Why Fund Hamas' Payroll?
The latest example of this phenomenon is the French plan, endorsed by other EU countries, to pay Palestinian Authority (PA) employees out of their own taxpayers' money. This is worth discussing as a terrific symbol of the far less than half-baked notions that so often persuade leaders, intellectuals, and journalists when dealing with the Middle East, and especially regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.
At a meeting of the Quartet--the United States, UN, EU, and Russia--there was agreement in principle to pay PA employees from a trust fund, with EU states developing the details. Let's examine the idea to show both how such major policy initiatives are so wildly illogical and why this kind of thing happens in the first place.
Obviously, I am not talking about such genuinely humanitarian aid as for health and sanitation which should be continued under any circumstances. There is a simple alternative: aid could directly pay the salaries of non-regime personnel such as medical workers, the purchase of needed items like milk or hospital equipment, for financing specific projects, and for helping genuine (not propaganda agency) non-governmental organizations. This constitutes humanitarian aid which is not the same thing as a subsidy for a radical terrorist-sponsoring government. And Hamas will gain no popular credit or increased support from such a strategy.
But the proposal most being talked about is some version of having Western governments pay 160,000 of people over whom it has no control or any way of firing. For example, the Hamas regime has announced a new armed force of about 3,000 of its supporters to counter the Fatah-dominated security services. Presumably, American and European taxpayers would have to pay these Hamas militants as well. Probably, also, they would have no control over the wage levels determined by the PA, which the EU held last year to be too high.
Moreover, the donors would have to pay a list of employees including hundreds of non-existent workers whose salaries are pocketed by PA officials. Among the real civil servants taking regular salaries from Western donations would be teachers, officials, and clerics who tell their students how Israel and the West are demonic, incite or even facilitate terrorism, and advocate genocide. Of course, many of those whose life styles would be supported by Western taxpayers are themselves active terrorists, either for Fatah or Hamas. Among those whose salaries would be paid is Jamal Abu Samhadana, director-general of the Interior Ministry, in charge of Palestinian security forces, who is also directly responsible for the murder of three Americans and ongoing terrorist attacks on Israel.
As reported, the plan has no conditionality. In other words, no matter what these employees do, no matter how badly they perform, no matter what Hamas says, they still get their paychecks. Direct involvement in a terrorist attack would not make someone lose his Western-financed salary. True, the plan might be renewed every few months but now that the Quartet has made it clear it is desperate to ensure the Palestinians' welfare--even if their own leaders put personal greed and extremist ambition as a higher priority--are they going to stop doing so?
Of course, with the West putting up the money, Hamas will be well off. Even if pay is given employees directly, Hamas can claim that its reign is working well and benefit by the higher level of popular satisfaction. The European plan ensures that continued extremism is cost-free. It would also show radical Islamists in Jordan, Egypt, and elsewhere that they can take power, reject moderation, and still not face any real Western pressure.
Vladimir Lenin, the Communist revolutionary and dictator, liked to say the bourgeoisie was so dumb that it would sell the rope to hang itself with. Even he did not expect those he intended to destroy would pay for the rope themselves.
The fact that grown adults, much less national political leaders, could espouse such a plan and have it received as a respectable idea is incredible. The question, then, is why do such absurdities happen?
On the surface, this kind of thing is supposedly motivated by humanitarianism and a desire to promote stability. On the first point, similar sentiments do not seem to affect these same people's judgment regarding any other part of the world. There are easily 80 developing states which receive virtually no aid whose people are arguably worse off than the Palestinians who have been given more money per capita than any other group in history. Why not give aid instead to poor, peaceful, relatively honest Third World regimes trying to promote real development?
There is also no reason to believe that paying the PA payroll will produce any development or broader benefits. It is one thing to subsidize another society if the recipients do something to warrant support but the PA got money only because it agreed to make peace and stop terrorism. Since the PA broke that agreement, the new regime openly rejected it, this leaves zero reason to give it aid.
As for fear that the PA is going to collapse, the PA has been collapsing since its inception. The reason the PA has been in such bad shape is because of the bureaucrats and gunmen--both Fatah and Hamas--who continue to breed anarchy because they put violence ahead of helping their own people. If this PA" collapses" how is that worse than what exists now?
The real underlying motive for wanting to become the paymaster of the PA is a belief that doing things for Palestinians will curry favor with Arabs and Muslims. But Arabs and Muslims themselves don't feel a need to do things for the Palestinians, except to blame their plight on the West. Despite lots of rhetoric, they don't give the Hamas regime much money. In fact, Arab regimes desperately hope Hamas will fail because otherwise they will face far more serious radical Islamist challenges at home by those whose success it inspires toward greater demands and activities.
What is striking about all this is that the supposed list of benefits from backing intransigent Palestinian leaders simply does not make sense. Will such behavior ward off terrorist attacks? (Al-Qaida doesn't care how pro-Palestinian Europeans pretend to be.) Ensure the flow of oil? (The sellers just want the money.) More investment opportunities? (Arab regimes and companies prefer doing business with America since its power and technology are more important to them than its policies.) Appease Muslim immigrants? (But France is the only country that has suffered major riots from this sector.) On examination all of these arguments fall apart.
The problems the Hamas regime is facing show that the pressure is having an effect, the only hope for changing either its policies or the regime itself. Pressure and force are a key part of international affairs. If you don't like force you better like pressure.
The idea that the West should subsidize, directly or indirectly, a radical Islamist, innately anti-American, anti-Semitic, and genocidal-oriented Hamas regime is crazy. Why should anyone--much less any country--take such a notion seriously?
comments powered by Disqus
- Niall Ferguson says it's no surprise Trump's so popular
- Howard Zinn group backs move to "Abolish Columbus Day"
- Ted Widmer appointed director of John W. Kluge Center
- What Historians Are Saying About the First Trump-Clinton Debate
- Princeton professor documents the movement that ended single-sex education at elite schools