"Palestine," The World's Most Economically and Politically Coddled Entity

By Barry Rubin

SkyNews reporter Tim Marshall points out what other reporters don't...point out.


"There are well over 200 NGOs in the West Bank and Gaza, and 30% of the GDP here comes from international aid. Palestinians are among the most foreign aid funded people in the world and the place is awash with money....

Read more

An Example of the Fantasy Middle East: Spinning the Palestinian Economy to Claim the Opposite of Reality

This article was published in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights and this version is somewhat different from the published one.

By Barry Rubin

Here’s the West’s biggest problem at this moment in the Middle East (there will be bigger ones soon): The creation of an absolute fantasy world in place of the actual real Middle East.

Consider an article in the Financial Times.

The lead:

“Palestinian workers in the West Bank have so far failed to benefit from the recent surge in economic growth, with new research showing that unemployment is high and rising while wages continue to fall.”

Their interpretation:

The survey offers a sobering counterpoint to recent statements by Israeli and international leaders hailing annual growth rates of more than 9 per cent in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At the same time, it appears to confirm the concerns expressed by international economists and by Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, who warned repeatedly that the revival of the Palestinian economy was “unsustainable” without further political progress.

My interpretation of their interpretation:

Ah, so if the Palestinian Authority lies about its economic situation, it really shows that Israel is wrong. Ha, ha. Good one. And if the economy isn’t doing well, it also shows that Israel must make more concessions and the Palestinians must be given more things! Another good one.

My interpretation:

The Palestinian economy is a mirage floating on a sea of massive foreign donations. It is still full of government incompetence, inefficiency, and corruption. If everything is so fragile and you turn it into a state that doesn’t miraculously solve economic problems. It just creates a fragile state that will depend on anti-Israel demagoguery, tolerating cross-border raids into Israel, infusions of pro-Islamist money (Iran, Syria, Muslim Brotherhood), and possibly a takeover by Hamas.

We are being told that Hamas is not to be feared because the West Bank economy is doing so well. If elections are held the Fatah rulers of the PA will win. Similar confidence made fools of them in 2006, when Hamas won the election and the U.S. State Department depended on false polls done by Fatah cadre to predict the opposite.

So when a respected journal like the Financial Times tells you that 25 percent unemployment proves that we must rush into a deal one might ask what planet they are living on.

Euphemism:

“[Israel and the Palestinians] have also clashed over a recent deal to restore unity between rival Palestinian factions, and agreement which Israel rejects.”

Unvarnished Truth

Might one of those factions be a genocidal, antisemitic, revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, client of Iran and Syria, intent on war group known as Hamas? Otherwise, why should Israel possibly reject “unity between rival Palestinian factions.”?

Never Blame the Palestinian Leadership for Palestinian Problems

There’s no discussion of what the PA might be doing wrong. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who had been continually bragging about his accomplishments regarding the economy, is portrayed as being the chief person warning about the problems. And Israel is at fault, if only for trying desperately to find something nice to say about the PA.

Making a Negative into a Positive

“The downbeat economic news offered a striking contrast to the apparent surge in political optimism among Palestinians. According to a new opinion poll...more than 83 per cent of Palestinians say they feel `optimistic’ or `very optimistic’ about the future – an increase of more than 15 percentage points compared to September last year.”

Why optimistic? Because they are hoping to avoid a deal with Israel, falsely believing (and encouraged to do so by their leaders) that the UN will hand them everything they want and that Fatah-Hamas unity will make it possible to defeat and destroy Israel.

But we know that these "hopes" will be disappointed. So what then? A return to violence? That won't help the economy. The election of a Hamas government, since now we are being told that the PA's only electoral asset--its economic success--doesn't exist?

 In other words, while this article contains very useful information its interpretations makes the overall effect of this piece another "counter-informational" exercise.

So the only thing left for me to say is this:

Readers of the world, unite! Realize that the mass media is largely inculcating false consciousness on the toiling newspaper-buying masses. If you do believe this stuff well, then, you have nothing to lose but your brains.

Please be subscriber 24,397 (daily reader 42,006). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com


We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/.

Why Did Fatah Expell Its Number-One Anti-Hamas Guy?

By Barry Rubin

Muhammad Dahlan has been expelled from Fatah by that group’s Central Committee, which also decided to have the Palestinian Authority (PA) prosecute him for corruption and murder, by a vote of 13 to 0 with six abstentions. Strange, I don’t remember anyone else being treated like this for a very long time. Why is this happening now and what does it tell us?

Read more

Palestinian Politics Is About to Make a Transition For the Worse; Bad Time to Push for Peacemaking

This article is published in PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

Palestinian Authority "president" Mahmoud Abbas is retiring and has called on Fatah to choose a replacement. Wonder who they'll pick? Watch this space. I think I know and he makes Amr Moussa look like Megan McCain.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has suffered a heart attack. The Fatah leadership wants to get rid of him and is only held back by concern over the donors giving money. His days, too, are numbered.

President Obama's argument is that Israel should make peace as fast as possible. But of course since the two "moderate" leaders aren't going to be around very long, why make concessions to be pocketed by their successors who won't implement these commitments and will definitely add even more demands.

Obama's argument is that Israel is becoming delegitimized because there isn't a peace agreement. But delegitimization by some is better than a very dangerous strategic situation. Moreover, it isn't clear that more Israeli concessions and risks will reverse delegitimization. Experience has shown the opposite.

Obama's second argument is that the strategic situation will get worse if Israel doesn't make concessions, etc. In fact, precisely because the situation is getting worse means Israel doesn't want to face a hostile Egyptian and Lebanese government, a stronger Iran, a less reliable America, etc., from a worse strategic situation. And that's what will happen if Israel does what Obama wants.

Why The Palestinian Authority-Hamas Deal Is So Dangerous

This is published in Bitter Lemons. Their title: "Hamas has real sponsors." I have made some changes reflecting my preferences for transliteration and nomenclature.

Please be subscriber 22,058 (daily reader 39,668). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

The Fatah-Hamas decision to reconcile, form a joint Palestinian Authority (PA) government and hold elections seems to be a short-run maneuver that might have some very long-range consequences.

Fatah's motive seems to be to have a united front when it goes to the UN in September to seek recognition of a unilateral declaration of independence. One of the arguments used to criticize its standing to make such a move has been the fact that the PA does not rule almost half the territory it is claiming.

For Fatah, it is also a popular move. A recent poll by Near East Consulting says that 89 percent of Palestinians want the dispute settled and believe it will help the Palestinian case at the UN.

But while September is the minimum time for this agreement to last, May 2012 is the maximum timeline. That is the approximate date set for new elections and the side that expects to lose would probably pull out of the pact. Hamas has no intention of yielding control over the Gaza Strip to a Fatah-dominated PA, while Fatah feels the same way about letting Hamas extend its control over the West Bank.

Which of the two groups is more popular? Ironically, it may be true that more Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, fed up with Hamas’ repressive rule and destructive policies, would vote for Fatah candidates than last time; while West Bank Palestinians, fed up with Fatah's continuing corruption, might give more votes to Hamas.

On its side, Fatah's election slogan could be that the PA has delivered relative prosperity; Hamas offers ideological and religious fervor.

There are, however, three big problems that the merger--if it is at all applied in practice--creates for Palestinian politics and for the peace process.

First, radicalization. Hamas has more advantages for radicalizing Palestinian public opinion, the PA, and Fatah than Fatah has for moderating Hamas. Hamas is a disciplined organization with a clear ideology. It has a strong social welfare component--albeit only to build its political base--and has not been caught in high-level corruption. Moreover, it can play the card of Islam and of militancy against Israel and the West.

There is also the question of whose cadre is better. Fatah might always be linked to the word "moderate" nowadays, conjuring up the image of responsible middle class gentry, while Hamas people seem like wild-eyed fanatics. Yet in practice, the average Fatah cadre often have a thuggish, opportunistic character while Hamas' men are austerely puritanical. At least when they aren't in power--as on the West Bank--they might seem more attractive on the street level.

True, Fatah has on its side West Bank prosperity and providing the people with greater stability. But it has not delivered a state. In the past, Hamas’ talking points have done better than those of Fatah.

Yet the issue is not mainly what the people think but what the activists think. Fatah people have defected to Hamas and Islamist ideas have developed within the Fatah militias. Groups that exist to fight admire the most energetic, effective fighters. The younger generation of Fatah people has worked alongside Hamas and doesn’t bear the hatred of its elders toward a rival group.

In addition, Hamas people can now demonstrate openly in the Fatah-ruled West Bank while Fatah rallies are banned in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip

Hamas’ sponsors have done better than Fatah’s sponsors. In fact, Fatah has no real sponsors in the Middle East. In contrast, Hamas is backed by Iran, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, and now the Egyptian government. These forces seem to Middle Easterners on both sides to be getting stronger at the expense of the United States and the West.

