>From the ELCA Middle East Networking List...
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) highlights foreign aid in its
September newsletter. CMEP is our ecumenical partner for advocacy in
Washington, D.C.
September 7, 2005
CMEP Newsletter on Foreign Aid Debate
The September CMEP newsletter, which has been received by those on CMEP's
postal network, focuses on the changing debate on foreign aid to Israel and
to the Palestinians. With the Katrina disaster foremost on the minds of
legislators, Israel's request for a special "post-disengagement" aid package
is now expected to be postponed and is likely to be attached to a later
supplemental that includes the Iraq war. CMEP suggests you delay contacting
your Representative and Senators until we notify you about timely advocacy
opportunities.
The New Debate on Foreign Aid to Israel and the Palestinians
By Corinne Whitlatch, Executive Director
~ September 2005 ~
Everyone in the United States pays taxes and most taxpayers have strongly
held opinions on foreign aid. But there is a misconception about the amount
of foreign aid the United States actually provides. In fact, in 2004,
foreign aid (both economic and military, but not including Iraq war costs)
was a scant 0.9 percent of the U.S. Federal Budget. Nevertheless, some
constituents complain that foreign aid is a squandering of tax dollars which
should be spent on Americans. Others appeal for increases to help the
world's poorest people, victims of disaster and disease, or to benefit women
and children. Some would deny foreign aid to those who do, or don't do,
certain things.
While foreign aid has become a key component of U.S. foreign policy, those
elected to the House and Senate continue to favor appropriating monies that
flow to their states and constituents. The members of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, particularly the 15 Representatives and 17
Senators on the Foreign Operations subcommittees, are the ones who act on
the Administration's budget request and shape the foreign aid bill that goes
to the floor. Still, all Representatives and Senators have a role in
influencing the appropriation process by means of non-binding resolutions,
"Dear Colleague" letters, floor remarks, amendments from the floor and
informal conversations.
Support for the foreign aid bill is strong among pro-Israel advocates.
Constituents have let their elected officials know they want the U.S. to
provide economic and military assistance to Israel and to vote yes on the
foreign aid bill. It is a cliché among the Washington staff of development
organizations, who seek funding for many countries and causes, that support
for aid to Israel drives the train of foreign aid. So, there has been little
opposition in Washington to the roughly 38 percent of total foreign aid that
goes to the Middle East, 93 percent of which goes to Egypt and Israel.
With the 2005 advent of President Bush's active engagement, following the
election of President Abbas and Israel's decision to disengage from Gaza,
appropriators are facing requests for supplemental foreign aid, over and
above the "regular" amounts, for both the Palestinians and Israel. With the
disengagement plan in play, Israel is reportedly requesting a special aid
package of a whopping $2 billion in some, as-yet unknown, combination of
grants, loans, and loan guarantees.
The White House has new opportunities for using this aid to Israel as a
foreign policy tool as it prepares a funding request for Congress. Both
citizen and congressional supporters of Israeli-Palestinian peace will have
to work hard to guarantee that the funds are used to support steps toward
the two-state solution and peace.
New Aid to New Leadership
The U.S. is the single largest contributor of assistance to the Palestinian
people, a fact not widely known. The U.S. has been giving an average of
about $85 million per year in foreign aid to the Palestinians since the
signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Most of the aid has been channeled
through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to contractors
and private voluntary organizations. [Outside of regular foreign aid, the
U.S. has provided funds to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA)
since 1950 and is also the largest donor to this U.N. program for
Palestinian refugees.]
U.S. aid to the Palestinians has more restrictions than does any other aid
program, including a ban on direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. The law
does allow the President to waive that prohibition by certifying that it is
in the national security interest of the U.S. to do so. Aid has been given
to the Palestinian Authority (PA): $36 million in FY1994, $20 million in
FY2003, $20 million in FY2004, and in May of this year the President
announced he will provide $50 million in direct aid, which will be drawn
from remaining FY2005 funds.
The President announced in his 2005 State of the Union Address that he would
provide $350 million to the Palestinians, a substantial increase from
previous years, to support Palestinian reforms and further his two-state
vision. The battle for this aid began almost immediately, with the FY2005
Supplemental Funding Request becoming a playground for anti-Palestinian
action. Many Members of Congress had a difficult time grasping the new
opportunity for peace that had emerged and failed to adapt to the changing
situation. As Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) explained when asked about efforts
to condition this aid package, "If you want to ensure that there will not be
a peace process, then you attach enough strings [to the aid package] that
you strangle the process."
By the time the dust had cleared, the aid package to the Palestinians had
been slapped with excessive restrictions and conditions that went far beyond
the transparency and accountability measures present when Arafat was in
charge, including language that a Presidential waiver not be used to give
aid to the Palestinian Authority.
After Congressional manipulations that earmarked $52 million for Israel's
use and $5 million for an extra audit, the Palestinians will receive $143
million of the $200 million initially promised in the Supplemental, with
every dollar of this assistance earmarked, by Congress, for specific
programs. Additionally, the Administration raised the "regular" foreign aid
to West Bank/Gaza to $150 million, up from $75 million.
Outdated Zero Sum Game
Despite significant American-Jewish support for this new aid to the
Palestinians, many Members of Congress were still under the impression, as
M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum observed, "that humiliating Abbas
and the Palestinians helps Israel. For them Israel and Palestine is a zero
sum game: help one, hurt the other. They could not be more wrong."
Fortunately, some Members of Congress understood the President's wisdom in
seizing the moment to bolster peace through additional aid to the
Palestinians. Sen. Frist (R-TN), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Lamar
Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) and Rep.
Barney Frank (D-MA) are among those that have spoken in support of
Palestinian aid.
A recent World Bank report warns of "the potential disintegration of the
Palestinian economy." U.S. aid to the Palestinians can provide tangible
economic help, such as building housing that reawakens hope of a better
future with President Abbas at the helm of the Palestinian government. As
Assistant Secretary of State David Welch recently testified in a House
hearing, U.S. aid to the Palestinians "supports President Abbas," "helps
ensure Israel's long-term security" and is a "very important component" of
advancing the key U.S. policy goal of a two-state solution to the conflict.
Carrot or Caviar?
The annual economic aid to Israel that is earmarked in the foreign
operations bill, $240 million in the FY2006 budget, is given as a cash grant
without conditions or accountability, other than the law that prohibits US.
aid being spent in the occupied territories. The bulk of Israel's annual
foreign aid package is for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) which is
intended to sell U.S. goods and services. About 25 percent of the $2.28
billion in FMF for Israel in FY2006 can be used for purchases within Israel.
Common sense would lead one to think that ending or cutting foreign aid to
Israel would change its behavior. If the U.S. would just use the leverage it
has, in providing an annual hefty foreign aid package, it is argued, then
Israel would be compelled to stop settlement building and would end the
occupation. Or, if the President would just threaten to cut the amount of
the aid, surely Israel's leaders would do what the President asks. The flaws
in the logic lie in the "if" and the "why."
First, the "if:" It is NOT going to happen; at least not in any public way
by a Presidential statement or in legislation. Then, the "why" it is not
going to happen. The political commitment to providing the "aid package" to
Israel, which was designed to fortify the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Camp David
Peace Treaty, is entrenched. It is synonymous with supporting the existence
of Israel. For a legislator, or an advocate, to call for cutting or ending
aid to Israel as a punitive or pressure tactic, is considered tantamount to
calling for the destruction of Israel and is seen as political suicide.
This phenomenon is only partly explained as the result of decades of savvy
lobbying by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the powerful
pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and Jewish activism in political campaigns.
Many Americans, politicians as well as ordinary people, know of the
historical plight of Jews and have internalized the pledge of "never again."
Calling for an end of aid to Israel is widely viewed as a threat to Israel's
survival, and therefore, morally wrong.
Keep Your Eye on the Ball
To the contrary, most of those who call for cutting aid to Israel do so as a
strategy to transform the conflict, making it possible for a viable
Palestinian state to be created that would exist side-by-side Israel. But
frustration is high. Presidents and peace activists have appealed to Israel
for decades to stop building settlements on Palestinian land, only to watch
infrastructure and housing spread out on confiscated land. During recent
years, by building a separation barrier, Israel has strengthened its hold on
some of the best of the West Bank land.
Nevertheless, the actual goal - moving Israel toward peacemaking - must be
kept in mind. Israel's self-identity as an isolated and beleaguered state,
having faced hostility since its founding, must be replaced by a confidence
among Israelis and their defenders that peace is possible. With careful
shaping of incentives and monitoring, the special aid request could foster a
readiness in Israel to make the compromises necessary for negotiated
agreements.
A Friend in Deed
There IS a growing awareness that if Israel does not end the occupation
soon, the opportunity for a two-state solution will be lost, along with the
recognition and security it could gain through a negotiated peace. Israel's
political scene has shifted steadily toward the right, with the settler
movement and religious hard-liners now vehemently resisting P.M. Sharon's
withdrawal from Gaza. Much to the chagrin of Israel's peace advocates,
Israel's political will to be a partner for peace seems to have weakened at
a time when the readiness of the Palestinians has increased and the Bush
Administration has taken leadership. Meanwhile, Israel's government and
settler movement have entrenched their hold on key areas of the West Bank.
The Administration has chastised Israel in remarkably strong terms.
