Tzipi Livni: Abbas Sabotaged Peace Process
In an interview with Roger Cohen of the NY Times, Tzipi Livni, Israel's chief negotiator with the Palestinians, detailed the events which led to the failure of the most recent talks. Despite the fact that Livni is not a supporter of Prime Minister Netanyahu and felt he was difficult to deal with during the negotiations, she placed the failure of the talks firmly at the feed of Palestinian President Abbas.Elliott Abrams: US aid to PA should not reward terrorists
According to Livni, the U.S. presented its own framework for a peace plan, Netanyahu agreed to work with it despite his objections but Abbas never gave the U.S. an answer. Things went downhill from there.
On March 17, in a meeting in Washington, President Obama presented Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, with a long-awaited American framework for an agreement that set out the administration’s views on major issues, including borders, security, settlements, Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem.
Livni considered it a fair framework, and Netanyahu had indicated willingness to proceed on the basis of it while saying he had reservations. But Abbas declined to give an answer in what his senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat, later described as a “difficult” meeting with Obama. Abbas remained evasive on the framework, which was never made public.
This, in Livni’s view, amounted to an important opportunity missed by the Palestinians, not least because to get Netanyahu’s acceptance of a negotiation on the basis of the 1967 borders with agreed-upon swaps — an idea Obama embraced in 2011 — would have indicated a major shift.
The omnibus appropriations bill recently passed by Congress contains an interesting provision regarding the support for terrorists and their families by the Palestinian Authority:The UNRWA Shill Game and State Department Compliance
"The Secretary of State shall reduce the amount of assistance made available by this Act under the heading 'Economic Support Fund' for the West Bank and Gaza by an amount the Secretary determines is equivalent to that expended by the Palestinian Authority in payments to individuals and the families of such individuals that are imprisoned for acts of terrorism or who died committing such acts during the previous calendar year."
The intent is clear: Congress was aware of the PA's practice of rewarding individuals who had committed acts of terrorism with direct financial support or financial support for their families while they remain in prison. And Congress wants to be sure that aid from the United States isn't paying for this, so for every dollar the PA spends we will reduce aid to the PA by the same amount.
Good idea, long overdue -- but the language quoted above won't achieve that goal. First of all, why only acts committed "during the previous calendar year?" Does that mean that payments to someone who committed an act of terrorism two or five or 10 years ago is exempt? Does that clause about "the previous calendar year" modify "imprisoned for acts of terrorism," or "who died committing such acts," or both? Or does it modify all "payments," which would be the logical meaning: The amount of U.S. aid is to be reduced by the amount of all payments made in the prior year? Sloppy, last minute drafting of this provision is the culprit.
“The goal of U.S. support to UNRWA,” according to the State Department Report, “is to ensure that Palestinian refugees live in dignity with an enhanced human development potential until a comprehensive and just solution is secured.” In reality, however, UNRWA has assured that the children, grandchildren and all future descendants of Palestinian refugees will remain degraded and humiliated victims of its policy, which has no equivalent for any other refugees in the world – including more than three million Syrians from President Assad’s current reign of terror.
The stated goal of State Department largesse toward UNRWA is to “promote the human development of Palestinian refugees by improving living conditions, economic potential, livelihoods, access, and human rights.” It pledges to do so “until a just solution is achieved and UNRWA’s mandate ends.” American taxpayers should not hold their breath. A sixty-five year-old policy of unmonitored generosity to a certified rip-off organization that invents and inflates refugee numbers to justify its shnorring is unlikely to abate in the foreseeable future.
Indeed, as Romirowsky and Joffe indicate, UNRWA in Gaza has become little more than a surrogate for Hamas. During its summer rocket assault against Israel UNRWA schools were storehouses for Hamas rockets while UNRWA employees cheered the murder of Israelis. Belatedly mindful of this travesty, the new State Department Framework states, rather preposterously in light of recent events, that “the United States and UNRWA share concerns about the threat of terrorism.” Tunnels beneath and rockets above Israel’s borders are not mentioned.
On paper at least, according to impressionable State Department drafters, UNRWA is “committed to taking all possible measures to ensure that funding provided by the United States to support UNRWA is not used to provide assistance to, or otherwise support, terrorists or terrorist organizations.” The State Department notes “with appreciation efforts taken by UNRWA during the course of 2014 to strengthen the Agency’s neutrality compliance.” Gaza is ignored. Romirowsky and Joffe wonder, as anyone might, how the Facebook celebration by UNRWA teachers following the recent murder of four Jerusalem rabbis at prayer in their synagogue meets the standard of “neutrality compliance.”





























