 |
Norway and Palestine |
 |
In a departure from EU and US policy toward the Hamas-led Palestinian administration, Norway has resumed direct aid to Palestine.
"We hope our contribution will help to alleviate the current social crisis in the Palestinian Territory, particularly for the many extended families with only one breadwinner," said Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere.
"The critical situation in Gaza has many causes, but it has been exacerbated by social destitution and despair. It is therefore particularly important that the Palestinian authorities receive financial support from the international community," he said.
Poverty in Palestine is dire, and is getting worse.
Seven out of 10 households in the occupied Palestinian territories, or about 2.4 million Palestinians, are living in poverty.
Of course, Palestinian poverty is not only a humanitarian issue, but a political one. Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist is a major stumbling block in negotiations for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement; by cutting off aid, the US and the EU hope to strangle off support for Hamas, leaving it no role in deciding the future of Palestine.
So is Norway wrong to interfere - to, in effect, undermine the US and the EU (of which it is not a member)?
From a moral standpoint, my answer is no: poor people deserve help. And from a political perspective, Norway is not alone in the belief that there is more than one way out of the stalemate in Israel-Palestine; two days ago an independent UN human rights investigator urged the Mideast Quartet (UN, US, EU, Russia) to recognize the Hamas ministers in the Palestinian unity government. The politics of the region are terribly complex; yet one is tempted to ask whether money and diplomacy are the two edges of the sword that could slice through the Gordian Knot.
The whole discussion, of course, takes on a different character if we treat the political and the humanitarian issues as being intrinsically linked. Why does Hamas exist, and why has it survived as a major - perhaps THE major - Palestinian movement for 20 years? The answer in part is that Hamas is fueled by the desperation that exists in Palestine. This, in turn, suggests that the worse things become for Palestinians, the more recruits and supporters Hamas will find, especially as distrust for Israel and major Western powers increases in the face of attacks and sanctions. Hamas will be around for some time to come, it seems. And ironically, perhaps much of the movement's radicalism could be defused by forcing it to participate in serious international negotiations - taking on more responsibility, instead of just criticizing from the margins, could either force Hamas to "go legit" or could discredit it in the eyes of ordinary Palestinians. Meanwhile, allowing poverty to fester and shutting Hamas out of all international discussions might end up making things worse instead of better.
Not all problems can be solved with money, and there are hatreds that would still simmer even if Palestine was suddenly flooded with wealth. But Norway's approach might yield more good than that of the US. In any case, let's hope that Norwegian aid helps to alleviate some of the individual human tragedies that make up the greater Israel-Palestine tragedy, one whose toll has only increased since the Oslo Accords of 1993, another famous time when Scandinavians tried to help the Middle East.
In place of stonewalling, I think the U.S. would be wise to engage Hamas, as you suggested. Right now the sanctions are intended to force out a democratically elected government, albeit one that views an ally with the utmost hostility, by indirectly but assuredly inflicting suffering upon the population. Desperation is not known to lead to the clearest thinking, and the most sensible of actions. That's common sense.
Engaging Hamas treats the population with respect, and also forces the government to act like a government, not like fringe extremists. In addition, it has the potential of transforming the group into a much more reasonable, pacific version of itself. Even if the current plan succeeds, you're still left with an operational Hamas that reports to no one. The diplomatic route eliminates that potential result.
I agree on the money issue. It seems like common sense to me that the worse things get economically, the easier it is to recruit desperate Palestinians for terrorism. I'd love to see some sort of study on that, comparing terrorist attacks or even recruitment rates with economic collapse.
That said, I'm not sure that by engaging Hamas they would suddenly begin acting like a responsible government. There are far too many examples of two-faced governments, even in the 1st world. I don't see why they couldn't say one thing at the negotiating table and then do another in the streets. However, cutting off diplomatic ties does nothing, and cutting off aid makes the situation worse. In my mind, if you want to make Hamas into a respectable political party (and I think we must view them as a wanted government, as they were indeed elected by the people), then we need to mix carrots and sticks. Offer non-monetary aid to combat destitution (food, medical, etc…), and offer monetary incentives to come to the negotiating table and abandon some of the more divisive of their policies. If we can show them that we are willing to work with them AND show them what they stand to gain from working with us, maybe there is a chance there.
Of course, Isreal is going to play a big role here, and I have yet to see some real commitment to a solution from them in a while…
Of course. But what I was trying to say was that if you treat Hamas like everybody else, they'll become like everybody else, and their popularity will start to diminish.
This isn't my original idea - analysts said this about Algerian Islamists in 1992. When the Islamists won an election, the military halted the election, and there was civil war. The Islamists and their supporters were radicalized even further. But if they would have taken power, they would have revealed that they had the same limitations and faults as other governments, and their special status would have disappeared. Opposition groups can say whatever they like when they have no power, because they have no responsibility. Give them a chance to participate in the headaches of real governance and see how quickly their rhetoric changes.
Or I could be totally wrong - but it's worth thinking about, I say. At any rate, treating them like lepers seems bound to fail.
Agreed. There is no excuse for an absolute lack of negotiation. Of course, when selling this idea to the public, the finer points of diplomacy are lost. All that comes out is we are talking with terrorists, which is of course silly, because the terrorists have become the elected government in some sense. Again, carrots and sticks. Accountability is important, and I believe there should be pressure on Hamas to recognize Isreal and disarm. But, all sticks and no carrot leaves them as outsiders, and as you said, beholden to nobody.
I see no one here mentioning the issue of where this money will go…has Norway considered this? Does the Norwegian Government think it is so easy to deliver "aid" money directly to the poor and destitute who need it so much? I suspect that a good deal of this aid money will simply end up in the hands of Hamas, and specifically their military wing. It will be used to buy more weapons and prolong a conflict that needs to end. How to end it? I don't know, but I can tell you that many people have been giving aid to the Palestinians for a long time and internal corruption usually siphons off a big chunk of that aid.
Aaron, I neglected to mention where the money is going because that information is included in the original BBC story. The money will be going to pay the salaries of Palestinian civil servants - partially with an eye to making sure money gets in the hands of heads of households.
With that said, your larger point is certainly, and sadly, true - aid money is all too often siphoned away through corruption.
But perhaps Norway has considered that problem as well, and has taken steps to make sure their aid dollars aren't just buying more guns.
Are you talking with "terrorists" if you talk to Hamas representatives at the negotiating table? The British press in the 1940s described %u201CHebrew fighters%u201D in Palestine as %u201Cterrorists and thugs%u201D. The fighters for Zionism were fighting against the British Mandate in Palestine, the British being obstacles to their dream of occupying the %u2018Holy Land%u2019. What is your freedom fighter is my terrorist, or vice-versa. As in every government, no doubt there are people of integrity within Hamas with a genuine commitment to working for the people and others who are corrupted by power etc etc. Add to this the distorting effect war can have on human behavior and the mix within any political group in the Israel Palestine arena is not quite like the mix sitting in a parliament of a Western democracy.