The second factor is the Western perception of the PA. The PA’s image is not enhanced by bringing into the government as an equal partner an organization rejecting peace with Israel and advocating genocide while extolling and committing terrorism. On top of this, Hamas is a client of Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood--not great strategic friends of the West. Both Hamas and Fatah representatives met with the Muslim Brotherhood's leader who told them that the winds of change blowing in Egypt placed the goal of liberating Palestine within reach.

Will Western governments be willing to give money to a regime that includes Hamas? One whose classrooms will teach that Israel should be destroyed and the Jews are subhuman? One very possibly containing a movement that continues to fire rockets and mortar shells into Israel?  Already many congressional Democrats are calling for an aid cut-off.

The Obama Administration will ignore them but might there come a point when it can no longer do so?

Finally, there is a factor that exacerbates the first two points: How will this alliance affect PA policies?

A PA that has absorbed Hamas as part of the government will not be able to negotiate seriously with Israel. Indeed, set on the unilateral independence strategy, it will not want to talk seriously with Israel. On no issues--borders, security guarantees, Jerusalem, refugees--will it be able to make the tiniest compromise. It will certainly not reduce incitement to violence or terrorist attacks.

There is also the question of structural changes within the PA. Many within Fatah already want to get rid of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the man mainly responsible for the West Bank’s economic progress. Joined by Hamas partners, they would almost certainly succeed in forcing Fayyad out. If there are Hamas ministers, they will use their positions to bring their cadres into the government and turn the PA in a more radical and Islamist direction.

It should be stressed that for the PA to be a real partner for peace, one of the most important tasks would be to reinstall its (or, perhaps one might better say, Fatah’s) hegemony over Hamas. This is not at all what is happening now. Either the partnership will break down or it will make Hamas stronger, the PA more radical and, hence, unsuccessful in producing peace, prosperity, or progress toward an actual Palestinian state.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Palestinians: Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Islamism

This article is http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/05/08/342/ in PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.

Please be subscriber 22,065 (daily reader 39,665). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com


We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

I’m always a bit wary of using public opinion polls in the Middle East because much depends on the day the poll is done; the way questions are worded; and the fact that in authoritarian societies ruled by dictatorial regimes people don't necessarily speak their mind.

In this poll, by Near East Consulting, there are some peculiar results that make it appear skewed toward Fatah and against Hamas. This may have to do with the fears of those polled. It is revealing that—I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before—the official Fatah-controlled Palestinian press agency, Wafa, distributed a story on the poll because it fits with their political line.

But that fact makes the following two points all the more remarkable, even shocking compared to past, comparable polls:

--Asked to give their primary personal identity, 57 percent said Muslim; 21 percent, Palestinian; 19 percent, human beings; and only 5 percent said Arab.

This says something important about the steep decline in Arab nationalism but brings into question Fatah-style Palestinian nationalism, too. One can see oneself primarily as a Muslim and still support Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, but this upward trend also indicates of the growth of thinking likely to lead people toward backing Hamas in future.

--Asked what government system they preferred in future, about 40 percent said they want an Islamic caliphate. In addition, 24 percent seek a system like those in Arab countries, and only 12 percent prefer one like that in European countries.

While defining what an “Arab system” means is ambiguous, it is reasonable to presume that means an Arab nationalist dictatorship since at this moment virtually no Arab country is a democracy.

When asked whether they support Fatah or Hamas the results are so overwhelmingly pro-Fatah as to make one suspicious. It is safer for someone living in a dictatorship to discuss general principles rather than oppose that government in conversation with outsiders. Yet, again, one would expect a Fatah supporter to highlight a Palestinian or Arab identity rather than a Muslim one.
What this poll, and other indications, suggests to me is that the potential constituency for Islamism (Hamas) is at least 40 percent, for Palestinian nationalism (Fatah, Palestinian Authority) just over 20 percent, and for democracy about 12 percent. Most of those who expressed no opinion would probably support the PA to give it an election victory but that cannot be assumed.

Note that there is no real organized moderate democratic party in the entire Palestinian political spectrum. The findings remind us of just how small the base is for any modern democratic state in the sense that is understand not only in the West but also in much of Asia, Africa, and the Latin America.

Remember that in most of the rest of the Third World, even where dictatorship exists, a moderate democratic state is a popular aspiration.  It may not be what people have but it is what the majority wants. This really doesn't seem to be true in the Middle East.

These figures also imply that Hamas is more likely to recruit current Fatah supporters than vice-versa.

