A Shocking Secret in Plain Sight: U.S. Policy Sabotages U.S. Policy
Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the box on the page's upper right-hand corner. We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the UN Alejandro Wolff made a fairly good speech in the Security Council. But it contained the following remarkable section:
“The Palestinian Authority is, in effect, a lifeline to more than half a million people in Gaza, making sure that PA salaries are paid and social welfare payments are made on time. The PA plans to devote roughly half of its $3.9 billion budget to Gaza in 2010.”
So half the money the Palestinian Authority (PA) spends, which largely comes from Western donors, is going to Gaza where—whatever humanitarian intentions exist—it shores up the Hamas regime? This is the equivalent of sending massive economic assistance to the Taliban government in Afghanistan on the rationale that it is helping poor Afghans. And that this were done while the Taliban was making possible the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Oh yes, and it means that in practice Hamas is one of the largest recipients of Western aid on a per capita basis in the world. I think the U.S. ambassador must be overstating the figures, but he said it in an official speech. If he's correct that means Hamas' domain receives almost $2 billion of Western-funded aid a year for a population of 1.5 million people, five times what Israel gets. Even if this is an overestimate--perhaps he meant half the money the PA spends on salaries and pensions--the amounts involved are still substantial.
But aside from that point there is another equally startling one to make: U.S. policy is supposedly to show that Palestinians are better off in the relatively peaceful, friendly to the West, ready to live alongside Israel [I know the problems with this but bear with me] Fatah-ruled West Bank than in the terrorist-ruled, Iran-allied Gaza Strip. But if U.S. and other Western aid shores up the Hamas regime then U.S. policy is…sabotaging U.S. policy.
Of course, U.S. policy should be to overthrow the Hamas regime, not for Israel's sake, not even given the fact that its existence furthers Iran's efforts to transform the Middle East with anti-Western Islamist revolutions. The best argument given the current administratin's world view is that this should be done because the existence of a Hamas regime makes it impossible to achieve Israel-Palestinian peace.
Could anything be more obvious? All those advocates of linking (wrongly) the conflict to every other problem in the region (and world) should be working day and night to get rid of Hamas' regime so they can make peace. The more vital is Israel-Palestinian peace, the more urgent is this task.
Would Egypt be unhappy at such a policy? On the contrary, it is blockading the Gaza Strip every bit as much as Israel does. It fears the spread of revolutionary Islamism to its own people. Would the Saudis and Jordanians and the majority in Lebanon and many other Arabs be unhappy to see Hamas brought down and the PA return to Gaza? Not at all.
In Europe, one sees trends toward "engaging" with Hamas, a terrorist, antisemitic, and genocidal group under the euphemism of respecting elections. Here's how the Dutch Labour party puts it in its official position:
"The EU should accept the outcome of the Palestinian elections and can retain contact with each Palestinian faction that comes to power through democratic means."
"The Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah should reconcile with each other. Without unity between both groups peace in the region is not possible."
There are two fallacies here being repeated also in the United Kingdom, in the EU's own thinktank, and elsewhere:
--Hamas came to power through elections? That's false. Hamas did come in first in the elections, then formed a coalition government, but then staged a violent coup to seize power. Thus, the Hamas government in power in the Gaza Strip today came to power through a military strike, not elections. Since then, it has virtually outlawed the main opposition party, Fatah, and arrested its activists.
--Unity between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas is a precondition for peace? This is absurd since such a combination could never make peace: Hamas doesn't want it and the PA would be paralyzed and made more radical by such a coalition. A Hamas-Fatah coalition is a formula for a new Palestinian-Israel war and their alliance with Iran and Syria.
I know this isn't going to happen. To put it charitably, short-run humanitarian concern is overcoming both strategic considerations and longer-run humanitarian concern. Yet this one aspect renders Western strategy in the region ridiculous and impotent.
By Barry Rubin
U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the UN Alejandro Wolff made a fairly good speech in the Security Council. But it contained the following remarkable section:
“The Palestinian Authority is, in effect, a lifeline to more than half a million people in Gaza, making sure that PA salaries are paid and social welfare payments are made on time. The PA plans to devote roughly half of its $3.9 billion budget to Gaza in 2010.”
So half the money the Palestinian Authority (PA) spends, which largely comes from Western donors, is going to Gaza where—whatever humanitarian intentions exist—it shores up the Hamas regime? This is the equivalent of sending massive economic assistance to the Taliban government in Afghanistan on the rationale that it is helping poor Afghans. And that this were done while the Taliban was making possible the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Oh yes, and it means that in practice Hamas is one of the largest recipients of Western aid on a per capita basis in the world. I think the U.S. ambassador must be overstating the figures, but he said it in an official speech. If he's correct that means Hamas' domain receives almost $2 billion of Western-funded aid a year for a population of 1.5 million people, five times what Israel gets. Even if this is an overestimate--perhaps he meant half the money the PA spends on salaries and pensions--the amounts involved are still substantial.
But aside from that point there is another equally startling one to make: U.S. policy is supposedly to show that Palestinians are better off in the relatively peaceful, friendly to the West, ready to live alongside Israel [I know the problems with this but bear with me] Fatah-ruled West Bank than in the terrorist-ruled, Iran-allied Gaza Strip. But if U.S. and other Western aid shores up the Hamas regime then U.S. policy is…sabotaging U.S. policy.
Of course, U.S. policy should be to overthrow the Hamas regime, not for Israel's sake, not even given the fact that its existence furthers Iran's efforts to transform the Middle East with anti-Western Islamist revolutions. The best argument given the current administratin's world view is that this should be done because the existence of a Hamas regime makes it impossible to achieve Israel-Palestinian peace.
Could anything be more obvious? All those advocates of linking (wrongly) the conflict to every other problem in the region (and world) should be working day and night to get rid of Hamas' regime so they can make peace. The more vital is Israel-Palestinian peace, the more urgent is this task.
Would Egypt be unhappy at such a policy? On the contrary, it is blockading the Gaza Strip every bit as much as Israel does. It fears the spread of revolutionary Islamism to its own people. Would the Saudis and Jordanians and the majority in Lebanon and many other Arabs be unhappy to see Hamas brought down and the PA return to Gaza? Not at all.
In Europe, one sees trends toward "engaging" with Hamas, a terrorist, antisemitic, and genocidal group under the euphemism of respecting elections. Here's how the Dutch Labour party puts it in its official position:
"The EU should accept the outcome of the Palestinian elections and can retain contact with each Palestinian faction that comes to power through democratic means."
"The Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah should reconcile with each other. Without unity between both groups peace in the region is not possible."
There are two fallacies here being repeated also in the United Kingdom, in the EU's own thinktank, and elsewhere:
--Hamas came to power through elections? That's false. Hamas did come in first in the elections, then formed a coalition government, but then staged a violent coup to seize power. Thus, the Hamas government in power in the Gaza Strip today came to power through a military strike, not elections. Since then, it has virtually outlawed the main opposition party, Fatah, and arrested its activists.
--Unity between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas is a precondition for peace? This is absurd since such a combination could never make peace: Hamas doesn't want it and the PA would be paralyzed and made more radical by such a coalition. A Hamas-Fatah coalition is a formula for a new Palestinian-Israel war and their alliance with Iran and Syria.
I know this isn't going to happen. To put it charitably, short-run humanitarian concern is overcoming both strategic considerations and longer-run humanitarian concern. Yet this one aspect renders Western strategy in the region ridiculous and impotent.
RubinReports: A Shocking Secret in Plain Sight: U.S. Policy Sabotages U.S. Policy
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment