The developing
international consensus to offer Gaza an economic package in order to
convince Hamas to agree to a cease-fire is immoral and a strategic
folly. It is also unlikely to be effective.
One of the main reasons
for Hamas harassing several million Israelis by launching thousands of
rockets and sending terrorists into Israel by tunnels, apart from the
desire to kill Jews, was to rock the boat in order to get out of its
dire economic conditions. Getting paid for stopping to shoot at Israeli
civilians looks like the "protection money" collected by the mafia.
The morality of pouring
money so that Gazans can live better is questionable as long as Hamas
does not stop its terrorism against Israel. Unfortunately, establishing a
clear connection between economic aid and political compliance is not
on the agenda of the "peacemakers."
It is true that Gazans
are suffering. Nevertheless, it is wrong to argue that the Gazans should
not suffer the consequences of Hamas actions. Unfortunately, Hamas was
popular among the Gazans and continues to be so. Moreover, all polls
show support among Gazans for violence against Israelis. What moral
justification exists for helping people that support an organization
intent on destroying the Jewish state, which is actively engaged in
killing innocent Israeli citizens?
Moreover, we should not
forget that the essence of war is a competition of inflicting pain in
order to change patterns of behavior. Actually, pain may have a positive
value in affecting the learning curve of the warring sides. Israel has
tried to influence the learning curve of the Palestinians that
aggression against Israel does not pay and that support for Hamas could
be costly.
Exacting a high cost
from Hamas and the Gazans may lead them to more peaceful behavior. It is
true that it is difficult to influence the learning process of large
collectives, but this has occurred before. For example, it took a lot of
suffering in World War I and World War II to transform German society
into becoming less militaristic and less belligerent. While not
politically correct, such a treatment might be the recipe for turning
the Palestinians into peaceful neighbors in the long run.
Moreover, economic aid
to Gaza, as long as Hamas stays in control, strengthens its power and
its grip over the poor Gazans. Allowing continued rule of Hamas, as the
U.S. plans, also undermines the rule of the more moderate Palestinian
Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Indeed the PA criticized the Kerry
cease-fire proposal that favored Hamas.
Yet, this clear
strategic rationale seems to be taken over by sentimentalist responses
to Hamas media manipulation. Instead of using the tough pictures coming
out of Gaza to tell Gazans: "We told you all along that Hamas leadership
would only make things worse" (just as it has in other places where
radical Islamists gain power), Western leaders seem to have foolishly
decided that Gaza should speedily be rebuilt! The U.S. efforts to bribe
Hamas into behaving (while suspending aid to Egypt) are probably against
American laws dealing with terrorist organizations.
Promises of aid send
the wrong signal. It tells Palestinians that their leadership can make
grave, deadly mistakes, and nevertheless gullible Westerners and others
will bail them out. It also signals to Hamas that it can continue
seeking the destruction of Israel and shooting at the Jewish state; for
if Israel repeats its military action, merciful donor states again will
repair the damage.
Diplomats are looking
for formulas that will enable channeling aid to the Gaza Strip bypassing
Hamas. Realistically, there is no way to reconstruct Gaza without
strengthening the Hamas. The reconstruction of Hamastan in Gaza -- an
Iranian base that threatens Israel and many moderate Arab regimes --
makes no strategic sense.
America helped
reconstruct Western Europe and Japan after World War II to make sure
they would be ruled by friendly democratic regimes. Hamas is
authoritarian and anti-Western. Moreover, its rule will doom the Gazans
to continuous poverty and ignorance. It is simply silly to facilitate
the continuation of Hamas rule.
History of humanitarian
aid in the last century shows that outside economic aid is only as good
as the ability of a recipient's economy and government to use it
prudently and productively. Like many Third World countries, Gaza lacks
the legal and institutional infrastructure needed for effective
dispersal of economic aid. Billions of euros transferred to the PA since
the Oslo Accords have been squandered and misused by corruption and
ineptitude. Very little aid filtered down to the people. Therefore, it
is not at all clear that sending more money to the dysfunctional Gaza
will do any good.
From what we know of
the fortunes of the humanitarian aid transferred to the Gazans in recent
years, it is clear that a large proportion of the benefits of the
external aid will be siphoned off to the corrupt Hamas leadership.
Khaled Mashaal, and Mousa Abu Marzouk are evaluated to be billionaires,
while Ismail Haniyeh, is only a millionaire.
Some will be directed
to Hamas activists; and only what is left will go to the destitute.
Those with arms always get the first and best cut from international aid
sent to the suffering. This is what is happening everywhere
international aid is dispensed. Gaza is not different.
Humanitarian aid should
be dispensed judiciously, while making sure that it does not preserve
poverty and dependence. Even the friends of the Palestinian national
movement should realize that it is time for tough love for Gaza.
Professor Efraim Inbar,
director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor
of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle
East Forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment