Updates

Update from AIJAC

Feb. 4, 2016
Number 02/16 #01

This Update offers two pieces on the situation in Hamas-ruled Gaza – where Hamas openly admits its priority is building tunnels into Israel to facilitate terrorism while internationally-funded rebuilding efforts there remain sluggish. A further piece analyzes the implications of a recent French ultimatum demanding an international peace conference be called to create an Israeli-Palestinian two state resolution, or else Paris will recognise “Palestine” as a state.

The first piece comes from veteran Palestinian affairs reporter Khaled Abu Toameh, who looks at Hamas’ goals and why the organisation continues to place so much emphasis on building terror tunnels. He notes that contrary to popular belief, the tunnels in question – where several Hamas operatives have been killed in collapses in recent weeks – are not intended for smuggling of goods into Gaza, but for infiltrating Israel in service of Hamas’ ongoing goal of liberating “all of Palestine.” Abu Toameh says the tunnel-building, at vast cost in terms of both money and lives, shows that Hamas does not care at all about the welfare of Gazans, and indeed views poverty and unemployment as useful means to recruit them for Jihadist violence. Abu Toameh also discusses the latest Fatah-Hamas reconciliation talks. To read his very knowledgeable commentary, CLICK HERE. Video of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya bragging about Hamas digging tunnels “east of Gaza” – that is, into Israel, for the sake of “Jerusalem” and “al-Aqsa” is here. 

The next piece discusses growing donor weariness in paying for Gaza reconstruction – as evidenced by the large number of donor pledges that are not being fulfilled and likely never will be. Washington Institute research associate Mitchel Hochberg argues that a large part of the problem is that there is an expectation that there will be future military conflicts between Israel and Hamas – as indicated by Hamas’ open preparation for such a conflict noted above – meaning that any large-scale infrastructure built could well be destroyed again in the next round. He notes Israeli security analyst Michael Herzog’s call for Israel and Hamas to jointly declare certain infrastructure off-limits to military use, but expresses doubt it will work. For Hochberg’s fuller exploration of the dilemmas surrounding efforts to reconstruct Gaza, CLICK HERE.

The final piece in this Update is an analysis and critique by Israeli international law expert and former diplomat Amb. Alan Baker of the French ultimatium last Friday, to convene an international conference to create Israeli-Palestinian peace or else Paris “will have to live up to our responsibilities and recognize a Palestinian state.” Baker argues the proposal is not only blatantly counter-productive in threatening, in essence, to give the Palestinians what they want if they do not agree to make peace, but also a violation of French obligations under international law. He notes that France is a signatory witnessing the “1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement”, which forbids changes in the current status of the West Bank and Gaza prior to a negotiated peace deal, yet France intends to directly encourage the Palestinians to violate this key clause by recognising their “state”. For his complete argument, CLICK HERE.

Readers may also be interested in:

• Interestingly, Israeli Opposition Leader Yitzhak Herzog just staged an event designed to call attention to what he argues is insufficient government attention to the developing tunnel threat from Hamas. Discussion of the significance of Herzog’s stance comes from Jonathan Tobin.
• Hamas rolls out a new “tank” to fight Israel – which experts say is a plywood mock-up.
• On Wednesday, there was a major attack in Jerusalem where three armed terrorists – planning to attack groups of Jewish civilians –   were questioned by two female border police officers and opened fire, killing 19-year-old Hadar Cohen and severely wounding the other officer. All three terrorists were then also killed. Israeli commentators  – such as Amos Harel and Yoav Limor – note that this was a very different sort of attack from recent “lone wolf” stabbings, involving firearms, bombs and a well-coordinated group, and may be a sign of things to come.
• Just after the attack, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met with parents of terror perpetrators and called their children “martyrs”. Plus, a poster from Abbas’ Fatah movement hailing as heroes two Palestinians who stabbed two Jewish civilian women, one fatally, in late January.
• Meanwhile, another spokesman for Abbas’ Fatah party said a few days before this attack that the violence, which he called a “popular uprising” has “moral and material support from the Palestinian leadership and from the Fatah movement” and will continue to grow.
• An article detailing the antisemitic and pro-violence material emanating from the clerics at the PA-controlled al-Aqsa mosque. Plus, a collection of the cartoons emanating from the Palestinian media about the supposed Jewish “threat” to the mosque.
• The UN agency UNRWA honours as its official Goodwill Ambassador Mohammad Assaf , a young Palestinian who sings songs about using violence and blood to liberate the land ” from the river to the sea.”
• Controversy over how UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon used Holocaust remembrance day to bash Israel and imply Palestinian terrorism was understandable, if not justified. Interesting reactions to his claims come from Herb Keinon,  Jonathan Tobin and Michael Rubin.
• A report on torture by Palestinian security services. Elliott Abrams comments on the fact that this report got no media coverage.
• Palestinian academic Ali Qleibo reveals the organised crime and corruption which afflict most Palestinian cities
  
• How Arab doctors and other medical workers are pioneering Jewish-Arab integration in Israel.
• Isi Leibler writes that he sees little future for diaspora Jewish communities, and he urges Jews around the world to consider coming home to Israel – and makes some comment on the Australian situation.
• Some examples from the many stories and comments now appearing at AIJAC’s daily “Fresh AIR” blog:
  • Ahron Shapiro on why no one has noticed that Israel has effectively frozen all new approvals for housing in settlements for around 18 months – and indeed many leaders who should know better have claimed the opposite.
  • Sharyn Mittelman on Israel’s growing relationship with Greece and Cyprus – rooted in part in energy cooperation – and the implications for relations with Turkey.
  • Details for seeing Israeli strategic expert and AIJAC guest Prof. Efraim Inbar’s latest talk at the Sydney Institute.

Hamas: The “Merchants of War” Who Seek to Destroy Israel

Back to Top
————————————————————————

Donors Growing Weary of Reconstructing Gaza

Mitchel Hochberg

Jerusalem Review, February 2, 2016

The three Israel-Hamas wars in the last seven years have destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure and housing in Gaza. Hamas launches rockets into Israel to burnish its credentials for violent resistance in the eyes of its public, and Israel retaliates to manage an unacceptable security situation. Some Israelis refer to these wars as efforts to “mow the grass” and prevent Hamas’s terror infrastructure from developing. Yet, while regularly mowing down Hamas’s capabilities, Israel also has set back development and humanitarian efforts.

Despite the risks, many donors recognize that their efforts must continue for humanitarian reasons. Yet ongoing tensions between Hamas and Israel and the promise of future conflict likely make them hesitant to continue providing aid. At the very least, these groups probably would want guarantees — from Hamas and Israel — to avoid targeting projects or using them for cover in the future.

After the last 2014 Gaza War, donor countries promised more than $3.5 billion of humanitarian and development aid, but according to an August 2015 World Bank report, only 35% of promised funds have been delivered. Western donors, including the United States, European Union, and Japan, have given the most aid and almost met their full pledges. Qatar and Turkey, both Hamas supporters, have fulfilled 10% and 29% of their pledges, still high absolute totals, respectively. Finally, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait — aligned against Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood more broadly — have all given less than 13% of their pledges. Egypt did not pledge aid to Gaza and instead has undermined the Gaza economy by closing the Rafah crossing and destroying smuggling tunnels along the Egyptian-Gazan border.

For the Middle Eastern countries, the decision to send aid to Gaza results from political competition. Hamas’s backers eagerly help the group improve living conditions in Gaza to aid an ally and increase its legitimacy, while opposing countries, cautious about bolstering Hamas, limit funds and disburse them through proxies and international organizations such as the United Nations.

Humanitarian concerns rank foremost for Western donors, which helps explain their speedy and full delivery of aid, but several countries have questioned the wisdom of spending more money on projects that Israel later destroys. European diplomats in particular have expressed concern about the destruction of their Gazan — and West Bank — projects and have even debated asking Israel for compensation for destroyed humanitarian efforts. European officials perceive Israeli intransigence as the main obstacle to resolving the conflict and they fear Western aid may unintentionally prolong the Israeli occupation by defraying the costs of occupation. Given that the European Commission estimates that Israel destroyed 29.4 million Euros of European Union and EU member state-funded projects in the West Bank and Gaza from May 2001 to October 2011, it is unsurprising that a Western diplomat reported “considerable donor fatigue” from watching “infrastructure projects that we have contributed to” be destroyed.

Though aid continues to flow, donor wariness has impacted the ability of international organizations to continue raising funds for large development projects and expanded humanitarian work. As Robert Piper, the United Nation’s Deputy Special Coordinator (UNDSC) for the Middle East Peace Process, notes, “[The] possibility that work completed now, could be destroyed later in the event of renewed conflict…makes it more difficult to obtain funding — for the reconstruction of totally destroyed homes, as well as large-scale development projects.”

Piper contrasts ongoing humanitarian work — repairing homes, disbursing food, maintaining educational infrastructure — with bigger efforts such as building new homes, building a 161kv power line for a desalination plant, and converting Gaza’s power plant to natural gas. Donors are abandoning such large-scale projects that seek to invest in the future of Gaza for fears of another conflict. Piper also noted that these same donors limit these projects due to concerns about empowering Hamas and granting the Islamist group construction materials, which could be used to build weapons. In Piper’s view, Palestinian reconciliation that would give the non-violent, Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority a greater role could reassure donors and increase aid.

However, the specter of future war may not discourage donors, but spur them to invest in measures that decrease the chances of conflict. According to Mike Herzog, a retired Israeli brigadier general and fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, donors are “actually motivated to do more to…delay the next round.” In other words, donations that improve Gaza’s quality of life may alter Hamas’s strategic calculus from seeking legitimacy through conflict, to seeking legitimacy through economic prosperity.

Further, Israel has demonstrated willingness to work with the international community in developing Gaza. According to Herzog, Israel does consider the presence of foreign investments when making its targeting decisions and Israel has never cut off water or electricity supplies to Gaza during conflict. Thus, investments in desalination plants or electricity grids have a high chance of lasting through conflict. Herzog holds that investors could work with Israel and Hamas to obtain commitments not to target or militarily use projects before starting constructions. Nevertheless, guaranteeing the safety of an air or seaport would be harder given Israeli concerns on their use for smuggling in military materials.

Yet, guaranteeing any project against Israeli targeting is unlikely. Even if Hamas and Israel both agreed to respect a no-go zone around a desalination plant, Palestinian factions could launch rockets near the site and trigger and Israeli retaliation. The absence of a political deal or even ceasefire between Israel and Hamas also shakes donor confidence. Between this donor wariness and competing urgent priorities, including the civil war in Syria, Western donors and major international organizations remain unlikely to undertake major projects.

Donors continue to fund Gaza’s reconstruction for humanitarian political reasons. Still, the promise of renewed conflict between Israel and Hamas leads donors to shy away from funding the large-scale projects and new housing developments needed to improve and not simply manage living conditions in Gaza. Donor wariness alone does not explain this behavior — the lack of Palestinian reconciliation, competing priorities, and regional politics all matter as well — but without hope of tangible progress, donors will remain hesitant to invest in a failing a project.

Mitchel Hochberg is a research associate at The Washington Institute and a master’s candidate in Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program.

Back to Top
————————————————————————

France’’s Ultimatum to Israel –- Legally Flawed and Politically Imprudent

Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, Feb. 2

On  January 28,  2016, France’’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, in a statement issued after meeting with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, voiced a somewhat curious and ominous warning and threat, directed solely against Israel: If imminent efforts being organized by France to end the deadlock in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians end without result, France intends to “live up to our responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and recognize a Palestinian state.”¹

This curious, unprecedented, biased, and far from friendly ultimatum raises some pertinent legal and diplomatic questions regarding France’’s capacity and standing, both in the context of the Israel-Arab peace process, as well as regarding France’’s “responsibilities” as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

France, as a leading member of the EU, is party to the EU’’s signature as witness to the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.² This agreement constitutes the internationally acknowledged backbone of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

France Undermines the Oslo Accords It Witnessed

The commitments set down in this agreement, to negotiate the permanent status of the territories as well as other central issues such as Jerusalem, borders, settlements and refugees, are solemn Palestinian and Israeli obligations which France, together with its EU partners, as well as the United States, Russia, Egypt, Jordan and Norway are obligated to honor after placing their signatures on the agreement as witnesses.

By the same token, the UN General Assembly in its Resolution A/50/21 of December 4, 1995, supported by France, expressed its full support for the Oslo Accords and the peace negotiation process.³

In its capacity both as a signed witness to the agreement, as well as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is incumbent on France, which voted in favor of the UN resolution endorsing the agreement and the negotiation process, not to attempt to undermine the same agreement and process, nor to prejudge issues that are still open and to be negotiated.

France Prejudges Issues Meant to Be Negotiated

In threatening to unilaterally and arbitrarily recognize a Palestinian state, France is clearly prejudging the issue of the permanent status of the territory, which, as set out in the agreement itself, is a negotiating issue yet to be resolved.  In this context, France and its European colleagues cannot and should not act to undermine the Palestinian obligation set out in the Final Clauses of the agreement, according to which no step will be taken to “change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”⁴

Thus, in acting to unilaterally organize an “international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the solution of two states,” France is attempting both to bypass and undermine a negotiating process called for by the UN in several resolutions since 1967, all supported and endorsed by France.

France is also undermining the various reciprocal commitments between the Palestinian leadership and Israel, including a letter from Yasser Arafat to Yitzhak Rabin dated September 9, 1993, in which Arafat declared that “all outstanding issues relating to the permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”⁵

As such, by engaging in a parallel, un-agreed process with the declared aim of imposing upon one side – Israel – the outcome of an international conference, France is, in fact, acting ultra vires all accepted norms and principles of conflict-resolution. Since all the agreed issues between Israel and the Palestinians, including borders between them, Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, security and cooperation, as well as the permanent status of the territory, require reciprocal negotiation, France cannot deceive itself and the international community into believing that these issues can be imposed arbitrarily by any conference or international or regional organization.

In imposing its ultimatum and threat to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state should France’s efforts to “make happen the solution of two states” fail, France is, in effect, granting the Palestinian side the prerogative not to engage in any bona fide negotiations with Israel, knowing that, in any event, France will unilaterally grant the Palestinians what they are demanding.

As such, this statement by France’’s foreign minister would appear to be the very antithesis of what is to be expected of a respected and responsible permanent member of the Security Council which presumes to “live up to its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council.”

In view of these considerations, France is urged to reconsider this imprudent, irresponsible and damaging position.

Notes

Back to Top