Fatah, the largest political faction of the Palestinian Authority, has called for a boycott of the United States after last week's US veto of the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity. And the PA Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, said he is prepared to give up any US aid that comes with political conditions.
In the Jerusalem Post article, Fayyad said the US gave the Palestinian Authority $223 million in financial aid in 2010 to help cover the PA operating deficit. But that's not the entire story. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, total aid to the PA in 2010 was almost $600 million. And last November the US also gave the PA a $150 million advance on aid for 2011.
So the PA wants to officially boycott the US and refuse our aid. Meanwhile, the US is looking for ways to reduce our budget deficit. Perhaps a win-win situation would be to eliminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority. It could help them accomplish their stated goal while taking a tiny step toward getting our own fiscal house in order.
The PA might want to be careful about making such public threats. At some point a frustrated Congress just might give them what they are demanding. And the real losers would be the people in greatest need. From what we've seen recently, those in power have likely already skimmed off enough to tide them over.
Showing posts with label Palestinian Authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinian Authority. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Actions speak louder than words
The Palestinian leadership under President Mahmoud Abbas has been threatening unilaterally to declare statehood for Palestine. He is encouraging other countries to recognize Palestine as a state within the 1967 borders. And he appears to have the backing of President Obama, the EU, Russia, and the UN.
So it comes as some surprise to learn today that President Abbas, his two sons, and other senior Palestinian Authority leadership have quietly applied for--and received--Jordanian citizenship. According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, these individuals received their Jordanian citizenship at a time when they were publicly urging the Jordanian government to stop giving citizenship to Palestinians in order to “consolidate their Palestinian identity.”
Abbas has presented himself as the champion of statehood for the Palestinian people. But his words lose their force when we learn he quietly sought and received Jordanian citizenship for himself while publicly seeking to deny that right to other Palestinians. Reminds me of the old expression, "Do as I say, not as I do."
So it comes as some surprise to learn today that President Abbas, his two sons, and other senior Palestinian Authority leadership have quietly applied for--and received--Jordanian citizenship. According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, these individuals received their Jordanian citizenship at a time when they were publicly urging the Jordanian government to stop giving citizenship to Palestinians in order to “consolidate their Palestinian identity.”
Abbas has presented himself as the champion of statehood for the Palestinian people. But his words lose their force when we learn he quietly sought and received Jordanian citizenship for himself while publicly seeking to deny that right to other Palestinians. Reminds me of the old expression, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Monday, January 24, 2011
Palileaks--The Palestinian Papers
Al-Jazeera obtained 1,600 documents from the past 11 years of Palestinian/Israeli negotiations. They joined with the Guardian newspaper to verify and then publish the documents, producing in effect a Palestinian version of Wikileaks.
The documents paint an interesting picture of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. They show a Palestinian leadership willing to give up far more than they had ever publicly indicated in order to obtain a Palestinian state, including:
--A willingness to agree to land swaps with Israel that would allow Israel to keep most major settlements.
--A willingness to give up control of much (but not all) of East Jerusalem, and to seek a compromise on control of the Temple Mount.
--A willingness to give up the right of return for millions of Palestinians, accepting instead a token return of about 10,000 Palestinians.
The parties had still not reached a common understanding on these issues, but the documents show the gaps were narrowing. So why were these documents released now, and what impact could it have on any future negotiations?
First, the documents are incredibly embarrassing to the Palestinian Authority leadership. The papers show the leadership was willing to give up far more than they were saying publicly to the Palestinian people. It's possible these revelations will result in the collapse of the current government. It certainly makes their hold on power in the West Bank more tenuous. Were the documents leaked now for this very reason? It's hard to tell.
Second, the documents will probably kill any serious negotiations, at least in the near term. Much like the fallout from the Wikileak documents, politicians will be less likely to engage in serious discussions of issues, and to offer possible compromises, if the discussions have the potential of ending up as front page news.
Third, the documents show that any serious attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue will ultimately need to acknowledge that (a) final borders will not match those of 1967, (b) the right of return to Israel will not be granted to all Palestinians, and (c) most major Jewish settlements will become part of Israel with some type of land swap as compensation.
Fourth, the real issue to watch now is how the Palestinian people respond to these revelations. The expectation is that there will be an angry rejection of the compromises made by the PA leaders. If so, there will be no movement toward an agreement. However, perhaps the shock of realizing the kind of compromises required to reach an agreement will produce more realistic expectations for what any future Palestinian state will need to look like. But I'm not optimistic.
The documents paint an interesting picture of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. They show a Palestinian leadership willing to give up far more than they had ever publicly indicated in order to obtain a Palestinian state, including:
--A willingness to agree to land swaps with Israel that would allow Israel to keep most major settlements.
--A willingness to give up control of much (but not all) of East Jerusalem, and to seek a compromise on control of the Temple Mount.
--A willingness to give up the right of return for millions of Palestinians, accepting instead a token return of about 10,000 Palestinians.
The parties had still not reached a common understanding on these issues, but the documents show the gaps were narrowing. So why were these documents released now, and what impact could it have on any future negotiations?
First, the documents are incredibly embarrassing to the Palestinian Authority leadership. The papers show the leadership was willing to give up far more than they were saying publicly to the Palestinian people. It's possible these revelations will result in the collapse of the current government. It certainly makes their hold on power in the West Bank more tenuous. Were the documents leaked now for this very reason? It's hard to tell.
Second, the documents will probably kill any serious negotiations, at least in the near term. Much like the fallout from the Wikileak documents, politicians will be less likely to engage in serious discussions of issues, and to offer possible compromises, if the discussions have the potential of ending up as front page news.
Third, the documents show that any serious attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue will ultimately need to acknowledge that (a) final borders will not match those of 1967, (b) the right of return to Israel will not be granted to all Palestinians, and (c) most major Jewish settlements will become part of Israel with some type of land swap as compensation.
Fourth, the real issue to watch now is how the Palestinian people respond to these revelations. The expectation is that there will be an angry rejection of the compromises made by the PA leaders. If so, there will be no movement toward an agreement. However, perhaps the shock of realizing the kind of compromises required to reach an agreement will produce more realistic expectations for what any future Palestinian state will need to look like. But I'm not optimistic.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
What are the core issues?
What are the core issues in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? Why hasn't anyone been able to solve the struggle between the two groups that has lasted for over 60 years, despite concerted efforts to reach a compromise?
To listen to the media, one would assume the key obstacle is Jewish settlements. But that is a very simplistic answer. I believe there are at least five key issues at the core of the debate. To achieve peace, both sides would need to reach agreement on all five.
1. Israel's demand to exist as a Jewish state
In 1947 the UN voted to partition Palestine into two states--one Jewish and one Arab. Israel accepted the vote, but the Palestinians--and all the surrounding Arab countries--rejected it. Egypt and Jordan are the only two countries in the region that later accepted the existence of Israel. Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state surrounded by Arabs? Mahmoud Abbas, current President of the Palestinian Authority says no...and this is a major stumbling block to peace. (If I were Israel I would be reluctant to make any agreement with someone who can't publicly acknowledge my right to exist.)
The key to this issue is whether or not land once conquered for Allah can ever be controlled by non-Muslims. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have declared that this cannot be. Anwar Saddat, the President of Egypt who made peace with Israel, paid for his courageous decision with his life. To me, this is the most difficult of all the issues, because it is grounded in Islam's belief that the land belongs to Allah.
2. The Palestinian demand for a "right of return" for all Palestinians
In 1948 and again in 1967 the UN passed resolutions calling on the Arab countries to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and calling on Israel to allow Arab refugees to return to their homes. Because the Arab nations refused to accept Israel's right to exist, the refugee problem has been allowed to fester for over 60 years. The Middle East conflict produced hundreds of thousands of refugees on both sides. Almost the same number of Jews were forced from their homes in Arab countries as there were Arab refugees who fled their homes in areas that were later controlled by Israel. The main difference between the two groups is how they treated their refugees. The Jewish refugees became Israeli citizens and started over in their new homeland. But the surrounding Arab countries refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Instead they were forced to live in refugee camps as political pawns.
The Palestinian Authority claims that the original 600,000-800,000 refugees have now grown into a refugee population of over 7 million...and they demand that all 7 million be allowed to return to Israel. Were that to happen, the Jewish state would disappear overnight, overwhelmed by this sea of refugees. Israel will not allow this to happen.
3. Israel's demand for security and trust
Israel has been forced to fight for its very existence for over 60 years. One demand in any peace agreement is that Israel must obtain real peace. Yasser Arafat renounced violence, but history shows that it was an empty promise. Israel gave back Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, but Hamas took over and used Gaza as a launchpad for rockets and mortars. As a result, Israel is reluctant to make any additional sacrifices unless the Palestinian Authority can demonstrate that they can form a stable government that will stop terrorism. Some of the Palestinian Authority's recent threats to end cooperation with Israel and to renounce their earlier agreements makes Israel less likely to trust them in the future.
4. The debate over final borders
The 1948 Armistice Agreement established temporary borders between Israel and the Arab countries that had attacked her. Permanent borders were to be negotiated. Israel is demanding that a peace treaty provide permanent defensible borders, which will include Israel keeping some of the land she captured in 1967. The Palestinians are demanding that Israel return all land captured in the Six-Day War. Israel will not agree to such a demand. And the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers in portions of the West Bank are "facts" that Israel has created to bolster her position.
5. Jerusalem
In one sense Jerusalem is a subset of the previous point. In the 1948 War of Independence Israel lost access to the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall. The Jewish presence in the Old City had extended back for hundreds, if not thousands, of years; but the Jewish inhabitants were forced out. When Israel recaptured the Old City in 1967, she annexed Jerusalem as her eternal capital. Jerusalem is the heart and soul of the nation, extending back to the time of King David. At the same time Jerusalem contains the Al Aksa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam. The Jewish temple sat on the mount where the Dome of the Rock now rests. Jerusalem is more than just real estate. It represents the spiritual reality of two competing religions, both claiming to descend from the same father.
To me, these are the five issues forming the chasm that separates Israel and the Palestinians. As the U.S. tries to restart the peace process yet again, look beyond the hype and rhetoric...and listen carefully for substantive discussion of these five issues.
I'm not optimistic.
To listen to the media, one would assume the key obstacle is Jewish settlements. But that is a very simplistic answer. I believe there are at least five key issues at the core of the debate. To achieve peace, both sides would need to reach agreement on all five.
1. Israel's demand to exist as a Jewish state
In 1947 the UN voted to partition Palestine into two states--one Jewish and one Arab. Israel accepted the vote, but the Palestinians--and all the surrounding Arab countries--rejected it. Egypt and Jordan are the only two countries in the region that later accepted the existence of Israel. Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state surrounded by Arabs? Mahmoud Abbas, current President of the Palestinian Authority says no...and this is a major stumbling block to peace. (If I were Israel I would be reluctant to make any agreement with someone who can't publicly acknowledge my right to exist.)
The key to this issue is whether or not land once conquered for Allah can ever be controlled by non-Muslims. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have declared that this cannot be. Anwar Saddat, the President of Egypt who made peace with Israel, paid for his courageous decision with his life. To me, this is the most difficult of all the issues, because it is grounded in Islam's belief that the land belongs to Allah.
2. The Palestinian demand for a "right of return" for all Palestinians
In 1948 and again in 1967 the UN passed resolutions calling on the Arab countries to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and calling on Israel to allow Arab refugees to return to their homes. Because the Arab nations refused to accept Israel's right to exist, the refugee problem has been allowed to fester for over 60 years. The Middle East conflict produced hundreds of thousands of refugees on both sides. Almost the same number of Jews were forced from their homes in Arab countries as there were Arab refugees who fled their homes in areas that were later controlled by Israel. The main difference between the two groups is how they treated their refugees. The Jewish refugees became Israeli citizens and started over in their new homeland. But the surrounding Arab countries refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Instead they were forced to live in refugee camps as political pawns.
The Palestinian Authority claims that the original 600,000-800,000 refugees have now grown into a refugee population of over 7 million...and they demand that all 7 million be allowed to return to Israel. Were that to happen, the Jewish state would disappear overnight, overwhelmed by this sea of refugees. Israel will not allow this to happen.
3. Israel's demand for security and trust
Israel has been forced to fight for its very existence for over 60 years. One demand in any peace agreement is that Israel must obtain real peace. Yasser Arafat renounced violence, but history shows that it was an empty promise. Israel gave back Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, but Hamas took over and used Gaza as a launchpad for rockets and mortars. As a result, Israel is reluctant to make any additional sacrifices unless the Palestinian Authority can demonstrate that they can form a stable government that will stop terrorism. Some of the Palestinian Authority's recent threats to end cooperation with Israel and to renounce their earlier agreements makes Israel less likely to trust them in the future.
4. The debate over final borders
The 1948 Armistice Agreement established temporary borders between Israel and the Arab countries that had attacked her. Permanent borders were to be negotiated. Israel is demanding that a peace treaty provide permanent defensible borders, which will include Israel keeping some of the land she captured in 1967. The Palestinians are demanding that Israel return all land captured in the Six-Day War. Israel will not agree to such a demand. And the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers in portions of the West Bank are "facts" that Israel has created to bolster her position.
5. Jerusalem
In one sense Jerusalem is a subset of the previous point. In the 1948 War of Independence Israel lost access to the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall. The Jewish presence in the Old City had extended back for hundreds, if not thousands, of years; but the Jewish inhabitants were forced out. When Israel recaptured the Old City in 1967, she annexed Jerusalem as her eternal capital. Jerusalem is the heart and soul of the nation, extending back to the time of King David. At the same time Jerusalem contains the Al Aksa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam. The Jewish temple sat on the mount where the Dome of the Rock now rests. Jerusalem is more than just real estate. It represents the spiritual reality of two competing religions, both claiming to descend from the same father.
To me, these are the five issues forming the chasm that separates Israel and the Palestinians. As the U.S. tries to restart the peace process yet again, look beyond the hype and rhetoric...and listen carefully for substantive discussion of these five issues.
I'm not optimistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)