There are hints here of what would happen in completely free elections in a future Palestinian state. They do not incline Israel—or anyone with good sense—to rush to support the creation of such a state, especially now that Fatah and Hamas are once again united.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Fatah-Hamas Agreement: Another Nail in the “Peace Process’s” Coffin

This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is presented here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

Suddenly, after years of persistent failure, Fatah and Hamas--which means the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas--have signed a detailed reconciliation agreement.

Why now? It's preparation for the UN and the claim that the PA is sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinians. In exchange for being able to claim it now rules both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Fatah (PA) made huge concessions that it has always refused to give before.

Naturally, the accord will break down. Presumably after the PA gets a lot of support for being an independent country later this year and before projected Palestinian elections in 2012.

Why is Hamas going along with this? Because the deal gives it a lot, including a promise of elections in a year. Hamas won the last elections and presumably is confident--especially as it looks at electoral successes for Hizballah in Lebanon and probably soon for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt--that it will win again.

But there's also another reason. Hamas is probably quite happy with the idea that many countries--and perhaps the UN--will recognize an independent Palestinian state unconditionally. In other words, there will be a widely, or internationally, accepted Palestine without the need to make peace with Israel. No concessions need be made. The Palestinians will get everything and give up nothing. They will not be bound in any way by border changes or security guarantees. The struggle to wipe Israel off the map can continue.

It's Hamas's dream come true.

Anyone who thinks this helps the peace process is deluded. Hamas will never accept any peace agreement with Israel and will radicalize Fatah's negotiating position out of competition between the two rivals to prove their militancy. The race to commit the most bloody terrorist acts would also intensify.

Make no mistake. Whether or not this development has any direct effect on the ground, it's another step toward the death of any real Israel-Palestinian peace process.

For a detailed account of the deal: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218098

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

"Thousands of Palestinians rally for reconciliation." But reconciliation with whom?

By Barry Rubin


The headline on the Associated Press story caught my eye immediately:

Thousands of Palestinians rally for reconciliation

I always look for stories that contradict my assumptions so that I can examine or change them if necessary. According to the headline, this might be an important new--and positive--development.

So, did thousands of Palestinians come together to rally for reconciliation with Israel following the horrendous murder of an entire family? Is there really the hope for Israel-Palestinian peace that the Western governments and media keep telling us about?

Of course not! (Sadly.). These Palestinians--about 25,000 of them--were rallying for reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas so that they could go to war against Israel together!

You know, Hamas, the organization that calls for the killing of all Jews and wiping Israel off the map. Reconciliation also includes, of course, the murderers of the Fogel children in Itamar and all the other suicide bombers and terrorists who killed Israeli civilians.

Moreover, Hamas, even though the demonstration served its purpose generally, is so dictatorial that it attacked some of the participants because they were Fatah supporters, thus showing why there isn't unity.

Of course, the headline should have tipped me off: You can't have "reconciliation" with someone when you've never been willing to have "conciliation" with them in the first place.

Palestinian Leaders' Response to Democratic Upheaval: Fire the Honest Guy

By Barry Rubin

The Palestinian Authority doesn't have to worry about democratic upheavals since it has the nationalist and anti-Israel cards to play. Besides, it will never face real Western criticism or pressure. All it has to worry about is Hamas taking over, and that's avoided by sticking to a hard line and not making any compromises with Israel.


Palestinian politics are what, in the end, determine that there will be no comprehensive Israel-Palestinian peace. Here's the latest installment in that story. As the Arabic-speaking world sees unprecedented upheavals against autocratic regimes, Fatah wants to get rid of Salam Fayyad, the honest technocrat who serves as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority.

On one level, they do have a point. Fayyad is not there because of democratic processes. True, he was appointed by "President" Mahmoud Abbas but he is now beyond his term of office which ended in January. But the real reason that Fayyad, and Abbas also, is still in power is because the Western donors insist on it, threatening to cut off all the aid money (read: fuel for corruption) if they are fired.

But, of course, the relative moderation of Fayyad and to a lesser extent Abbas doesn't suit the Fatah leadership. The duo is in fact quite weak, serving as front men to keep up the image of a regime that is a coalition of corrupt hardliners (Arafat's men) and somewhat corrupt extremists. Meanwhile, Palestinian public opinion is fed on a steady diet of  hatred for Israel and the West as well as opposition for any compromise peace.

And the alternative is Hamas, which keeps Fatah "honest" in terms of refusing to make a deal with Israel and seeking total victory no matter how long it takes.

That's why--and not due to Israeli policy--there's no peace and won't be any for many years.