Doc's Talk: EU Unrestrained Support of the PA Is Inimical to Peace

Thursday, April 24, 2014

EU Unrestrained Support of the PA Is Inimical to Peace

By Joseph Puder, FPM

In his ploy to avoid negotiations with Israel that might actually force him to make such minimal concessions as “ending the conflict” with Israel, and recognizing Israel as the “state of the Jewish people,” Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Palestinian Authority (PA) can count on the European Union (EU) to support him.

That support has been both financial and political. Financially, the EU has written a virtual “blank check” for the Palestinians to use with no accountability.

Politically, the EU has deemed the Palestinians as “underdogs,” deserving uncritical support. In both cases, EU support for the PA has done little to advance a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Whether it is misplaced guilt, or fear of Arab terrorism, the EU continues to sink unaccounted billions of European taxpayers Euros into the corrupt administration of Mahmoud Abbas. According to the United Kingdom’s Sunday Times, the Palestinian Authority squandered nearly 1.95 billion euros ($2.64 billion) in European aid through corruption and mismanagement between 2008 and 2012.

The Sunday Times reported that billions of euros in European aid to the Palestinians may have been misspent, squandered or lost to corruption, according to a damning report by the European Court of Auditors, the Luxembourg-based watchdog. EU investigators who visited sites in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank noted “significant shortcomings” in the management of funds sent to Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist organization by the EU. The auditors, according to the Sunday Times, complained about lack of measures to mitigate “high level” risks, such as “corruption, or of funds not being used for their intended purposes.”

Since the creation of the PA in the aftermath of the Oslo Accords, signed on the White House lawn in September, 1993, the EU has become the largest donor to the PA. As such, it has a responsibility to its taxpayers, who in recent years have suffered the debilitating effects of the global recession, austerity, and chronic high unemployment. The EU also has a moral responsibility to insure that its funds are not diverted to support terror, and human rights violations. The ostensible reason for the EU’s assistance to the PA is to help advance a lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

Michael Theurer, chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, writing in the Wall Street Journal (April 9, 2014) revealed in the findings of the European Court of Auditors last December that “since 2007, a considerable number of PA civil servants in Gazahave received their salaries partly funded through EU aid – even though they were not going to work due to the political situation in Gaza.” Theurer questioned how this contributes to peace building. He also asked how the EU can preserve its credibility back home when it pays salaries to people who don’t work, while millions of European citizens are unemployed?

The Court of Auditors also found that the EU paid “insufficient attention to the fungibility of the funds provided to the PA. There is reason to believe, the report noted, that EU financial assistance has allowed the PA to use its own general budget to support terrorist or criminal activities.” In addition, the PA allocates a significant portion of its budget to paying salaries to Palestinians convicted of terrorism. These salaries are five times higher than the average salary in the West Bank. Convicted terrorists also receive large grants from the PA.

An investigation by the EU anti-fraud commission into PA funding of terrorist activities, conducted in 2005, allegedly found no conclusive evidence of armed attacks financed by the European Commission’s contributions to the budget. These allegations could not be dismissed, however, given the fact that the internal and external audit capacity of the PA is largely underdeveloped.

The removal of Salam Fayyad as Finance Minister and Prime Minister has essentially ended the PA’s opportunity for transparency and the fight against corruption and mismanagement.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that in 2012, the PA payments to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons, and to the families of deceased terrorists, including suicide bombers, accounted for more than 16% of the annual foreign donations and grants to the budget of the PA. Israel considers PA payments to Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families to be “funding terrorism.” In 2012, the PA Ministry of Prisoner Affairs transferred $75.5 million to terrorists imprisoned by Israel and their families, out of a total budget of $3.1 billion, according to Israeli government figures. In February, 2014, the Palestinian Minister of Prisoner Affairs announced an allocation of 30 million euros to current and former terrorist prisoners and their families.

Responding to the EU’s calls that its funds not go to convicted terrorists, PA Minister of Prisoner Affairs Issa Karake said on PA-TV, (November 4, 2013) “The Europeans want their money that comes to us to remain clean – not to go to families of those they claim to be terrorists. They (the Europeans) need to renounce this occupation mentality. These prisoners are heroes, fedayyeen (self-sacrificing fighters) who fought so that they could live in dignity. We appreciate the people of the revolution and are proud of them.” Calling the murderers of unarmed civilian men, women, and children heroes is a perversion of reality that even the Europeans cannot accept.

The Europeans prefer to ignore the possibility that their funding, however indirect, supports Palestinian terror against Jews, and hate education that is rivaled only by Nazi Germany. States like Israel and organizations such as Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) have time and again shown how EU funding has facilitated hate literature and hate teaching in Palestinian schools. EU money has also been used to fund anti-Semitism in the Palestinian media. In the PA broadcasts, Jews have been described as apes, rats and crows. TV discussions that negate the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, and characterize Israelis as bloodthirsty colonialists are not only hateful, they are inimical to peacemaking and amity between Arabs, Jews, Palestinians and Israelis.

Michael Theurer asked how the EU can ensure that its financial assistance to the PA will help advance peace and stability in the region, while promoting freedom, democracy and the rule of law. And, he ponders how the EU can guarantee that its funds won’t be used to reward terrorism. Theurer responded at least partially to some of his questions by asserting that at the plenary of the European Parliament in early April, 2014, a resolution was passed calling for greater transparency in EU aid to the PA.

It is easy to conclude however, that hitherto, the EU’s unrestrained financial support to the PA has done little to promote freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and has above all been inimical to peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

Posted by Ted Belman

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk