Washington Report, July 2006, pages 27-28

A Palestinian in Paris

On President Chirac’s Proposal and Palestinian Expectations of Europe

By Samah Jabr

ON THE agenda of the Middle East Quartet’s May 9 meeting at U.N. headquarters in New York was the suggestion by Jacques Chirac to channel aid to Palestinians via an international mechanism such as the World Bank.

While the Quartet rejected his proposal as presented, the French president’s initiative may have influenced the Quartet’s agreement to channel aid to the Palestinians for a trial period, with the European Union to take the lead in working out the details. This after Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt warned of a civil war if the Palestinian government is left to collapse, and the World Bank noted that the Palestinian Authority could face a breakdown in law and order and basic services unless foreign donors paid the salaries of some 165,000 civil servants.

While the details of the amount and kind of aid to be provided, and through which international mechanism, were not immediately known, it was agreed that any such aid would be limited in scope and duration, and was not to be channeled through the new Hamas government. The Quartet plans to review the program after three months.

Since the U.S. and EU—the latter being the largest donor to the Palestinians, at between $500 million and $600 million a year—cut off much of their aid to Palestinian programs as punishment for January’s free and fair elections which ousted Fatah and brought Hamas to power, Palestinians have been living under severe privation. Even before the aid cut off, many struggled to survive in an economy afflicted with widespread poverty, high unemployment and endemic corruption.

As of mid-May, government employees had not received their salaries for three months. The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced that a dozen patients on dialysis or suffering from cancer had died as a result of lack of medications—which, in order to make affordable, government hospitals had provided at a reasonable cost. Palestinian security forces complained of a lack of food for themselves and the prisoners they guarded, warning that hundreds of criminals might have to be released if the government could not provide them the basic necessities of life.

As usual, Washington has been Israel’s foremost ally in its campaign to isolate Hamas, even from its Arab and Muslim environment. Regional and international banks are quaking under American pressure not to transfer funds from donors to the Palestinian Finance Ministry. The U.S. has threatened to take action against any financial institution that helps direct money or services to the new government. According to Treasury Department spokesperson Molly Millerwise, “If an organization or individual is facilitating direct fund-raising for Hamas, they open themselves up to action by the United States.” In other words, because Washington has designated Hamas a “terrorist” organization, such actions by regional banks—which rely heavily on corresponding financial institutions in the U.S. and Europe to conduct transactions—could violate American law. Washington already has pressured the Amman-based Arab Bank to freeze the Palestinian Authority’s main treasury account, and has hindered efforts by Muslim and Arab donors to deposit funds in Egyptian bank accounts in response to the Palestinian government’s appeal for help.

While the Quartet decision brings immediate relief to the desperate situation in Palestine, there is caution about any attempt to internationalize Palestinian interests or reposition “liberated” Palestinian territories and institutions under the Quartet’s mandate—thereby alleviating Israel of its duties to a people under its occupation. Meanwhile, to Israel’s further benefit, Palestinian sovereignty and independent decision-making continue to be postponed.

The Presidency vs. Parliament

Another function of this window of relief is to empower the institution of the (Fatah-held) Palestinian presidency against the (elected Hamas) governmental one. It is for this reason that all monies are to be placed under presidential control. The celebrations surrounding Norway’s donation of $20 million evaporated when Palestinians realized that the money will go to create an apparatus of Western-trained and equipped presidential guards—as if Palestinians do not have enough armed men roaming their narrow streets! Once again, Western money is being used to buy loyalties and promote the popularity of the unpopular in Palestine.

President Mahmoud Abbas embarked on his tour of Turkey, Norway, Finland and France by declaring that he had the authority to remove the newly elected Hamas government from power. Warning the new government that it had little choice but to negotiate with Israel, he added that he would work for a solution with or without Hamas. People close to Abbas declared that the president has no plans to dissolve the government anytime soon, and would do so only if the economic situation in the territories becomes “catastrophic.” At that point he would ask someone else to try to form a new cabinet—one which still would require the approval of the Hamas-controlled legislature. If a deadlock results, Abbas has the authority to order new elections.

As part of his proposal, Chirac insisted that aid must be channelled through institutions independent of the Palestinian government. He suggested that more aid could be placed under the authority of Abbas, whom Chirac described as “a moderate.” Nor did the French leader forget to require that Hamas respect the demand to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

When its interests happen to coincide with Palestinian ones, Paris can be helpful. Palestinians remember the French role in hospitalizing and hosting the funeral of President Yasser Arafat and allowing mourners to pay him a final homage in their country.

France has an earlier history of interfering in order to end Palestinian crises. During Israel’s siege of Beirut, President François Mitterand sent French forces to ensure Arafat’s safe withdrawal from the field of battle—and without waiting for Security Council authorization to do so.

But France has a complex relationship with the Middle East, and one which overlaps its dealings with Washington. For that reason alone, Palestinians should never rely on France as a “friend”—nor, of course, should we ever make it an “enemy.” Rather than be seduced by French sweet talk, therefore, we must consider its actions. For example, prior to the establishment of Israel, France invited Irgun terrorist leader Menachem Begin to Paris and held discussions with him, despite the fact that Begin was wanted by Britain as a terrorist (see May/June Washington Report, p. 14). Yet today it denies entry visas to Hamas members elected to the Palestinian parliament, and criticizes Sweden for not doing the same.

If it is to live up to its professed values, France—which honors its freedom fighters for their resistance against the Germans, and whose citizens gained power through, and still praise the principles of, the French Revolution (a very bloody one in human history)—must defend more sincerely the free choice of the Palestinian people. By failing to do so, France and the EU are eroding their credibility as a fair mediator, and allying themselves with the U.S. Instead of pressuring Israel to negotiate and abide by international law, wartime rules and the Geneva conventions (to which Israel is a signatory), Washington continues to allow Israel the time and safety to unilaterally draw its borders, and provides the political, diplomatic and financial means to continue its occupation.

EU support of the economic siege of Palestine would undo years of effort by it and other donors to build up Palestinian institutions necessary for eventual statehood. It can contribute to the peace of the region only by abandoning the siege and sanctions.

In fact, the international community should halt all aid, not to Palestine, but to Israel. It is that country, after all, that is illegally occupying Palestine and flouting—for nearly four decades!—U.N. Resolution 242, which requires Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem. Israel regularly violates the human and property rights of the civilians under its occupation and has developed a discriminatory system which excludes the state’s non-Jewish natives from many rights: return and entry, citizenship, jobs and welfare, ownership of land and property, local movement and travel abroad, marriage and citizenship.

Indeed, the international double standard in pressuring Palestinians while sanctioning Israel’s occupation of Palestine and practices against its people is the major obstacle to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

The strategy of alternating between starving Palestinians and temporarily relieving their distress is meant to push the Palestinian people to “voluntarily” reject their elected government and elect a compromising one. Undermining a democratically elected government and pushing for its collapse can only backfire, however. Palestine’s new government will not leave the stage in silence, ceding power to those who conspired against it and are willing to sell its people’s national rights for money. If the new government does collapse, many things will collapse with it. Palestinians again will be in a direct confrontation with the Israelis in a new era in which the occupier no longer will be mistaken for a neighbor or a partner, and the resistance will regain its honor and recognition.

Samah Jabr is a Jerusalem-born physician currently studying in Paris.

< Prev		Next >