Soccer Dad: We wouldn't want that money getting into the wrong hands

June 20, 2007

We wouldn't want that money getting into the wrong hands

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice answered the following questions the other day:

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, how will you ensure that the money that goes to the Palestinians in Gaza gets to the people and isn't siphoned off by Hamas since you obviously have no one there to supervise that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we have some experience, of course, working with UN relief agencies and with nongovernmental agencies and we will work through UNRWA in this regard. Obviously, it will be very important and we will do everything that we can to make certain that the monies get to the Palestinian people. But we have a long history of working through agencies of this kind. It's been some time since we had a presence in Gaza in any case. And so we will use many of the same goals -- I would hope that -- as many of the same means. I would certainly hope that the -- that people in Gaza would understand that it is important for the international community to be able to respond to the humanitarian conditions there.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, Fatah leaders have been corrupt in the past. By resuming aid, do you think that there's a danger that you're propping up a system and leaders that have been proved to be corrupt and a system that has been proved in the past not to work?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, we have been very strong advocates of political reform in the Palestinian political space, including Fatah reform. And that needs to proceed and I'm certain that it will, but I think if you look at this government and particularly, if you look at its prime minister, you see someone who has a reputation for integrity, who has a reputation for having accountability.

I remember when he was finance minister even under the old government when Yasser Arafat was still in power. He was the one who went forward to try and publish the budget on the internet so that people could see transparently what was being spent by the Palestinian Authority. So this is someone who has a reputation for integrity, and I think can be relied on with appropriate controls and appropriate authorities to make certain that funding is used for the good of the Palestinian people.

She makes it clear that making sure that the money gets to Fatah is essential to the success of her Middle East plan. The editors of the Washington Post are doubtful this will be successful. In A Bet on Mr. Abbas they write:

While it's worth trying to bolster Mahmoud Abbas and his new government, the idea that the Palestinian president can create a strong new administration in the West Bank or vanquish the rival Hamas movement is probably wishful thinking.

Mr. Abbas has established himself in recent years as a moderate who supports a two-state peace settlement with Israel. He also has shown himself to be incapable of controlling the armed gangs in his own Fatah movement or purging the Palestinian Authority of rampant corruption and malfeasance. While the new government Mr. Abbas appointed last week -- in probable violation of Palestinian law -- is composed mostly of technocrats, men such as Salam Fayyad (Mr. Bush's "good fellow") are more popular in Washington than in the Palestinian territories. The embrace of Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert will lower rather than raise their standing among Palestinians unless they quickly deliver results.

Mostly they don't think giving him money will work because he's not strong enough. (See Israel Matzav who makes the argument that he's no moderate either.)

Michael Oren writing in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription only) argues, on the other hand that Fatah isn't the Answer. In a couple of sentences he gives Fatah's dismal historical record:

In view of its performance over the past 14 years, the Palestinian Authority under Fatah can be counted on to squander most or all of the vast sums now being given to it by the U.S. and the international community. More gunmen will be hired and better weapons procured, but in the absence of a unified command and a leadership worth fighting for, PA soldiers will perform no more credibly than they did in Gaza. Mr. Abbas will continue to denounce terror while ignoring the terrorist units within his own organization, while PA imams will persist in preaching their jihadist sermons.

I guess he doesn't share Secretary Rice's optimism. (More proof that Oren is right.)

But Oren doesn't stop with just saying what not to do, he also provides a suggestion of what to do.

The U.S., together with its Quartet partners, can work to establish areas of extensive Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank. Within these districts, local Palestinian leaders will be fully empowered to manage all aspects of daily life including health, education and resource management. A national assembly, comprised of representatives from each district, will meet regularly to deliberate issues of West Bank-wide concern. Security, however, will be jointly administered by Israel and Jordan. The Jordanian involvement is crucial to convincing Palestinians that the status quo of occupation has ended and they may in the future assume full responsibility for their internal defense. Such an arrangement will benefit Jordan as well, by facilitating its efforts to fight radicalism and stem the flight of Palestinians over its borders.

This doesn't sound entirely unreasonable. It also sounds familiar.

In the early 1980's then PM Menachem Begin hired a professor, Menachem Millson as civilian administrator of the disputed areas. Prof. Millson attempted to create "village leagues," self governing councils with which Israel would interact, with the goal of bypassing the authority of the Fatah affiliated mayors.

For his troubles, Millson was disparaged and vilified. (One NYT columnist described him as "growing horns.") That was because, of course, Millson didn't view Fatah as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". But Millson was correct, Fatah, then as now, was part of the problem not the solution. The experiment with village leagues didn't last long as Millson resigned over differences with Begin regarding the Lebanon War in 1982. (There are those who now argue that the village league concept was the precursor to Hamas. It may have been an inspiration for the founders of Hamas, but those who were appointed to the village leagues were not Islamists.)

Meanwhile the NY Times has given a spokesman for Hamas, Ahmed Yousef the prime real estate of an op-ed column to tell us What Hamas Wants He goes over the Hamas record

From the day Hamas won the general elections in 2006 it offered Fatah the chance of joining forces and forming a unity government. It tried to engage the international community to explain its platform for peace. It has consistently offered a 10-year cease-fire with the Israelis to try to create an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences. Hamas even adhered to a unilateral cease-fire for 18 months in an effort to normalize the situation on the ground. None of these points appear to have been recognized in the press coverage of the last few days.

A 10 year cease fire, and after that what? "Resolving ... differences" sounds rather positive. The problem is that "resolving" involves dissolving Israel. Exactly what does Israel have to gain by such a ceasefire? After all, it is then just waiting for Hamas to gain strength so that it may seek Israel's dissolution, by force.

And about that 18 month ceasefire. False.

Why did the Times give this guy op-ed space?

fatah, hamas, terrorism, israel.