that Israel can participate in, and to draw clear Israeli red lines as to acceptable contours of a solution. Doing so is especially urgent since Israel is already facing a renewed international campaign for West Bank withdrawals.
Prime Minister Netanyahu activated a cacophony of global clucking and groaning by his statement late in the election campaign that he no longer viewed establishment of a Palestinian state as a realistic or possible path to peace in the near term. There would be no Israeli territorial withdrawals during his tenure, he said.
While Netanyahu made these hawkish comments in the context of a last-ditch attempt to draw voters to Likud from the hard right, they nevertheless probably faithfully represent Netanyahu’s worldview and assessment of the situation.
Netanyahu, like most Israelis, would prefer a two-state solution in order to bring clarity of borders, stability, and quality of life to Israelis and Palestinians. However, given the track record of Palestinian leaders who have consistently rejected good-faith and far-reaching Israeli peace offers, most Israelis do not believe that a realistic compromise with the Palestinians is in the offing. Two thirds of Israelis no longer see Mahmoud Abbas as a partner for peace, according to all polls.
Moreover, under current circumstances Israeli withdrawals would likely lead to establishment of a second “Hamastan” in the West Bank (or worse, an ISIS type regime) – not to a stable and peaceful reality.
So Netanyahu is accurately tapping into a mainstream, dominant Israeli mindset that is realistic and cautious. Indeed, if you factor out Israeli Arab and Haredi voters, one in every three Israeli voters opted for Likud.
For good reasons (born of bitter experience), Israelis distrust Palestinian intentions; for very good reasons, Israelis are wary of the Islamic terrorist armies that have encamped on the Jewish state’s borders; and for crystal-clear reasons, Israelis are suspicious and resentful of the Obama White House.
It has been this way ever since the Palestinian terrorist war against Israel of 2000-2004 (the second intifada); the rejection by Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas of sweeping Israeli peace proposals three times over the past 15 years; the emergence of Iranian-dominated enclaves on Israel’s northern and southern borders following Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza; and Obama’s decision to wedge “daylight” into US-Israel relations while sprinting towards strategic partnership with Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran.
In truth, Herzog was no more likely to bring about establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian state over the next two years than Netanyahu is.
So it’s time for Israel to re-articulate its thinking about the process of achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. Netanyahu should capitalize on his sweeping victory to reset the diplomatic table by outlining a pragmatic process that Israel can participate in, and to draw clear Israeli red lines as to acceptable contours of a solution.
Doing so is especially urgent since Israel is already facing a renewed international campaign for West Bank withdrawals. The Obama administration is not-so-subtly threatening to throw its support behind a new United Nations Security Council resolution recognizing Palestinian independence and demanding rapid withdrawal to the 1967 lines (with some itsy-bitsy possible land swaps mentioned as a sop to Israel).
And Obama is likely to revert to his infamous May 2011 “winds of change” speech, in which he demanded that first Israel withdraw – a “full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces” to allow for “a sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state” – and only then hash out Jerusalem and refugee issues with the PA.
This, of course, would mean continuation of the conflict and no real Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist. It would simply provide another opportunity for Palestinians to swarm the 1949/1967 lines and to ramp up BDS and law fare efforts until Israel commits suicide through refugee “return” or the division of Jerusalem. The Palestinians could also interpret administration distancing from Israel as an invitation to violence. And Obama could use the violence not only to heighten pressure on Israel but to cut off the American arms pipeline.
Worse still, there are voices growing among Diaspora Jewry – take the Obama shill, Peter Beinart, for example – to support the administration in “punishing” Israel for its failure to comply with Obama’s push for a Palestinian state. Yes, “punish.” Out of “love” (sic) for Israel, of course!
So the pressure is on, and Israel must respond intelligently. Here are some guidelines and red lines that the fourth Netanyahu administration could adopt:
* Not prejudging the outcome of negotiations: Remember this mantra? It was a staple of regional peace diplomacy for decades, and among other things, it meant that a two-state solution was a possible, but not a definite, outcome of a process of direct negotiations between the parties. Thus, establishment of a Palestinian state couldn’t be rejected as a possible solution, but it couldn’t be defined in advance as the only possible endgame of talks. Israel should insist on an open-ended process. Perhaps the parties themselves and the international community will yet find different solutions more workable, and even more attractive, as time goes on?
* Regional solutions: Unconventional alternatives to the struggling two-state paradigm must be on the table, including: a Palestinian-Jordanian federation; shared sovereignty with Israel in the West Bank; a three- or four-way land swap involving Egypt and Jordan; and, possibly, a combination of all these approaches. The major Western powers must be willing to drive serious exploration of such alternatives. Arab states too must be willing take responsibility for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and consider investment of tangible resources in “regional” solutions.
* Performance-based process: Remember the “Road Map” articulated by the Bush W. administration? It was a path forward based wisely on incrementalism and reciprocity. It outlined staged moves towards peace by both sides. It sought to create provisional arrangements in the West Bank at each stage, allowing for verification and, if necessary, pauses, in the process if the parties shirked their responsibilities. Israel should insist again on such a guarded, incremental approach.
* Baseline: Israeli-Palestinian negotiations should not begin from any 67 year old armistice line forced upon Israel by Arab aggression; nor “from the point that talks last left off” seven years ago under a previous, defeatist Israeli government; nor from the defensive “security fence” forced upon Israel by Palestinian terrorism; nor from any borders high-handedly dictated in advance by the international community.
Israel’s baseline position at the outset of the talks should be that 100 percent of the West Bank belongs to Israel, by historical right, and that this right is richly buttressed by political experience, legitimate settlement, and security necessity. Only then can Israel hope to obtain a sensible compromise.
* Finality: Israel should demand up front a Palestinian letter stipulating that the Palestinian Authority recognizes that the purpose of negotiations is the termination of all claims between the parties, and that any agreement will have to contain an “end-of-conflict” declaration. Nothing less. Netanyahu should drive home this point: Only a crystal clear message from the Palestinians that the conflict is permanently and fully over might merit the ceding of territory by Israel.
* Gaza: Israel should stipulate that implementation of any accord that might be reached with the Palestinian Authority will be contingent on extension of the accord to Gaza, which means that Hamas will have to be sidelined or sign-on to an eventual deal. Israel should not be in the business of birthing two Palestinian states.
* Security: The radical Islamic winter buffeting this region, and its inroads into the Palestinian national movement, means that the security envelope that surrounds Israel and the Palestinian areas must be militarily controlled by Israel, fully and indefinitely. This includes the Jordan Valley.
* Violence: Any purposeful deterioration of the security situation in the West Bank allowed or abetted by Abbas will be met with a crushing Israeli military response. This will, among other, destroy all the fine infrastructure projects and governance institutions built at great expense in recent years in the PA by Western donor governments and NGOs. Similarly, Hamas should know that Israel plans to once again destroy its ongoing re-armament and tunnel construction program, mercilessly.
* Diplomatic armistice: Israel has no reason to negotiate with, or consider making concessions to, the Palestinians as long as the PA is waging diplomatic warfare against Israel at the International Criminal Court and UN institutions. A complete armistice in this regard must be declared by the PA as a precondition for new peace talks.
* The Temple Mount: The Palestinians must be willing to share the place most holy to the Jewish People. As a pre-condition of Israel’s joining the talks, Jewish prayer must be facilitated on the vast Temple Mount plaza, either through a time-sharing arrangement (similar to that in place at the Cave of Machpela in Hebron), or through a small synagogue tucked away on the fringes of the plaza. Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount (which is under Israeli control, after all) is a basic human, civic, national and religious right; and it won’t overshadow the two large, dominant Moslem structures on the Mount. This would be one way the Palestinians could demonstrate a smidgeon of recognition of the Jewish People’s ancient ties to the holy site and to the holy land.
In sum, Netanyahu should leverage his convincing win in this week’s national election to reframe the parameters of how and what Israel is prepared to negotiate with the Palestinians.
David M. Weinberg is director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom newspapers. His writings are archived at www.davidmweinberg.com
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/resetting-the-mideast-peace-process/
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Palestinians very serious... about stealing aid billions
Palestinians very serious... about stealing aid billions
Follow the money, not the "peace process". Except, um, what to follow and where? What on earth happened to all those billions in aid? For the shocking truth, read on...
Michael Curtis
Recent publications in the international mainstream media of reckless and dishonest management by Palestinian authorities of their economic affairs and their scandalized response to it recall the eye-opening surprise of the corrupt chief of police in the film Casablanca who was "shocked" to find that gambling was going on in the room that he frequented.
The media, print and television, suddenly revealed what even journalists of the New York Times must surely have known for years: that the Palestinian authorities are corrupt and inefficient, and that large sums of money given to them and their leaders are missing.
The immediate reason for the disclosure stems from the leaking of the main contents of a report soon to be publicly released by the European Court of Auditors. This body was established in 1975 by the European Union to monitor the income and spending of money given by it in foreign aid.
The new 2013 report of the Court reveals that $2.7 billion in direct aid to the Palestinians between 2008 and 2012 could not be accounted for and appeared to be lost. In addition, EU investigators who visited Jerusalem and areas on the West Bank were unable to obtain information or speak to Palestinian officials about corruption in the areas they controlled.
Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, (PA), on October 11, 2013 once again laid blame on the "Israeli occupation" for the difficult economic situation of the Palestinians. The "occupation," he stated, was the central reason for the poor economic conditions in which the Palestinians find themselves.
This "occupation" exploited Palestinian resources and lands which directly led to an increase in deficit. In fact, the estimated budget deficit in 2013 is expected to be $1.4 billion. As a result he doubted that there would be funds available to pay the November salaries of the 150,000 PA workers, out of a population of two million, if international aid is not received. He did not try to define in which sinking hole the lost nearly $3 billion had gone.
Though the international community, much of the mass media, the World Council of Churches, as well as the Palestinian leaders may persist in blaming Israel for this state of affairs, their views are belied by the voices of Palestinians themselves over the last few years. In June 2012 the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research issued the result of a poll showing that a majority of the Palestinian population thought that the Palestinian authorities were corrupt and that freedom of the press did not exist under Palestinian rule.
The result showed that 72.9 percent believed the administration in the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas was corrupt, and 61 percent of those in the Gaza Strip believed the rule of Hamas there was corrupt. Also, only 23 percent believed freedom of speech existed in the West Bank, and only 15 percent believed it did in Gaza. Another poll by the Palestinian Center in September 2013 showed that 79 percent believed the Abbas administration was corrupt.
Objective analysis by outsiders has confirmed this view. Transparency International, a Berlin group concerned with monitoring corporate and political corruption, states that the ineffectiveness of the Palestinian parliament since 2007 has "given the executive (branch of Palestinian government) unlimited management over public funds." There have been "significant shortcomings" in management of funds. The group is currently investigating 29 Palestinian officials on counts of fraud and money laundering.
The reality is that the Palestinian Authority received, per capita of the people it controlled, 25 times more aid, mostly given to UNRWA (UN Relief and Work Agency) for Palestinian refugees, than Europeans received after World War II. Moreover, over three-quarters of the funding of UNRWA comes from democratic, non-Arab countries, primarily the U.S., Britain, EU, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Japan.
In particular, the U.S. has, since the mid-1990s when Palestinians have had some form of rule over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, committed over $4 billion in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians, who have received per capita almost the largest amount in international aid. Since 2008, the U.S. has given on average about $600 million a year to the Palestinians in bilateral aid: in 2013 the U.S. is giving $444 million. In addition, the U.S. has given $4,150 million to UNRWA since its establishment: it is the largest single state donor.
All this U.S. aid has been given not only for humanitarian reasons, but also in the hopes that Palestinian terrorism may be ended, and that Palestinians would be encouraged to enter into the peace process. So far those hopes have been in vain.
Instead of dealing with the reality of Palestinian wastage and theft of financial resources, critics of Israel persist in their bias and prejudicial behavior.
Typical of this is the vote of the Presbyterian Church, USA, to boycott all products from Israeli settlements in the disputed territories and its call to all nations "to prohibit the import of products made by enterprises in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land."
Yet the Presbyterian Church and all other advocates of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel should have long been aware of the corruption and self-destructiveness of Palestinian authorities if only by looking at the career and behavior of Yasser Arafat. Though much of his activity was secretive in character and though he appeared to live modestly, a considerable amount of money disappeared while he was the Palestinian leader.
According to some accounts Arafat diverted $900 million of government revenue to private bank accounts between 1995 and 2000. Even now, Arafat's widow, Suha, is living a luxurious life, said to be on a very large income, in Paris and Malta.
Israel for a time put its collection of sales taxes on goods purchased by Palestinians, which was supposed to go into the Palestinian treasury, directly into Arafat's personal bank accounts. Ironically, some of this was deposited in Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv, Israel's largest state-owned bank, as well as other sums put in the private Geneva bank, Lombard Odier, and yet more that he used as "walk around money" in a way familiar in Cook County, Chicago.
Other reports suggest that Arafat had a secret portfolio close to $1 billion with investments that included a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah, a Tunisia cell phone company, and venture capital funds in the U.S. and the Cayman Islands. Monopolies that were profitable in products such as flour and cement were allocated by Arafat to his intimate associates.
Instead of making peace with Israel the Palestinians have been wasting their resources. In view of the evident continuing corruption and mismanagement that almost everyone is now willing to acknowledge it is hard to take seriously, as some well meaning people have done, the Palestinian pretense of being victims of "Israeli oppression."
Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in political science at Rutgers University. Curtis, the author of 30 books, is widely respected as an authority on the Middle East. This article was first published by The American Thinker and is republished here with the author's permission.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4267/palestinians_very_serious_about_stealing_aid_billions
Follow the money, not the "peace process". Except, um, what to follow and where? What on earth happened to all those billions in aid? For the shocking truth, read on...
Michael Curtis
Recent publications in the international mainstream media of reckless and dishonest management by Palestinian authorities of their economic affairs and their scandalized response to it recall the eye-opening surprise of the corrupt chief of police in the film Casablanca who was "shocked" to find that gambling was going on in the room that he frequented.
The media, print and television, suddenly revealed what even journalists of the New York Times must surely have known for years: that the Palestinian authorities are corrupt and inefficient, and that large sums of money given to them and their leaders are missing.
The immediate reason for the disclosure stems from the leaking of the main contents of a report soon to be publicly released by the European Court of Auditors. This body was established in 1975 by the European Union to monitor the income and spending of money given by it in foreign aid.
The new 2013 report of the Court reveals that $2.7 billion in direct aid to the Palestinians between 2008 and 2012 could not be accounted for and appeared to be lost. In addition, EU investigators who visited Jerusalem and areas on the West Bank were unable to obtain information or speak to Palestinian officials about corruption in the areas they controlled.
Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, (PA), on October 11, 2013 once again laid blame on the "Israeli occupation" for the difficult economic situation of the Palestinians. The "occupation," he stated, was the central reason for the poor economic conditions in which the Palestinians find themselves.
This "occupation" exploited Palestinian resources and lands which directly led to an increase in deficit. In fact, the estimated budget deficit in 2013 is expected to be $1.4 billion. As a result he doubted that there would be funds available to pay the November salaries of the 150,000 PA workers, out of a population of two million, if international aid is not received. He did not try to define in which sinking hole the lost nearly $3 billion had gone.
Though the international community, much of the mass media, the World Council of Churches, as well as the Palestinian leaders may persist in blaming Israel for this state of affairs, their views are belied by the voices of Palestinians themselves over the last few years. In June 2012 the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research issued the result of a poll showing that a majority of the Palestinian population thought that the Palestinian authorities were corrupt and that freedom of the press did not exist under Palestinian rule.
The result showed that 72.9 percent believed the administration in the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas was corrupt, and 61 percent of those in the Gaza Strip believed the rule of Hamas there was corrupt. Also, only 23 percent believed freedom of speech existed in the West Bank, and only 15 percent believed it did in Gaza. Another poll by the Palestinian Center in September 2013 showed that 79 percent believed the Abbas administration was corrupt.
Objective analysis by outsiders has confirmed this view. Transparency International, a Berlin group concerned with monitoring corporate and political corruption, states that the ineffectiveness of the Palestinian parliament since 2007 has "given the executive (branch of Palestinian government) unlimited management over public funds." There have been "significant shortcomings" in management of funds. The group is currently investigating 29 Palestinian officials on counts of fraud and money laundering.
The reality is that the Palestinian Authority received, per capita of the people it controlled, 25 times more aid, mostly given to UNRWA (UN Relief and Work Agency) for Palestinian refugees, than Europeans received after World War II. Moreover, over three-quarters of the funding of UNRWA comes from democratic, non-Arab countries, primarily the U.S., Britain, EU, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Japan.
In particular, the U.S. has, since the mid-1990s when Palestinians have had some form of rule over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, committed over $4 billion in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians, who have received per capita almost the largest amount in international aid. Since 2008, the U.S. has given on average about $600 million a year to the Palestinians in bilateral aid: in 2013 the U.S. is giving $444 million. In addition, the U.S. has given $4,150 million to UNRWA since its establishment: it is the largest single state donor.
All this U.S. aid has been given not only for humanitarian reasons, but also in the hopes that Palestinian terrorism may be ended, and that Palestinians would be encouraged to enter into the peace process. So far those hopes have been in vain.
Instead of dealing with the reality of Palestinian wastage and theft of financial resources, critics of Israel persist in their bias and prejudicial behavior.
Typical of this is the vote of the Presbyterian Church, USA, to boycott all products from Israeli settlements in the disputed territories and its call to all nations "to prohibit the import of products made by enterprises in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land."
Yet the Presbyterian Church and all other advocates of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel should have long been aware of the corruption and self-destructiveness of Palestinian authorities if only by looking at the career and behavior of Yasser Arafat. Though much of his activity was secretive in character and though he appeared to live modestly, a considerable amount of money disappeared while he was the Palestinian leader.
According to some accounts Arafat diverted $900 million of government revenue to private bank accounts between 1995 and 2000. Even now, Arafat's widow, Suha, is living a luxurious life, said to be on a very large income, in Paris and Malta.
Israel for a time put its collection of sales taxes on goods purchased by Palestinians, which was supposed to go into the Palestinian treasury, directly into Arafat's personal bank accounts. Ironically, some of this was deposited in Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv, Israel's largest state-owned bank, as well as other sums put in the private Geneva bank, Lombard Odier, and yet more that he used as "walk around money" in a way familiar in Cook County, Chicago.
Other reports suggest that Arafat had a secret portfolio close to $1 billion with investments that included a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ramallah, a Tunisia cell phone company, and venture capital funds in the U.S. and the Cayman Islands. Monopolies that were profitable in products such as flour and cement were allocated by Arafat to his intimate associates.
Instead of making peace with Israel the Palestinians have been wasting their resources. In view of the evident continuing corruption and mismanagement that almost everyone is now willing to acknowledge it is hard to take seriously, as some well meaning people have done, the Palestinian pretense of being victims of "Israeli oppression."
Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in political science at Rutgers University. Curtis, the author of 30 books, is widely respected as an authority on the Middle East. This article was first published by The American Thinker and is republished here with the author's permission.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4267/palestinians_very_serious_about_stealing_aid_billions
Palestinian Corruption and Humanitarian Aid
Palestinian Corruption and Humanitarian Aid
The Palestinian Authority is accused of corruption by many but receives more humanitarian aid per capita than any other country in the world. The billions of dollars that are meant for schools, hospitals and infrastructure have been spent on luxury villas, casinos and payments to terrorists.
Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?
Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?
by Steven Stotsky
On December 17, 2007, eighty-seven countries and international organizations met in Paris and pledged to provide $7.4 billion over three years to the Palestinian Authority[1] (PA), an amount far in excess of any previous level of U.S. or European aid to the Palestinians. The conference participants justified the aid as a means of providing "immediate support to the entire Palestinian population,"[2]and as a reward intended to strengthen those Palestinians who favor peaceful coexistence with Israel.[3]
In the midst of the effort in Paris to bestow unprecedented sums of foreign aid on the Palestinians, there was little discussion of the unintended consequences — often deadly ones — of previous aid regimens. The recent history of foreign assistance shows a distinct correlation between aid and violence. Perhaps aid itself does not cause violence, but there is strong evidence that it contributes to a culture of corruption, government malfeasance, and terrorism that has had lethal consequences for both Israelis and Palestinians over the past decade.
The Paris conference aid package continues fifteen years of international funding that has established the Palestinians as one of the world's leading per capita recipients of foreign support (see Table 1). Figures published by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development for 2005 show that Palestinians received $304 per person in foreign aid,[4] second only to the war-torn Republic of Congo among entities with populations larger than one million. Unlike the Congo, though, the Palestinians have received such subsidies for decades.
Table 1
Largest Recipients of Humanitarian Aid per Capita, 2005
(with populations exceeding one million)
(with populations exceeding one million)
| Entity | Aid per capita (US$) |
| Republic of Congo | 362 |
| West Bank and Gaza | 304 |
| Timor-Leste | 189 |
| Nicaragua | 144 |
| Serbia and Montenegro | 140 |
| Jordan | 115 |
| Macedonia | 113 |
| Source: Calculations based on data from World Bank Development Indicators Data Base, 2005 | |
Amidst the internal turmoil of 2006 and 2007, aid to the Palestinians increased by more than 50 percent,[5] and in July 2007 the Israeli government handed over $300-400 million in import taxes it had collected on behalf of the PA.[6] This revenue windfall came despite the 2005 warning by George Abed, head of the Palestinian Monetary Authority, that "if you poured in a lot of financing at this time, it would not have a big impact. It would not be very effective … It would be wasted."[7]International organizations and diplomats acknowledge Palestinian misuse and diversion of aid money,[8] but they remain reluctant to study the deeper implications of how such aid affects Palestinian political culture.
An examination of key measures of violence reveals a troublesome correlation between the number of homicides committed by Palestinians and the level of funding provided to the Palestinian Authority. As aid to the Palestinian government increased, there was a corresponding increase in the number of people, both Israeli and Palestinian, killed by Palestinians. The correlation between aid and homicide statistics does not mean that foreign aid causes violence, but it does raise a question about whether the flow of aid to the Palestinian government has helped fuel Palestinian violence and hindered efforts to restore calm.
Correlating Aid and Violence
Figures 1 and 2 (see below) illustrate how the number of homicides[9] and level of donor aid[10]correlate.
Figure 1
Figure 2
| Sources for Figures 1 and 2: Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006: Data, Analysis and Trends, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC), Gelilot, Mar. 2007, p. 62; The Status of Palestinian Citizens' Rights, fifth through twelfth annual reports, The Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights (PICC), Ramallah, West Bank, 1999-2007; Associated Press, Oct. 6, 2005; "Palestinians Killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories," B'Tselem, Jerusalem, accessed Feb. 29, 2008; "OCHA-Opt Protection of Civilians," United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Dec. 2006; "OCHA-Opt Protection of Civilians," United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Aug. 2007; Reuters, June 8, 2007; Four Years: Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Oct. 2004), p. 6; "West Bank and Gaza: Fiscal Performance in 2006," International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., Mar. 2007, p. 4. |
The graphs show that increased aid to the PA after the start of the second intifada in September 2000 precipitated an increase in the Palestinian murder rate of both Israelis and Palestinians in 2001 and 2002. After June, 2002, Israeli countermeasures against Palestinian terrorism, such as checkpoints and targeted killings of terrorist leaders, began to reduce the number of Israeli dead. By August 2003, the first portion of Israel's security barrier was in place, leading to a rapid decrease in Israeli fatalities. While Israel's new security measures reduced the number of Israeli victims, factional and societal violence increased the number of Palestinian victims. By counting both Palestinian and Israeli victims, the correlation between increased aid and violence continued into 2007.
The correlation between aid and terrorism murders becomes even stronger when the amount of aid given in one year is compared to the number of terrorist murders the following year (Figure 2). The lag between increased aid and increased homicides suggests a cause and effect association. However, when comparing the number of attempted terrorist attacks against Israelis with the level of aid, the correlation is stronger, without introducing any time lag (Figure 3).[11]
Figure 3
To investigate the possible linkage between aid and violence, it is useful to examine changes in how foreign aid was distributed during the second intifada.
Funding the Palestinian Authority
Prior to the outbreak of the second intifada, donors directed nearly all foreign aid to the Palestinians to economic and infrastructure development programs, so that by 1999 the Palestinian Authority could raise enough revenue through taxation and private borrowing to pay its bills. This era of relative self-sufficiency would not last long, however. The Palestinian terror campaign launched against Israel in 2000 disrupted the three main PA revenue sources — clearance taxes collected by Israel, taxes on wages earned by Palestinians working in Israel, and domestic tax revenue. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) measures against terrorists interfered with commerce in the West Bank and Gaza and led to a 40 percent decline in domestic tax revenues between 1999 and 2002.[12] At the same time, the Israeli government curtailed the number of Palestinians working within its borders, reducing a lucrative source of tax revenue for the PA.[13] The Israeli government also decided to withhold tax receipts it collected for the PA in response to the failure of Palestinian leaders to make a serious effort to halt terrorism.
The international community responded to the ensuing Palestinian financial crisis by replacing much of the lost revenue. Foreign donations to the Palestinians nearly doubled, from $482 million in 2000 to $929 million in 2001.[14] The changes in how the aid was distributed were even more dramatic: In 1999, no foreign aid went directly into the Palestinian Authority budget; by 2001, 58 percent of it went to the government budget and less than 20 percent to development programs.[15]
In a classic example of the creation of perverse incentives, the decision to fund the government budget made the Palestinian Authority less dependent on revenue derived from commerce, detaching the PA's solvency from the health of the economy. Thus, while the intifada sent the Palestinian economy into free fall, the PA's coffers swelled. The conditions were thus established that ensured the separation of Palestinian governance from responsibility for the economic health of the Palestinian people.
A comparison of the proportion of aid allocated to the government budget with the number of homicides yields a correlation similar to the previously discussed correlation of aid and homicides. (See Figures 4 and 5.)
Figure 4
Figure 5
| Sources for Figures 4 and 5: "Two Years after London: Restarting Palestinian Economic Recovery," Ad-hoc Liaison Committee, World Bank, London, Sept. 24, 2007, p. 29, Table 3; Four Years:Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Oct. 2004), p. 66, Table 5.3. |
By 2003, the ratio began to shift so that aid was more evenly distributed between the PA budget and development programs. However, the proportion of aid allocated to the government began to rise again in 2005, so that by January 2008, Palestinian economist Samir Barghouthi estimated that the Paris conference aid package would commit 70 percent of donations to paying the wages and pensions of Palestinian employees.[16] In other words, a higher proportion of aid will be allocated to the government and a lower proportion to development programs than even at the height of the terrorist violence of the intifada.
The new flow of funding to the Palestinian government will likely replicate the dynamics of the past decade: In 1999, the PA had 98,500 on its payroll; by 2002, the payroll had grown to nearly 125,000, and by 2007, it stood at 168,319.[17] Rising Palestinian government employment was reflected in the proportionate growth of the security services, which accounted for nearly half of all government wage earners. Security personnel on the PA payroll grew from 44,400 in 1999, to 53,600 in 2002, to 78,000 in mid-2006.[18] In addition, the Jordanian foreign ministry has confirmed plans to increase the Palestinian police force in the West Bank from 7,000 to 50,000 men, an increase that will create an unprecedented police presence and require an investment of several billion dollars beyond what was promised at the Paris conference.[19] These dramatic increases in the number of security personnel have never resulted in a reduction in terror attacks against Israelis—and as the history of the intifada shows, such attacks in fact increased from 1999 to 2002.
Palestinian Security Forces' Terrorist Ties
Not only did the security forces fail to prevent terrorist attacks, in many cases they colluded with terrorist groups and sometimes perpetrated attacks themselves. For example, on January 30, 2004, a Palestinian policeman belonging to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades boarded a crowded bus in Jerusalem and detonated a bomb strapped to his body, killing ten Israelis.[20] The Palestinians responded that they could not prevent terrorism because the Israeli military had destroyed their capacity to do so.[21]
In A Police Force without a State, Brynjar Lia, a Norwegian Defense Research Establishment analyst, suggests that the Palestinian leadership gave preference in police recruitment to those who had served prison terms in Israeli jails for terror-related offenses.[22] This, he argues, allowed terrorists to shape the police force "as a vehicle for achieving national independence [rather] than as a non-political law and order agency."[23] Fatah paramilitaries, he contends, "made themselves indispensable as popular forces in anti-Israeli riots and clashes."[24]
Lia offers a plausible path by which foreign aid ended up in the hands of terrorists. As early as 2003, the World Bank recognized there was a problem with how aid was used, noting in its annual report on the West Bank and Gaza that "donors should have spent more on oversight mechanisms in 2001 and early 2002, thereby, putting themselves in a better position to answer questions about the diversion of funds to support terrorism."[25] Still, the World Bank justified the redirection of funds for emergency aid in the belief that donors "had no choice if they wanted to keep alive the hope of reconciliation, since a collapse of the PA service structure and the further radical impoverishment of the population would have vitiated this."[26]
The Israeli government and military watched the diversion of funds but could not change donor practices. On June 5, 2002, the IDF published a document calculating that the Palestinian Authority only needed 55 to 65 percent of its budget to fund legitimate government activities and estimated that the Palestinian Authority siphoned off $100 million a year to fund terrorism.[27] The estimates of need versus budget are consistent with more recent news accounts.[28]
Documents captured during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 detail security forces involvement in terrorist operations.[29] An Israeli document describing the interrogation of Fatah leader Nasser Aweis in 2002 revealed the links between Tanzim operatives and the PA national security apparatus and showed not only how Palestinian security officers instructed Tanzim operatives in bomb-making, but also how they regularly updated Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat.[30] Other documents detailed Palestinian Authority salary payments to terrorists in the employ of security service officials.[31]
The correlation between donor aid and violence becomes murky when examining the affiliations of the terrorists. Palestinian terrorism is conducted by a variety of organizations, many of which derive their support from foreign sources separate from Western government aid.[32] Islamist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have carried out the majority of attacks against Israel,[33] have had an uneasy and frequently adversarial relationship with Fatah-dominated Palestinian governments. Groups directly linked to Fatah, such as Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and Tanzim, account for only about 20 percent of the suicide bombings against Israel. Suicide bombings have been responsible for more than half of all Israeli fatalities since 2000. These circumstances make it difficult to understand why the correlation between aid to the Palestinians and terror homicides appears so strong.
The organizational affiliations of terrorists, however, may be multiple. Despite their strong internal differences, Fatah and the Islamists enjoy a high degree of cooperation in terrorism against Israel.[34] The Palestinian Authority's Preventive Security Apparatus, for example, supported both Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Jenin.[35] Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and one or the other Islamist groups have carried out a number of joint operations.[36] These collaborative relationships continue. There remains ongoing concern that donor funds given to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas are subsidizing Hamas members on government ministry payrolls. And then there is the larger problem of the fungibility of money: Every dollar Hamas saves on having to fund jobs and programs unrelated to security is a dollar the organization can devote to terrorism. While collusion is clear, fully explaining the correlation requires better data on funds supplied covertly by Iran and sources within Saudi Arabia and better understanding of the role of tacit support from the Palestinian security services.
Perhaps U.S. and European officials still believe that supporting those suffering from the Palestinians' damaged economy outweighs the negative effect of the diversion of funds to terrorists. While international officials often say they seek to promote a more moderate political culture among Palestinians, the Hamas victory in the January 2006 elections suggests such hope may be misplaced. At the time, the Palestinian economy had begun to improve. Similarly, in 1998 and 1999, the two years immediately preceding the second intifada Palestinian gross domestic product increased by 7 and 6 percent respectively.[37] Perhaps the bitterness of conflict outweighed the moderating influence of the aid—or, perhaps, the theory that aid moderates is itself flawed.[38]
What Changed between 2000 and 2007?
The aid windfall promised at the Paris conference will seek to strengthen the Palestinians' West Bank leadership in the wake of Hamas' violent expulsion of Fatah from Gaza in June 2007.[39] Western officials regard the Palestinians' West Bank leadership as moderate[40] while Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is viewed as a technocrat who will ensure fiscal transparency in the PA. Nevertheless, the West Bank leadership retains armed militias incorporating terrorists. How much control Abbas and Fayyad have over these armed elements remains unclear. The commander of Israeli forces in the West Bank, Major General Gadi Shamni, recently told Israeli president Shimon Peres that "without the massive presence of the IDF in the West Bank, Hamas would take over the institutions and apparatuses of the Palestinian Authority within days." [41]
The aid windfall comes amid the PA's refusal to take responsibility for Palestinian rocket fire on Israeli towns. In 2006 and 2007, 1,719 rockets launched from Gaza hit Israeli territory.[42] On January 3, 2008, an upgraded 122 mm rocket fired from Gaza reached the major Israeli city of Ashkelon.[43] Nor has any Palestinian leader repudiated terrorism. Attacks by Fatah continue.[44]While the security barrier has curtailed terrorist attacks, the terrorist groups have not stopped trying.
Yet even some prominent Palestinians are troubled by the current determination to fund the Palestinian Authority. Abed of the Palestinian Monetary Authority, although supportive of financial assistance to the Palestinians, has spoken openly of the futility of providing donor aid, asserting that what is needed is investment. This view was echoed by James Prince, consultant to the Palestinian Investment Fund, who cautioned that "many of the donor programs have not only been ineffective, they have harmed the economy."[45]
Infusions of foreign funds into the Palestinian Authority budget from late 2000 through 2002 correlated with increased violence. Increased aid in 2005 and 2006 corresponded to increasing internal violence, which is consistent with the fact that money was still finding its way to militant groups to purchase weapons and pay the salaries of the expanding militias.
Although the correlation does not prove cause and effect or provide irrefutable evidence of a direct link, it seems likely that increased aid helps sustain Palestinian violence in several ways: by creating the opportunity to divert funds for militant activities; by insulating the Palestinian leadership from the fiscal consequences of the economic fallout from terrorism; and by creating a revenue surplus that allows the Palestinian government both to pay for salaries and programs and to funnel money to terrorists. As Western donors prepare to pour unprecedented amounts of money into the PA, more discussion is needed to explain what controls will be imposed to ensure that the aid is not diverted to terrorists or used to fund a broader conflict with Israel.
Steven Stotsky is a senior research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).
[1] The New York Times, Dec. 18, 2007.
[2] Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, speech to International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State, France Diplomatie, French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Dec. 17, 2007.
[3] Condoleezza Rice, U.S. secretary of state, remarks at the International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State, U.S. Department of State, Dec. 17, 2007.
[4] Calculations from World Bank Development Indicators Data Base, 2005 and Recipient Aid Charts, Development Cooperation Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Jan 1, 2006.
[5] USA Today, Dec. 17, 2007; The Washington Post, Oct. 31, 2007; International Middle East Media Center (West Bank and Gaza), Dec. 15, 2007.
[6] Reuters, July 1, 2007.
[7] The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 4, 2005.
[8] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions(Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund [IMF], Sept. 2003), pp. 87-98.
[9] Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006: Data, Analysis and Trends, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC), Gelilot, Mar. 2007, p. 62; The Status of Palestinian Citizens' Rights, 5th through 12th annual reports, The Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights (PICC), Ramallah, West Bank, 1999-2007; Associated Press, Oct. 6, 2005; "Palestinians Killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories," B'Tselem, Jerusalem, accessed Feb. 29, 2008; "OCHA-Opt Protection of Civilians," United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Dec. 2006; "OCHA-Opt Protection of Civilians," United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Aug. 2007; Reuters, June 8, 2007.
[10] Four Years: Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Oct. 2004), p. 6; "West Bank and Gaza: Fiscal Performance in 2006," International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., Mar. 2007, p. 4.
[11] Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006, IICC, p. 16.
[12] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, p. 71; Four Years: Intifada, World Bank, p. 20.
[13] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, pp. 34, 71.
[14] Four Years: Intifada, World Bank, p. 66.
[15] Ibid., pp. 65- 6.
[16] The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 4, 2008.
[17] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, p. 92; "Two Years after London: Restarting the Palestinian Economic Recovery," World Bank, London, Sept. 24, 2007, p. 10; "West Bank and Gaza Update," World Bank Group, Gaza and West Bank Office, Mar. 2007, p. 10.
[18] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, p. 92; author's calculation from data in West Bank and Gaza: Recent Fiscal and Financial Developments, IMF, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2006, p. 7, ftnt. 8, p. 10, Table 3; James D. Wolfensohn, Quartet special envoy for disengagement, testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3.
[19] Reuters, Feb. 9, 2008; The Jordan Times (Amman), Feb. 27, 2008.
[20] CNN News, Jan. 30, 2004.
[21] Saeb Erekat, interview, CNN, Sept. 19, 2002.
[22] Brynjar Lia, A Police Force without a State: A History of the Palestinian Security Forces in the West Bank and Gaza (Reading, U.K.: Ithaca Press, 2006), p. 137.
[23] Ibid., pp. 429-31.
[24] Ibid., p. 432.
[25] Twenty-Seven Months, Intifada, Closure and Palestinian Economic Crisis (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, May. 2003), p. 88.
[26] Ibid., p. 52.
[27] "International Financial Aid to the Palestinian Authority Redirected to Terrorist Elements," Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence, Israel Ministry of FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(MFA), June 5, 2002; Rachel Ehrenfeld, "Eurocash," National Review Online, Dec. 10, 2003.
[28] The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 4, 2008.
[29] "The Involvement of Arafat, PA Senior Officials and Apparatuses in Terrorism against Israel," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 6, 2002.
[30] "Senior Fatah Leaders Describe Arafat's Link to Terrorism," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 2, 2002.
[31] "Palestinian Authority Security Services Supplied Guidance, Weapons and Funds to Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Order to Perpetrate Terrorist Attacks," Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C., Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 2002.
[32] Rachel Ehrenfeld and Sarah Zebaida, "EU and the PA Money Trail," National Review Online, Jan. 27, 2003; Jonathan D. Halevi, "What Drives Saudi Arabia to Persist in Terrorist Financing,"Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem, June 1, 2005.
[33] "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks since the Declaration of Principles (Sept. 1993)," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed Feb. 13, 2008.
[34] "The Involvement of Arafat," MFA, May 6, 2002.
[35] "Palestinian Authority Security Services," MFA, May 2002.
[36] "Documents Seized during Operation Defensive Shield Linking Yasser Arafat to Terrorist Activities," doc. no. 6, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Apr. 15, 2002, accessed Feb. 13, 2008; The New York Times, Jan. 14, 2005; "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel," MFA, accessed Feb. 13, 2008.
[37] Four Years: Intifada, World Bank, p. 20; "Report No. 23820," An Evaluation of Bank Assistance, World Bank, Washington D.C., Mar. 7, 2002, p. 2, Table 1.1.
[38] Claude Berrebi, "Evidence about the Link between Education, Poverty and Terrorism among Palestinians," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, Rand Corporation, Jan. 2007; Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, "Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 2003; Jean Paul Azam and Alexandra Delacroix, "Aid and the Delegated Fight against Terrorism," Review of Development Economics, May 2006, pp. 330-44.