Secretary of State Rice reportedly said to Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan
Shalom in June, "It is not possible to operate in the territories in a
manner that will change the situation before discussions on final
status...We cannot sanction creating a new reality on the ground by actions
that continue today. I mean by this those activities in Jerusalem and its
environs..."
By backing its words with actions, the Administration can persuade Israel's
leaders that its actions and policies need to be conducive to the
establishment of a viable Palestinian state, which requires territorial
contiguity on the West Bank and with East Jerusalem. The United States can,
and should, require that all special aid given to Israel, such as the
anticipated request for costs related to the disengagement, be used in an
effective and responsible manner that is consistent with the U.S.
government's policy goals.
The need for transparency in how Israel spends financial aid is revealed by
an official Israeli inquiry on outposts and settlement expansion
expenditures. The Sasson Report concluded that outposts have received
"massive financing by the State of Israel, with no appropriate
transparency." P.M. Sharon has promised to remove outposts, as required by
the Road Map, yet the Ministry of Construction and Housing "pumped millions
of dollars into the outposts through a system of winks and nods that
shredded the rule of law," writes Dror Etkes, director of Peace Now's
Settlement Watch project. The Israel newspaper Haaretz investigated
settlement funding in 2003 and concluded: "One of the most closely guarded
secrets in Israel is the amount of funding that is channeled to the
settlements."
Advocacy Action
There are two aid related issues on the front burner:
1.) The reluctance of Congress to go along with the President's will to
provide aid directly to the Palestinian Authority.
2.) Israel's request for an additional $2 billion in special aid for the
disengagement plan. Advocacy with your Representative and Senators, and to
the Administration, is needed.
To contact the Administration, call the White House Comment Line at
202-456-1111. To talk to or leave a message for congressional foreign
policy aides, call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, or, if you
have developed a relationship, send them a brief email. If time allows, a
handwritten letter is considered the most effective. CMEP's Email Network
will keep you informed. (Sign up at www.cmep.org)
With the Supplemental completed and the Foreign Aid bill approved by both
the House and Senate, we wait for the next legislative opportunity to
advocate in support of direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. In an
article in USA Today entitled, "Frist: Double the Funding for Palestinians,"
Sen. Frist said, "We must look ahead and make sure President Abbas has the
means to do his part to make peace in the Middle East a real possibility."
Israel's request for special aid is at the White House and is expected to be
brought to Congress in September. While details are not public at the time
of this writing, it is expected that the special aid will be spread over a
few years and include a mix of grants, loans and loan guarantees. Make these
points in your advocacy.
1. The Supplemental "disengagement" aid to Israel must be used only for
specific projects that are consistent with U.S. policy and monitored to
assure transparency and accountability - as is required for other aid.
2. The U.S. should direct some of the special aid to building a safe passage
route that connects the West Bank with Gaza and the construction of a rail
spur between Gaza and the Israeli port, while the Gaza port is under
construction.
3. The United States should condition special funds - grants, loans and loan
guarantees - on Israel's compliance with its Road Map obligations, such as
removal of outposts.
4. Provision of special aid should include a clear statement of the U.S.
policy that the border and Jerusalem's status must be determined by final
status negotiations. The legislation should require a report on Israel's
funding of projects that prejudge borders and the status of Jerusalem, such
as settlement activity and the building of the separation barrier beyond the
Green Line.
5. Express your appreciation for the aid to the Palestinians that has
already passed in the Supplemental and the FY2006 Foreign Aid Bill. Ask your
Members of Congress to support providing direct aid to the Palestinian
Authority when the President requests it. A well-functioning PA that is able
to improve economic conditions and enact political and security reforms will
enhance Israel's security as well.
-----------------------------------------------------
Formed in 1984, Churches for Middle East Peace is a Washington-based program
of the Alliance of Baptists, American Friends Service Committee, Antiochian
Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Armenian Orthodox Church, Catholic
Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutes, Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ), Church of the Brethren, Church World Service,
Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Franciscan Friars
OFM (English Speaking Conference, JPIC Council), Friends Committee on
National Legislation, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Maryknoll
Missioners, Mennonite Central Committee, National Council of Churches,
Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in America, Unitarian
Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist
Church (GBCS & GBGM) . For further information, see www.cmep.org on the
web.
Churches for Middle East Peace
110 Maryland Ave NE, #311
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone (202) 543-1222
www.cmep.org
---- ---- ---- ----
If you have received this bulletin directly from us, it is because you
subscribed to the ELCA Middle East Networking List. Please forward this
bulletin to others who are interested in a just peace for Palestine and
Israel.
To Join (or Leave) this List, go to www.elca.org/middleeast on the web.
Ann Hafften
Coordinator for Middle East Networking
Division for Global Mission, ELCA
800-638-3522, ext. 6466
www.elca.org/peacenotwalls
---End of Forwarded Article---
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "VTJP" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
