Money given to the the PA or to Hamas enables them to be intransigent in negotiations let alone, condones “resistence” and incitement. How can we possibly solve the conflict if the Palestinians are given a blank check and have no need to cut a deal. Ted Belman
In a highly controversial move, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has approved a $147 million economic support package to the Palestinian people despite a hold on these funds by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The move contradicts previous statements from Clinton that she would never send aid to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
“We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority,” Clinton told Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., during a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing in April 2009.
Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, has not met any of these three conditions. Yet, a State Department letter sent Tuesday to key members of Congress alerted them of Clinton’s decision to move forward with the aid package.
The funds deliver “critical support to the Palestinian people and those leaders seeking to combat extremism within their society and build a more stable future. Without funding, our programs risk cancellation,” a State Department official said in an e-mail to the National Journal. “Such an occurrence would undermine the progress that has been made in recent years in building Palestinian institutions and improving stability, security, and economic prospects, which benefits Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who placed the hold on funding to the Palestinians, was angered by Clinton’s challenge to her congressional oversight role.
“The U.S. has given $3 billion in aid to the Palestinians in the last five years alone, and what do we have to show for it?” Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement Wednesday. “Now the administration is sending even more. Where is the accountability for U.S. taxpayer dollars?”
Ros-Lehtinen blocked the aid to stop U.S. funds going to assistance and recovery programs in Hamas-run Gaza; road construction projects in the West Bank that are not vital for security; or trade and tourist promotion.
She was willing to release $88.6 million of the $147 million package under terms spelled out in a letter sent to Clinton and U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Rajiv Shah last month.
But Clinton ignored those recommendations and unilaterally approved the full payment. It’s not the first example of her inconsistency regarding Palestinian governance.
In that 2009 House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing, she changed her tune ever so slightly to indicate that any future Palestinian government would need to meet these conditions and not necessarily Hamas itself.
“U.S. assistance will only be permitted to any power-sharing government in which Hamas participates, if the president certifies that the power-sharing government has met the three principles I just outlined,” she said.
@ the phoenix:
Welcome. One of the things that I derive pleasure from in publishing Israpundit it that it has attracted a very knowledgeable group of commentators that we all can learn from.
Friends of Israel should not object. The more hostile and intransigent the Arabs become, the more impossible it will be for Israel’s politicians to give away the Jewish homeland to them.
This is G-d’s will. In the end every one serves Him, whether or not they realize it. Anything that makes the Arabs even less inclined to make “peace” with Israel in the future is very good news indeed.
Dear Ted,
New to your blog. Love it! For a change, calling a spade a spade.
I know I am preaching to the choir, but as you say on your front page there is NO political solution!
@ Ted Belman:
i AM WITH YOU yAMIT. i DON’T WANT ANY DEAL THAT THE aRABS WILL ACCEPT. mY POINT IS ADDRESSED TO THOSE WHO WISH A DEAL. I am telling them that they are working at cross purposes.
GOOD!!!
GOOD!!: Reinforces my first GOOD!!!
Here you make assumptions that: A-Anybody including Israel wants to solve the conflict. B– A deal is good for us, thus desirable. C- The Arabs would abide by any deal concluded with them. D- Any deal as you call it, would necessarily include Land for piece and probably more interference by foreign interests in our affairs. Why do you imply by your statement that it is what we want and that it would be a good outcome for us?
I say ALL “deals”Over ‘The Land of Israel’ are bad and NO “deals” are good.
Palis intransigence is good as it prevents BB and others from shrinking Israel even more and weakening the very foundations upon what Israel is about, which include Civil, Military and Religious parameters.
There has been no agreement between waring parties ever in history without one side first being defeated in battle or worn down so much that there was little choice but capitulation. We are far from that condition. You do not apparently credit as I do that the aims of Quartet and the peace process are a means for the total destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
If congress blocks funds with specific earmarked purpose how can the Sec of State unblock them unilaterally without the consent of the congressional sub committee? Even if it’s possible why doesn’t same congressional sub committee or another,.. block comparable funds from the dept of State? Not because of the Palis undiserable use of the funds but to protect the power of the people thru congress.
I smell in this election year a lot of posturing by politicians on both sides but in the end it’s all BS. Congress continues to abdicate her powers and responsibilities to the Executive and the Courts. The concept of bal of powers if it ever really existed is today as dead as the American economy.
Israel has no real friends in Congress.
We do not hear of the American Jewish establishment(with few exceptions) expressing any outrage on Clinton’s betrayals. Clinton is true to form by talking one way and acting another. The irony is that more money for the Palestinians will make them MORE hostile to any settlement and that will save Israel from giving away more land. It is the Arabs that save us from the stupidity and corruption of our leaders – at least so far.