The high risk strategy of withholding aid in Palestine

[alonzomourning23]

Essential services could collapse in the Palestinian territories if the international community carries out its threat to stop financial help once the militant Islamic group Hamas forms a new government, a Palestinian minister has told the BBC.


Eighty per cent of the hospitals and clinics in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are state-run.

But the government will probably not be able to pay the salaries of doctors, nurses and other civil servants without receiving tens of millions of dollars in budget support every month.

Last year the Palestinians received more than $1bn in assistance from the international community, of which more than a third went directly to the government.

And this year the government will be even more dependent on foreign aid because the Israelis have announced they are going to stop handing over tax and customs revenue collected on behalf of the Palestinians, worth at least $50m a month.

"The message we're telling [the international community] is to look at the Somali scenario," said Deputy Finance Minister Jihad Alwazir.


"When the Somali government failed in the 1990s it took the international community close to 15 or 16 years to try to stabilise the situation."


"It is not in the interest of the region, it is not in the interest of the peace process or the international community to lead us to a Somalia example."

Bankruptcy risk

But so far the United States and, critically, the European Union are sticking to their position that they will not finance a government led by Hamas because they define it as a terrorist organisation.

"There is a limit to what you can ask European taxpayers to do," said Marc Otte, the EU's special representative for the Middle East peace process.

"Hamas is a terrorist organisation. If they don't change their colours in that respect it would be politically and even morally indefensible to continue to support such an organisation."

Mr Otte admitted in a BBC interview that cutting financial assistance could lead to the collapse of the government, or at least to it becoming financially bankrupt.


"It's a responsibility we have to face. It's also a responsibility that the government of Israel will have to face," he said.

All this is part of a strategy by Western and other governments to try to force Hamas to change, following its dramatic victory in last month's election.

They want it to renounce violence, recognise Israel's right to exist and to abide by previous agreements between the Palestinians and Israelis.
But so far Hamas has refused to comply with these demands and is expected to announce the formation of its government within a matter of weeks.

Agencies 'nervous'

Threatening to cut off direct funding to the new government is a high-risk strategy for the international community.


Although donor countries say they will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, UN sources told the BBC it is not always possible to separate humanitarian aid from assistance for the government.

For example, UN agencies and NGOs provide food aid to 1.4 million people in the Palestinian territories.

"Some of the feeding programme is done through the Palestinian Authority," said one UN official. "UN agencies are very nervous."

The same problem could arise in the health sector.

"I don't know how you would provide health [assistance] without dealing with the ministry of health," she said.

'Counter-productive' pressure

Officials are also concerned about the possible collapse of Palestinian institutions and the effect this would have on the delivery of aid, she added.

Palestinian analysts say the pressure being exerted by Western countries before Hamas even forms a government is proving counter-productive.

"This will push Hamas to a more hardline position and create more sympathy for the Hamas programme," said economist Samir Abdullah.


Palestinian leaders, angered that they are being punished because of the result of a democratic election, are also now increasingly looking to Middle Eastern countries for financial assistance.


A Hamas delegation has been touring the region and recently secured a pledge of support from Iran.


But more hope is being pinned on Saudi Arabia, which has ignored American pressure and announced it will fund the new Palestinian government.

For the West, allowing Iran to gain significant influence in the Palestinian territories would surely be a serious own goal.



PALESTINIAN ECONOMY
Projected budget deficit in 2006: $1bn
Monthly PA expenditure: approx $130m, up to 80% spent on salaries of 150,000 civil servants and security force members
PA monthly revenue from local sources: approx $30m
Monthly revenue from tax and customs duty collected by Israelis on the PA's behalf: approx $50m. To be withheld by Israel
Resulting monthly shortfall in PA finances: $80-$100m
Budget support from the international community in 2005: $362m

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4752890.stm

 

[zionoverfire]

Or we could simply go with the no risk solution of stopping long term foreign aid and giving the US taxpayers their money back.

 

[kakomu]

[quote name='zionoverfire']Or we could simply go with the no risk solution of stopping long term foreign aid and giving the US taxpayers their money back.[/quote]
I'd prefer the long term solution of not going to war for a couple decades and not feeding the monster that is the military industrial complex.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='kakomu']I'd prefer the long term solution of not going to war for a couple decades and not feeding the monster that is the military industrial complex.[/quote]

That's a solution to an entirely different problem.

 

[elprincipe]

Strange how you are against us giving money to groups promoting democracy in Iran and yet insist that we continue full and complete aid to a group that is a terrorist organization. Although to be fair Fatah is a terrorist organization as well, and we've been supporting them for years. What a marvelously terrible situation.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='elprincipe']Strange how you are against us giving money to groups promoting democracy in Iran and yet insist that we continue full and complete aid to a group that is a terrorist organization. Although to be fair Fatah is a terrorist organization as well, and we've been supporting them for years. What a marvelously terrible situation. [/quote]

My opposition to giving money to Iran is based on it having no benefit, and only risks inflaming the situation. I repeatedly stated that. It should be apparent that I don't view aiding the palestinian government in the same fashion. In fact the article is illustrating the effect it could have.

 

[bmulligan]

I guess the palestinians should have thought about the consequences of their votes before voting. But, I guess, when you have a culture of people volunteering to blow themselves up and take as many jews with them as possible, the only consequences they're worried about is how many virgins they'll receive when they get to heaven.

 

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Give it to 'zo for being completely all over the map on how you deal with terrorist regimes and governments!

BRAVO!

You're as inconsistent with your "logic" as the rest of the liberals in the world!

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']I guess the palestinians should have thought about the consequences of their votes before voting. But, I guess, when you have a culture of people volunteering to blow themselves up and take as many jews with them as possible, the only consequences they're worried about is how many virgins they'll receive when they get to heaven.[/quote]

You yourself have agreed with me on the reasons as to why hamas was voted in, and you and I both know it wasn't due to wanting to kill more jews.

Give it to 'zo for being completely all over the map on how you deal with terrorist regimes and governments!

BRAVO!

You're as inconsistent with your "logic" as the rest of the liberals in the world!

Oh yes, because allowing governments to collapse is consistent with some viewpoint I've expressed, right? And I've never said that such things benefit the most radical factions, right?

 

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I guess it never occured to you....

some governments should be doomed and allowed to collapse.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I guess it never occured to you....

some governments should be doomed and allowed to collapse.[/QUOTE]


The Bush administration?

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']You yourself have agreed with me on the reasons as to why hamas was voted in, and you and I both know it wasn't due to wanting to kill more jews.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know. Far be it for me to want to stir up controversy. Still, this is what happens when you choose between the lesser of two evils: You still end up with evil.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='bmulligan']Yeah, I know. Far be it for me to want to stir up controversy. Still, this is what happens when you choose between the lesser of two evils: You still end up with evil.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, their choices are far more evil than the two evil ones we face in this country in most elections.

I read a phone interview in The Washington Post where the Hamas leader basically says Israel must do X, Y and Z before they will even consider changing their terrorist tactics, which doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[alonzomourning23]

Hamas has basically said they will stay with the ceasefire, form a long term truce, and are willing to leave the future of Israel up to future generations. It's not that they are saying they will do anything (they're essentially saying they won't), but they won't denounce positions that have been central to them.

They will lose all credibility if they change overnight, and will appear extremely weak (a major blow when their honesty was a major reason to vote for them). Israel and Palestine both seem to want the other to take unrealistic (either politicaly dangerous or physically impossible) steps as prerequisites for peace talks. But hamas (if I remember correctly) is prepared to have discussions with Israel. It would seem like if you want to bring about change, while keeping stability in the region, you'd engage in such talks. Discussion does not necessitate doing anything.

As far as I'm concerned you engage in talks to end hostilities and bring change, those things should not be a prerequisite to having peace talks.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Hamas has basically said they will stay with the ceasefire, form a long term truce, and are willing to leave the future of Israel up to future generations. It's not that they are saying they will do anything (they're essentially saying they won't), but they won't denounce positions that have been central to them.

They will lose all credibility if they change overnight, and will appear extremely weak (a major blow when their honesty was a major reason to vote for them). Israel and Palestine both seem to want the other to take unrealistic (either politicaly dangerous or physically impossible) steps as prerequisites for peace talks. But hamas (if I remember correctly) is prepared to have discussions with Israel. It would seem like if you want to bring about change, while keeping stability in the region, you'd engage in such talks. Discussion does not necessitate doing anything.

As far as I'm concerned you engage in talks to end hostilities and bring change, those things should not be a prerequisite to having peace talks.[/QUOTE]

Surely you'd have to admit that having peace talks with the same group that is actively recruiting and sending suicide bombers to kill people in cafes and on buses is not going to be a popular or even likely position any Israeli leader could take?

 

[Metal Boss]

i made this post its own thread...

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='elprincipe']Surely you'd have to admit that having peace talks with the same group that is actively recruiting and sending suicide bombers to kill people in cafes and on buses is not going to be a popular or even likely position any Israeli leader could take?[/quote]

Well, politically or militarily impossible tasks were asked of the palestinians. Remember all the insistance that the PA disarm the militant groups? There was no certainty that it could even be done, and serious concern that it could lead to a war.

And now Israel wants hamas to do a 180 immediately after winning an election, their straightforwardness and honesty was one of the reasons.

But, whether politically unpopular or not, peace talks are normally held to end conflict, not as something that happens after conflict ends.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, politically or militarily impossible tasks were asked of the palestinians. Remember all the insistance that the PA disarm the militant groups? There was no certainty that it could even be done, and serious concern that it could lead to a war.[/QUOTE]

You make it sound as if leaving militant extremist groups armed and ready to strike has prevented war. But since the PA before was controlled by what is essentially a terrorist group, with a master terrorist and thief (Arafat) in charge, it's hardly surprising that militant groups were not disarmed or even marginalized, and instead new ones sprung up (Al Asqa Martyrs Brigades). So I guess my view is that Hamas is no worse than Fatah. Perhaps they won't steal millions from the PA like Arafat did, but I'm not banking on that either.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='elprincipe'] Perhaps they won't steal millions from the PA like Arafat did, but I'm not banking on that either.[/QUOTE]

Considering Arafat tucked away a billion dollars for his personal pleasure and posterity, witholding aid now is like locking the barn doors after the horses got out. I'm not sure I understand the hardline US stance here of refusing to give money since we gave it to Arafat for so long knowing full well he was a liar and a thief. It just seems like now would be as good of a time as any to make an attempt at nice-nice. Aren't Hamas ready to concede and acknowledge Israel's right to exist ? That's better then the UAE which still refuses to recognize Israel, yet we'll allow them to take over P&O's port operations with no question.

 

[alonzomourning23]

I've heard they are not ready to concede, and still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, but it seems like a technicality. They've gave every indication they'll do everything but formalize it.

You make it sound as if leaving militant extremist groups armed and ready to strike has prevented war. But since the PA before was controlled by what is essentially a terrorist group, with a master terrorist and thief (Arafat) in charge, it's hardly surprising that militant groups were not disarmed or even marginalized, and instead new ones sprung up (Al Asqa Martyrs Brigades). So I guess my view is that Hamas is no worse than Fatah. Perhaps they won't steal millions from the PA like Arafat did, but I'm not banking on that either.

I remember a few years ago when Arafat wanted to bring Hamas into the government, and there was a huge uproar. I thought that was a great idea personally, it would moderate the most dangerous militant group and limit, or eventually eliminate, the attacks coming from them. So, in a way, I think a lot of good can come out of working with Hamas, and I basically agree with mulligan.

Though, what type of war would you fight, a war of independence, or a civil war? Which one is more damaging? And would you even risk a civil war when you are already in the middle of a struggle for independence? Besides, hamas coming to power after militarily defeating the PA would be much worse. And, if hamas were about to win, Israel may move in and begin a full scale occupation, with absolutely zero autonomy for palestinians.

 

[elprincipe]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I remember a few years ago when Arafat wanted to bring Hamas into the government, and there was a huge uproar. I thought that was a great idea personally, it would moderate the most dangerous militant group and limit, or eventually eliminate, the attacks coming from them. So, in a way, I think a lot of good can come out of working with Hamas, and I basically agree with mulligan.

Though, what type of war would you fight, a war of independence, or a civil war? Which one is more damaging? And would you even risk a civil war when you are already in the middle of a struggle for independence? Besides, hamas coming to power after militarily defeating the PA would be much worse. And, if hamas were about to win, Israel may move in and begin a full scale occupation, with absolutely zero autonomy for palestinians.[/QUOTE]

All I meant was that you made it sound as if Arafat not taking action against armed militant extremist groups like Hamas has prevented conflict, when in the long run that's a foolish viewpoint. But I certainly don't have the answers, since the one hope of this generation, it seems (Arafat at Camp David), looks like it's passed. I think the only way the violence will decrease at this point is either by some miracle or if Israel completes its fence. Then again, the fence also is part of their attempt to steal land from the Palestinians in certain places, so I'm sure the rockets fired at Israeli towns (and the inevitable reprisals) would continue...