Palestinian
Issue Riddles
Bush's 2005 Budget
By Sam Bahour
www.countercurrents.org
20 February, 2004
"The President shall from time to time give to Congress information
of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such
measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." - Article
II, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution
In
his January 20, 2004 State of the Union speech President Bush was criticized
for not even mentioning the plight of the Palestinians. President Bush
completely ignored the blatant Israeli policy of human rights violations
that the Israel military occupation has sustained against the Palestinians
for decades now. Furthermore, he surprisingly dropped from his speech
any mention of how he envisions to constructively involve the US toward
a just solution to this conflict. One can only assume that President
Bush views that addressing the violence-riddled, Palestinian-Israeli
conflict is neither "necessary" nor "expedient."
The same cannot
be said for his proposed $2.4 trillion Budget of the United States Government
for Fiscal Year 2005, which was transmitted to Congress on February
2, 2004 and covers the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2004. The budget
is planned to be brought to the floor of both the House and Senate between
July 1 and September 30 and is riddled with references to the Palestinian
issue.
The references to
Palestinians in the budget are many and repetitive. Not only has the
Bush Administration failed in realistically engaging the issue toward
a peaceful resolution, but, viewed through the proposed budget, President
Bush has totally adopted the state line of Israel on almost every account.
Bottom line, the Israeli military campaign against Palestinians will
continue and the US taxpayer is knowingly, or otherwise, footing the
bill.
With so many recently
failed US-sponsored efforts to jumpstart the peace process -- Mitchell
Report, Tenant Plan, Roadmap -- not to mention the dozen other past
initiatives that have been consigned to the trash bins of history, one
can understand why the Palestinian issue is on President Bush's mind.
President Bush may prefer to remain silent on Palestine in public statements,
such as the State of the Union speech, but he has definitely taken sides
-- or should I say more accurately, continues to follow the historically
failed path of US policy on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This failed
US policy is what has brought us to where we are today.
President Bush's
proposed budget comprises of a four-volume set of documents[1]:
Budget of the United States Government, contains the Budget Message
of the President, information on the President's budget and management
priorities, and budget overviews organized by agency, including assessments
of their performance.
Analytical Perspectives, contains analyses that are designed
to highlight specified subject areas or provide other significant presentations
of budget data that place the budget in perspective.
Historical Tables, provides data on budget receipts, outlays,
surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an
extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2009; and
Appendix, contains detailed information on the various appropriations
and funds that constitute the budget and is designed primarily for the
use of the Appropriations Committee.
The first document
that states the budget message and priorities of the President fails
to mention Palestine. This is the part of the budget that is most often
read and referred to. The only document that delves into the Palestinian
issue is the most detailed volume of them all, the Appendix. The Appendix
is where the Appropriations Committee takes its detailed direction and,
as can be read, the US has no intention, budget-wise at least, of moving
out of the current Palestinian-Israeli stalemate. Just the opposite,
the proposed budget represents a non-policy by reverting any serious
spending to two persons only, the President and the Secretary of State.
In essence, the US policy toward the Palestinians will be defined by
the lobbying group that can convince these two men, alone. And when
either is convinced, they will need to jump through hoops to allow funds
to be used to support the Palestinians, and even then, their decision
to assist will only be for a limited period of time and will automatically
expire.
Department of
State
The two parts of
the Appendix part of the budget that Palestinians are referenced in
are the Department of State and International Assistance Programs chapters.
In the Department of State chapter there are only two items, both interesting.
The first, under subtitle, "Migration and Refugee Assistance,"
proposes $731,000,000 to be spent to meet refugee and migration needs
worldwide. Interestingly, in explaining one of the programs, Overseas
Assistance, it is written,
"This program
addresses the protection and assistance needs of refugees, migrants
and conflict victims worldwide. Funds are used primarily to support
the programs of international organizations, including the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the International Organization
for Migration, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, as
well as nongovernmental organizations. When possible, funds are used
to resolve refugee situations through repatriation or local integration."
