[Column] Destructive American financial assistance

Sattar Kassem, professor of Political Science at Al Najah University, Palestine

The Americans always tell everybody around the world that they are the most generous of all states because they extend financial assistance to so many peoples and nations. Statistically, this is true. But is this generosity humanitarian or a vehicle to achieve American interests? Sometimes it is humanitarian, particularly at times of natural disasters or epidemics, but at times of stability it looks to be far away from humanitarianism.

Palestine is an example of utilitarian American financial aid which for the most part and causes harm to both the Palestinians and the Americans. The Americans, together with the Europeans, pledged to extend financial assistance to the Palestinian authority after its establishment in 1994. But it was clear that this help was the price for Palestinian concessions. The Palestinian leadership recognized Israel and decided to coordinate with Israel on every aspect of life, particularly on Israeli security interests, in order to normalize relations and to fight what was labeled as Palestinian terrorism. However, the Americans and their allies decided to pour in money on a monthly basis and due to this, the Palestinian authority now invests in fulfilling Israeli demands.

Although the Americans were furnishing financial support, they dictated several economic policies to the Palestinian Authority. They imposed a free market policy that annexes the impoverished Palestinian economy to the overwhelming Israeli economy. They also brought Palestinian production to a halt and programmed the Palestinians to depend on salaries as the main source of their income. For those who keep up with American international economic policies, these two items are compatible with the American conditions imposed on other countries. The only difference is that economic hegemony in Palestine is Israeli rather than the World Bank’s. It is evident that the Americans try to cripple and paralyze the economy of other states so they will not be able to make independent political decisions, for governments must always think of the reaction of poor people once they get hungry.

The Americans could not hide their attempts at colonization through financial means after Hamas won the latest legislative elections in Palestine. The U.S., together with the Europeans, decided to stop financing the Palestinian Authority unless Hamas commits itself to the accords with Israel, and pledges to honor the concessions made by Arafat. Hamas announced that it can’t betray its voters.

The ethically astounding dichotomy is that the U.S. always insists on democracy as the most suitable for human relations and advancement, but it has been extremely unhappy with the result of the Palestinian elections. It became clear to everybody in the Middle East that the US isn’t actually interested in democracy as a political value in itself, but in a democracy tailored to its interests, and that it is always ready to trade principle for expedience. Consequently, the Americans started to appear less enthusiastic about democracy, and their clients in the area, who have been running institutions that teach people democratic tenets, felt ashamed.

Ethics didn’t deter the Americans, who decided to put the Palestinians under financial siege on the hope that the Hamas government will be toppled. In cooperation with the Israelis, they have been mobilizing the Europeans, many puppet Arab regimes, many Palestinian leaders who belong to Fatah and the Arab banks that have branches in the west Bank and Gaza. The donating countries stopped transferring money to the Palestinian government, the Arab regimes have been responsive to the American policy, the Israelis have been withholding Palestinian money, the Arab banks have been reluctant to transfer large amounts of money, and Fatah leaders have been making daily problems so as confuse the government. As a result, Palestinian governmental employees haven’t been receiving their salaries for the past seven months. They have received some payments from money smuggled by Hamas or money extended to the President of the Authority who isn’t included in the siege.

Under these conditions, so many Palestinians recognized their strategic mistake when they decided to financially depend on others rather than depending on their own sweat.

Now, there is a strike in Palestine. Governmental employees, including education and health personnel, are staying home or demonstrating in the streets. They say that they recognize the pressure the Americans are imposing on Hamas, but they demand a solution for their hunger. The argument is absolutely true, but there is no possibility that the bankrupt government will provide money. The strike might be useful against a government that has a budget, and it is a waste of time against a government whose members are jailed by the Israelis. Many cabinet and legislature members from Hamas have been imprisoned by the Israelis as part of the pressure.

For many observers, this strike has been encouraged by anti-Hamas members in collaboration with the Israelis and the Americans. These Palestinians hope that either the government would resign, or be deposed by the head of the Palestinian Authority. If the Hamas government disappears, the problem of the salaries will be solved, but the problem of the economy will remain there as a sign of Palestine’s humiliating dependency.

The major point here is that U.S. "generosity" is unethical. This American approach is typical in the Arab world, and certainly it produces a reaction. The U.S. shouldn’t be talking about Arab or Muslim terrorism because its policies always pave the way for different antagonistic reactions, among which is violence. Nobody in the Middle East is interested in fighting the U.S. without reason.