Civil Society

Aid for Terrorists?

By Jennye Greene

Hopefully, the United States has learned a valuable lesson from current international developments: that the world is not static and that it is not dichotomous. Despite what President Bush might say, people (and, by extension, groups) are neither wholly good nor wholly evil. So when the US comes out and declares “War on Terror” and makes funding terrorist organizations the most basic litmus test to separate friend from foe, it comes as no surprise that the US now finds itself in an intractable bind – we cannot send aid to the Palestinian government (as it will most likely be constituted) without falling afoul of anti-terror laws.  Nevertheless, cutting off aid could have exceedingly negative consequences, both for the Palestinians and the American administration.

Firstly, it appears highly doubtful that the withdrawal of aid from the Palestinian government would cause those leaders to lose legitimacy with their constituents and be removed [democratically] from power.  Such a decision would likely be perceived as essentially another form of oppression / collective punishment, a tactic that has thus far served to deepen the cycle of violence.

Secondly, we should not forget that the official aid we are discussing is used to pay the salaries of the 140,000 government employees, one of the most dependable forms of employment. It is the glue holding not only the government bureaucracy and security forces together but, by extension, the economy as well. Without outside funding of some sort, the occupied territories will degenerate even further into chaos.

The US and the international community should instead be giving the new members of the Palestinian government all the available tools needed to administer the territories. Should Hamas fail despite having had the resources, then that is when they will lose legitimacy. Hamas knows that it was elected primarily with a mandate to curb corruption and provide social services. This is evidenced by the public opinion polls in the lead-up to the election, which suggested that the vast majority of Hamas’ vote came in support of their domestic agenda, rather than their foreign policy. Hamas has tacitly acknowledged these polls by respecting an informal one-year cease fire. Therefore, I believe that their government revenues will be used for governing and not to fund terrorist activities as some others have concluded.

Instead, the US has embarked on a reckless course of policy which has already led to several unfavorable outcomes: 1) For the moment, there seems to be a universal call from other members of the Quartet as well as from neighboring Middle Eastern countries, for a wait-and-see approach, a reaction which has successfully isolated America in her attempts to isolate the Palestinians. 2)  It has become apparent that the Palestinians are not as dependent everyone initially imagined on America’s continuing support. Khaled Mashaal, during a visit to Iran, secured Tehran’s financial support for Hamas in the event that Western backing is withdrawn. Saudi Arabia has equally agreed to step in and help fill the gap. And finally, the Muslim Brotherhood has announced a worldwide fundraising campaign to help Hamas’ cause. The last thing that the US wants right now is to provoke greater anti-American solidarity throughout the Muslim world and promote closer ties between Hamas and the other entities concerned.

Unfortunately, the symbolic damage has already been done: Passing a non-binding resolution recommending the US not provide assistance to the PA; sending Condoleeza Rice on a five day Middle East tour to drum up support for withholding all official aid; asking the Palestinian government to give back an estimated 50 million dollars it had already received; not opposing Israel’s decision to withhold another 50 million in tax revenues that rightly belong to the PA. Despite these sensationally offensive mistakes, we must hope that America will uncover some plan for damage control, to keep the nascent Palestinian State intact and afloat.

Everyone seems convinced that charitable aid should continue to flow as long as it bypasses the hands of a Hamas-led government. Suggestions to this end appear far-fetched, and have included setting up an international body to distribute the money directly to Palestinians and development projects. This will only lead to more inefficient bureaucracy and corruption. Ironically, an undeniable factor in catapulting Hamas to prominence has been their uncanny ability to provide social services under difficult circumstances.

What is more important, helping to fund the non-violent endeavors of Palestinian government or making sure that not a single “official” dollar is ever used to plot a terrorist activity? I think if we were able to trace the history of every dollar that has ever been used to finance terrorism in the world we would again be surprised to find out that the story is not so simple. Besides, if the leaders of Hamas are really determined to continue their campaign of violence against the Israelis, will it really be the lack of financial aid from the United States that is likely to hinder them?

I firmly believe that the more effectively they are able to provide social services and establish institutional stability, the less demand there will be for violence against the Israelis. I’m also convinced that Palestinians don’t need charity right now so much as strong institutions and capacity-building. What sense does it make to increase charitable spending in order to bypass Hamas, while doing nothing to strengthen the institutional framework of the state? Spoon-feeding only teaches us the shape of the spoon. So let’s not take one objective and call it something else.

For example, the Bush Administration should have never pushed for democracy if that’s not what they really meant. What they really wanted was for stable, institutionalized liberal democracy to take root in the Middle East. But saying that would have implied not putting the cart before the horse, or the ballot box before the institutional and cultural factors. As proponents of democracy, we obviously have to care not about a single outcome but the social machinery that will perpetuate the tradition of democracy.

Thus it appears as if we are forced to make the unenviable choice between two different instances of hypocrisy; either we are hypocrites pushing for a democracy we weren’t prepared to accept, or we are hypocrites funding terrorist organizations. This is a dilemma borne of the tendency to oversimplify, define imprecisely, and see the world as being either black or white, i.e. all democracy is good all the time and all organizations espousing terrorist principles are evil in every circumstance.

Everyone’s is familiar with the adage “the best way to defeat an enemy is to make him a friend.” Paradoxical as it may seem, in such a complex and dynamic world, perhaps the best way to conquer the “terrorists” in this instance may be to fund them.