One could infer
from this support that the US provides explicit support to the Palestinians
that were made refugees in 1948 when Israel was created causing nearly
one million Palestinians to be made homeless. The mentioned international
organization, The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), explains its origins as follows,
"Following
the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established
by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December
1949 to carry out direct relief and works programmes for Palestine refugees.
The Agency began operations on 1 May 1950. In the absence of a solution
to the Palestine refugee problem, the General Assembly has repeatedly
renewed UNRWA's mandate, most recently extending it until 30 June 2005."
(http://www.un.org/unrwa/overview/)
Ironically, in this
same budget section it states,
"That
not less than $50,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading
shall be made available for refugees from the former Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe and other refugees resettling in Israel."
and the mechanism
to disburse these fifty million dollars is stated as follows,
"Humanitarian Migrants to Israel -- These funds provide a grant
to the United Israel Appeal to assist Jewish humanitarian migrants resettling
in Israel."
This is rather disturbing.
Whereas the entire world's refugees are supported in the US budget by
way of international organizations, the Jewish-only migrants settling
in Israel are provided for by funds allocated to The United Israel Appeal,
which is an arm of the United Jewish Communities and is a US registered
tax-deductible organization. If the US is so interested in settling
refugees in Israel, these funds would be better spent by finding creative
ways to get Israel to absorb the native Palestinian refugees that were
made homeless when Israel was created and who have been sentenced to
the horrid life of refugees ever since. Additionally, supporting the
return home of Palestinian refuges would remove one of the stubborn
obstacles to a lasting peace between the two sides.
Another interesting
budget item related to Israel is the following explicit note that US's
funds that are to be contributed to the International Red Cross will
only be made available if the Secretary of State determines that the
Magen David Adom Society of Israel, an Israeli relief agency that is
equivalent to the American Red Cross, be admitted as a full member to
the Red Cross. The budget states,
"That funds appropriated under this heading may be made available
for a headquarters contribution to the International Committee of the
Red Cross only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports
to the appropriate committees of Congress) that the Magen David Adom
Society of Israel is not being denied participation in the activities
of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement."
Regardless of the
strange reasons why the Magen David Adom Society of Israel has not yet
been admitted to the Red Cross as a full member, I find it appalling
that US support for the entire Red Cross worldwide is being held hostage
due to an individual country dispute. If the Red Cross, or any other
international agency for that matter, is truly independent, then it
is they, and they alone, that should decide how to operate, without
the US using its superpower contributions as political leverage.
The second Palestinian
reference in the Department of State chapter is rather odd and is one
that is repeated elsewhere in the budget as well. It states,
"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the
Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide
equipment, technical support, consulting services, or any other form
of assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation."
Another interesting
note on the last page of the Department of State chapter is this unfortunate
recognition that all of Jerusalem is part and parcel of Israel. The
budget states,
"For the purposes of registration of birth, certification of nationality,
or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city
of Jerusalem, the Secretary of State shall, upon request of the citizen,
record the place of birth as Israel."
I'm not sure what
this has to do with the US Budget, but despite international recognition
that all of East Jerusalem is illegally-held, Israeli-occupied territory
it would have been prudent to qualify this statement to West Jerusalem
only. These hidden facts on the ground only serve to promulgate the
conflict by the supposed neutral US mediator.
International
Assistance Programs
The second chapter
in the Budget that references Palestinians is the International Assistance
Programs chapter. It is here that handcuffs are put on the Administration
in their support to the Palestinian cause.
This section, just
like the Department of State chapter, starts off on a positive note.
It allocates $1,000,000 to "be used to further legal reforms in
the West Bank and Gaza, including judicial training on commercial disputes
and ethics." Although the amount is minuscule compared to the task
at hand, it does give a positive indication on the need for law and
order to replace the legal mayhem that the Israeli occupation has created
over the years.
The next section
of interest is titled, "LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE PLO FOR
THE WEST BANK AND GAZA." It states,
"None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated for
assistance for the Palestine Liberation Organization for the West Bank
and Gaza unless the President has exercised the authority under section
604(a) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 (title VI of
Public Law 104-107) or any other legislation to suspend or make inapplicable
section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and that suspension
is still in effect: Provided, That if the President fails to make the
certification under section 604(b)(2) of the Middle East Peace Facilitation
Act of 1995 or to suspend the prohibition under other legislation, funds
appropriated by this Act may not be obligated for assistance for the
Palestine Liberation Organization for the West Bank and Gaza."
It is here that
the President of the United States self-imposes a requirement on himself
to suspend the status quo, a status quo that prefers not to make assistance
available to the Palestinians. Again, a US policy of non-assistance
has become the norm and any real action to provide assistance to the
Palestinians requires specific additional steps by US decision makers.
Next is another
reference to the extremely sensitive issue of Jerusalem. Whereas the
US Administration has continuously preached to the Palestinians that
the parties of the conflict must resolve the issues together through
negotiations, the US budget makes no doubt that it has already decided
on the fate of the issue of Jerusalem, an issue the UN and historic
US policy have stated as an issue of dispute ever since Israel illegally
occupied the eastern part of the city in 1967. In the section titled,
"RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY," is states,
"None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated or
expended to create in any part of Jerusalem a new office of any department
or agency of the United States Government for the purpose of conducting
official United States Government business with the Palestinian Authority
over Gaza and Jericho or any successor Palestinian governing entity
provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles: Provided,
That this restriction shall not apply to the acquisition of additional
space for the existing Consulate General in Jerusalem: Provided further,
That meetings between officers and employees of the United States and
officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor Palestinian
governing entity provided for in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles,
for the purpose of conducting official United States Government business
with such authority should continue to take place in locations other
than Jerusalem. As has been true in the past, officers and employees
of the United States Government may continue to meet in Jerusalem on
other subjects with Palestinians (including those who now occupy positions
in the Palestinian Authority), have social contacts, and have incidental
discussions."
So one is to understand
from this that a US official cannot call for a meeting of substance
with an official of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, but can
meet over dinner in Jerusalem with this same Palestinian official to
discuss the US's latest visit to planet Mars, for example.
Next is the issue
of automatic cancellation of any assistance in the rare case that the
US Administration decides to extend its support to the Palestinian Authority.
The section titled, "LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN
AUTHORITY," states,
"(a) PROHIBITION OF FUNDS.--None of the funds appropriated
by this Act to carry out the provisions of chapter 4
of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be obligated or
expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.
(b) WAIVER.--The
prohibition included in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President
certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President pro tempore of the Senate that waiving such prohibition
is important to the national security interests of the United States.
(c) PERIOD OF
APPLICATION OF WAIVER.--Any waiver pursuant to subsection (b) shall
be effective for no more than a period of 6 months at a time and shall
not apply beyond 12 months after the enactment of this Act.
(d) REPORT.--Whenever
the waiver authority pursuant to subsection (b) is exercised, the President
shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations detailing
the steps the Palestinian Authority has taken to arrest terrorists,
confiscate weapons and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. The report
shall also include a description of how funds will be spent and the
accounting procedures in place to ensure that they are properly disbursed."
Again, the President
self-imposes additional efforts required if he chooses to waive the
US status quo policy of not supporting the Palestinian Authority. Additionally,
if support is provided and a waiver is applied, it will automatically
expire and the President will need to make extensive reporting on all
of the same items that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has made his priorities
throughout his latest internationally condemned military campaign against
the Palestinians. This is a prime example of the tail wagging the dog.
Next is the particularly
serious issue of regime change. The section titled, "PALESTINIAN
STATEHOOD," makes no attempt to hide the US policy that Palestinians
must change their elected leadership, a leadership that was elected
and confirmed by former US President Carter, among other election observers.