[39] Associated Press, Nov. 24, 2007.
[40] USA Today, June 19, 2007.
[41] The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 27, 2008.
[42] "Rocket Threat from Gaza," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dec. 16, 2007.
[43] "Katyusha Rocket Fired at Ashkelon," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jan. 3, 2008.
[44] The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1, 2008.
[45] The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2005.
[2] Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, speech to International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State, France Diplomatie, French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Dec. 17, 2007.
[3] Condoleezza Rice, U.S. secretary of state, remarks at the International Donors' Conference for the Palestinian State, U.S. Department of State, Dec. 17, 2007.
[4] Calculations from World Bank Development Indicators Data Base, 2005 and Recipient Aid Charts, Development Cooperation Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Jan 1, 2006.
[5] USA Today, Dec. 17, 2007; The Washington Post, Oct. 31, 2007; International Middle East Media Center (West Bank and Gaza), Dec. 15, 2007.
[6] Reuters, July 1, 2007.
[7] The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 4, 2005.
[8] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions(Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund [IMF], Sept. 2003), pp. 87-98.
[9] Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006: Data, Analysis and Trends, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC), Gelilot, Mar. 2007, p. 62; The Status of Palestinian Citizens' Rights, 5th through 12th annual reports, The Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights (PICC), Ramallah, West Bank, 1999-2007; Associated Press, Oct. 6, 2005; "Palestinians Killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories," B'Tselem, Jerusalem, accessed Feb. 29, 2008; "OCHA-Opt Protection of Civilians," United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Dec. 2006; "OCHA-Opt Protection of Civilians," United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Aug. 2007; Reuters, June 8, 2007.
[10] Four Years: Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Oct. 2004), p. 6; "West Bank and Gaza: Fiscal Performance in 2006," International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., Mar. 2007, p. 4.
[11] Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006, IICC, p. 16.
[12] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, p. 71; Four Years: Intifada, World Bank, p. 20.
[13] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, pp. 34, 71.
[14] Four Years: Intifada, World Bank, p. 66.
[15] Ibid., pp. 65- 6.
[16] The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 4, 2008.
[17] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, p. 92; "Two Years after London: Restarting the Palestinian Economic Recovery," World Bank, London, Sept. 24, 2007, p. 10; "West Bank and Gaza Update," World Bank Group, Gaza and West Bank Office, Mar. 2007, p. 10.
[18] West Bank and Gaza: Economic Performance and Reforms, IMF, p. 92; author's calculation from data in West Bank and Gaza: Recent Fiscal and Financial Developments, IMF, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2006, p. 7, ftnt. 8, p. 10, Table 3; James D. Wolfensohn, Quartet special envoy for disengagement, testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3.
[19] Reuters, Feb. 9, 2008; The Jordan Times (Amman), Feb. 27, 2008.
[20] CNN News, Jan. 30, 2004.
[21] Saeb Erekat, interview, CNN, Sept. 19, 2002.
[22] Brynjar Lia, A Police Force without a State: A History of the Palestinian Security Forces in the West Bank and Gaza (Reading, U.K.: Ithaca Press, 2006), p. 137.
[23] Ibid., pp. 429-31.
[24] Ibid., p. 432.
[25] Twenty-Seven Months, Intifada, Closure and Palestinian Economic Crisis (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, May. 2003), p. 88.
[26] Ibid., p. 52.
[27] "International Financial Aid to the Palestinian Authority Redirected to Terrorist Elements," Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence, Israel Ministry of FOREIGN AFFAIRS
(MFA), June 5, 2002; Rachel Ehrenfeld, "Eurocash," National Review Online, Dec. 10, 2003.[28] The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 4, 2008.
[29] "The Involvement of Arafat, PA Senior Officials and Apparatuses in Terrorism against Israel," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 6, 2002.
[30] "Senior Fatah Leaders Describe Arafat's Link to Terrorism," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 2, 2002.
[31] "Palestinian Authority Security Services Supplied Guidance, Weapons and Funds to Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Order to Perpetrate Terrorist Attacks," Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C., Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, May 2002.
[32] Rachel Ehrenfeld and Sarah Zebaida, "EU and the PA Money Trail," National Review Online, Jan. 27, 2003; Jonathan D. Halevi, "What Drives Saudi Arabia to Persist in Terrorist Financing,"Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem, June 1, 2005.
[33] "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks since the Declaration of Principles (Sept. 1993)," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed Feb. 13, 2008.
[34] "The Involvement of Arafat," MFA, May 6, 2002.
[35] "Palestinian Authority Security Services," MFA, May 2002.
[36] "Documents Seized during Operation Defensive Shield Linking Yasser Arafat to Terrorist Activities," doc. no. 6, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Apr. 15, 2002, accessed Feb. 13, 2008; The New York Times, Jan. 14, 2005; "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel," MFA, accessed Feb. 13, 2008.
[37] Four Years: Intifada, World Bank, p. 20; "Report No. 23820," An Evaluation of Bank Assistance, World Bank, Washington D.C., Mar. 7, 2002, p. 2, Table 1.1.
[38] Claude Berrebi, "Evidence about the Link between Education, Poverty and Terrorism among Palestinians," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, Rand Corporation, Jan. 2007; Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, "Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 2003; Jean Paul Azam and Alexandra Delacroix, "Aid and the Delegated Fight against Terrorism," Review of Development Economics, May 2006, pp. 330-44.
[39] Associated Press, Nov. 24, 2007.
[40] USA Today, June 19, 2007.
[41] The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 27, 2008.
[42] "Rocket Threat from Gaza," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dec. 16, 2007.
[43] "Katyusha Rocket Fired at Ashkelon," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jan. 3, 2008.
[44] The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 1, 2008.
[45] The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2005.