The section states,
"(a) LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE.--None of the funds appropriated
by this Act may be provided to support a Palestinian state unless the
Secretary of State determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional
committees that--
(1) a new leadership of a Palestinian governing entity has been democratically
elected through credible and competitive elections;
(2) the elected governing entity of a new Palestinian state--
(A) has demonstrated a firm commitment to peaceful coexistence with
the State of Israel;
(B) is taking appropriate measures to counter terrorism and terrorist
financing in the West Bank and Gaza, including the dismantling of terrorist
infrastructures;
(C) is establishing a new Palestinian security entity that is cooperative
with appropriate Israeli and other appropriate security organizations;
and
(3) the Palestinian Authority (or the governing body of a new Palestinian
state) is working with other countries in the region to vigorously pursue
efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the
Middle East that will enable Israel and an independent Palestinian state
to exist within the context of full and normal relationships, which
should include--
(A) termination of all claims or states of belligerency;
(B) respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, and political independence of every state in the area through
measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
(C) their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries
free from threats or acts of force;
(D) freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
and
(E) a framework for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.
(b) SENSE OF
CONGRESS.--It is the sense of Congress that the newly elected governing
entity should enact a constitution assuring the rule of law, an independent
judiciary, and respect for human rights for its citizens, and should
enact other laws and regulations assuring transparent and accountable
governance.
(c) WAIVER.--The
President may waive subsection (a) if he determines that it is vital
to the national security interests of the United States to do so.
(d) EXEMPTION.--The
restriction in subsection (a) shall not apply to assistance intended
to help reform the Palestinian Authority and affiliated institutions,
or a newly elected governing entity, in order to help meet the requirements
of subsection (a), consistent with the provisions of section 552 of
this Act (''Limitation on Assistance to the Palestinian Authority'')."
This call for reform
change is self-explanatory and requires the Secretary of State to jump
through multiple hoops of various congressional committees confirming
that regime change has taken place before taking action on the Administration's
very own Roadmap peace plan, which calls for a Palestinian state to
be established.
Next, we again find
a repeat of the same prohibition that was listed in the Department of
State Chapter. A section titled, "PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO
THE PALESTINIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION" repeats that,
"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act may be used to provide equipment, technical support, consulting
services, or any other form of assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting
Corporation.
As the US pours
major funds into creating a Middle East-wide Arabic radio station, called
SAWA (Arabic for 'together'), and a newly launched Arabic speaking satellite
channel, called Al-Hura (Arabic for 'Free'), it is hard to imagine what
grudge the US has against the poorly equipped Palestinian Broadcasting
Corporation, which is the one of the few media vehicles the Palestinian
Authority has to reach all of its population. How is the Palestinian
Authority supposed to implement the US demand to reduce the level of
violence if the tools to directly speak to its citizens are tabooed?
The next significant
section in the budget related to Palestinians is the section titled,
"WEST BANK AND GAZA PROGRAM." It states,
"(a) OVERSIGHT.--For fiscal year 2004, 30 days prior to
the initial obligation of funds for the bilateral West Bank and Gaza
Program, the Secretary of State shall certify to the appropriate committees
of Congress that procedures have been established to assure the Comptroller
General of the United States will have access to appropriate United
States financial information in order to review the uses of United States
assistance for the Program funded under the heading ''Economic Support
Fund'' for the West Bank and Gaza.
(b) VETTING.--Prior
to the obligation of funds appropriated by this Act under the heading
''Economic Support Fund'' for assistance for the West Bank and Gaza,
the Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that
such assistance is not provided to or through any individual or entity
that the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, plans,
sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity. The Secretary
of State shall, as appropriate, establish procedures specifying the
steps to be taken in carrying out this subsection.
(c) AUDITS.--
(1) The Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development shall ensure that Federal or non-Federal audits of all contractors
and grantees, and significant subcontractors and subgrantees, under
the West Bank and Gaza Program, are conducted at least on an annual
basis to ensure, among other things, compliance with this section.
(2) Of the funds
appropriated by this Act under the heading ''Economic Support Fund''
that are made available for assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, up
to $1,000,000 may be used by the Office of the Inspector General of
the United States Agency for International Development for audits, inspections,
and other activities in furtherance of the requirements of this subsection.
Such funds are in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes."
As if all of the above limitations were not enough this section is basically
a catch-all clause that creates yet another burden for the administration
before being able to support the Palestinians.
All of these constraints,
limitations and additional required reporting are embedded in President
Bush's 2005 budget while at the same time, President Bush was recently
quoted on the new Arabic speaking satellite television station "Al-Hura",
in his first interview to the station, as saying, "Israel should
end the suffering of the average Palestinian." One would expect
the President of the worlds only superpower who recognizes the Israeli
battering of the Palestinian community to create a policy of supporting
the battered party, not creating barriers that prohibit streamlined
support.
Israel
As for Israel, the
budget is much more aggressive. In the section titled, "FOREIGN
MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM," the proposed budget states,
"For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President to carry
out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act, $4,957,500,000:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less
than $2,160,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel...Provided
further, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that
funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by
this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be
available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $568,000,000
shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles
and defense services, including research and development."
Over two billion
US taxpayer dollars to be granted to Israel for weapon systems, with
over half a billion of which will never even buy a US product or service.
Seeing the US policy in numbers allows one to understand why the world,
not to mention the Palestinians, does not believe the US is a neutral
mediator.
Furthermore, Israel
is the only nuclear weapon superpower in the Middle East that refuses
to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead of President
Bush making Israel's nuclear disarmament, or at least their signing
of the treaty, a prerequisite to US funding, in the section titled,
"NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS,"
the budget clenches its superpower fists again by dictating to the International
Atomic Energy Agency to include Israel in its activities or face no
funding from the US. The section reads,
For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining
and related programs and activities, $415,200,000...Provided further,
That funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for
the International Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary of State
determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being
denied its right to participate in the activities of that Agency."
In another odd listing,
the budget sets aside ten million dollars to two specific Israeli organizations.
It reads,
"PROGRAMS.--Of the funds appropriated under ''Economic Support
Fund'' for Middle East regional programs, up to $5,000,000 may be made
available for programs and activities of the Yitzhak Rabin Center for
Israel Studies in Tel Aviv, Israel, and up to $5,000,000 may be made
available for programs and activities of the Center for Human Dignity
Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem."
There is no mention
why these specific institutions were selected or what justifies these
large amounts of funding.
Lastly, even though
this essay is not meant to address Israel's full presence in the budget,
one note in the section titled, "DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY,"
that did catch attention is the one that reads,
"Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ''Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $144,803,000 shall
be made available for the Arrow missile defense program: Provided, That
of this amount, $80,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of producing
Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components
and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements"
Again, US funds
are being allocated for weapons that never see US suppliers or service
providers and this is in a budget that claims to create jobs, let alone
the never-ending preaching in the budget about realizing world peace.
By the way, another
item worth noting is that Bush's budget also contains money to undertake
an ambitious program to return Americans to the moon as early as 2015
and eventually send a mission to Mars. The budget earmarks $12 billion
for this effort over the next five years. Also, after President's budget
was submitted to congress, the White House acknowledged that it would
need up to $50 billion in extra money for military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan next year -- on top of the $400 billion military budget
in Bush's proposal (Reuters, Feb 5).
It would be fair
to assume that the State of Israel wrote her own ticket in Bush's proposed
2005 budget. US towing of the Israeli state line is not new. Given this
reality, the international community and the Palestinian leadership
must make a hard decision before it's too late. Do they each continue
to wait for the US to take the side of justice and force their strategic
ally, Israel, to end its illegal military occupation of Palestinians
or should the international community, and specifically the Palestinian
leadership, re-organize themselves in light of the US's policy of putting
the Palestinian people further in the corner of despair? With Israeli
Prime Minister Sharon's Apartheid Wall slowly strangulating every Palestinian
city time is of essence!
It's not surprising
the average American citizen does not read their country's budget, they
can't afford to. To purchase a hardcopy of the budget, all four volumes
cost $260. Nevertheless, Hope still exists that US lawmakers will revise
this budget to properly address the Palestinian issue, which is the
core issue facing a lasting peace in the Middle East.
The US should channel
its funds to support the implementation of the dozens of UN resolutions
calling for an immediate end to the 36+ years of Israeli military occupation.
But then again, maybe they will not, for this is an election-year budget.
Endnotes:
1. Document descriptions located at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/about.html.
Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American
businessman living in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian City of Al-Bireh
in the West Bank. He is co-author of HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine
and Palestinians (1994).