The World Bank, in asking for the development of Area A, is ignoring the Oslo Accords which make no provision for the development of Area C. The EU is likewise ignoring it and assisting the Arabs to steal land in Area C. It is disturbing that Israel is helping them to a degree in this endeavour.
As for the shortfall in the budget, why not ask them to stop all their worldwide propaganda and close all their so-called embassies.Ted Belman
Development of Area C is necessary for sustainable Palestinian economic growth, the World Bank said in a report it published Wednesday calling for donor countries to pledge $400 million to fix a shortfall in the PA’s 2012 budget when the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee meets in New York on September 23.
“Donors do need to act urgently in the face of a serious fiscal crisis facing the PA in the short term,” World Bank Country Director for the West Bank and Gaza Mariam Sherman said.
“But even with this financial support, sustainable economic growth cannot be achieved without a removal of the barriers preventing private sector development, particularly in Area C,” she said.
According to the report, the Palestinian Authority is projected to have a $1.5 billion deficit by the end of 2012, for which only $1.1 b. has been raised from donor countries.
The nations who gather Sunday for the New York donor conference will be asked to make up the additional $400 m. sum, the report said.
If the money is not found, the PA will face a severe budget crisis, the report warned.
“The PA’s local debt is almost at the limit that the banking sector can sustain and therefore it is unlikely that the banks will be providing additional financing,” the report said.
“It is also doubtful that private suppliers will be providing further credit given the current high level of arrears,” the report said.
“If no additional donor funding is identified, the PA may be forced to finance the gap though accumulating additional arrears to the pension system and cutting some of its basic spending such as wages, which could have severe social impact,” the report warned.
It explained that the PA’s recurrent deficit for the first half of 2012 was 32 percent beyond what had been anticipated.
Total expenditures and net lending were 4.5% above budget while revenues were 7% below their target, the report said.
It warned that Palestinian budget woes would continue unless it could increase private sector investment through the development of Palestinian holdings in Area C in the West Bank, which is under Israeli military control.
The document noted that Israel had taken some steps to help Palestinian development of Area C.
The World Bank report said that, according to the Foreign Affairs Ministry, 119 Palestinian infrastructure projects for Area C were approved in 2011.
It added that according to the ministry, eight master plans for the development of Area C were being examined.
Separately, the report also said that Israel and the PA had reached an understanding to expand trade between them and streamline clearance revenue procedures, starting in 2013.
Still, the report said that restrictions on Palestinian movement and access remained a major impediment to Palestinian economic growth. It also called on Israel to remove obstacles to the Palestinian development of Area C.
Overall, it said, “the continued geographical fragmentation of Area C poses a binding constraint to real economic growth, essential to support the future Palestinian state.”
Israel: PA monetary problems connected to world economic crisis
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor had not yet seen the report, but had heard that it chastised Israel for not doing enough to protect Palestinian freedom of movement or development in Area C.
He noted that the world economic situation was deteriorating, and it was important to see the Palestinian’s monetary situation within the larger global context.
“It is normal for the Palestinian economy to be weak because it is not disconnected from the global economy. Maybe before asking Israel to do more they [the World Bank] should take stock of the deteriorating economic situation in Israel and Europe and the rest of the world,” he said.
He noted that Arab countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia could also save the day by “writing checks” to the PA, and not just issuing “empty statements.” Palmor said that Israel has lifted road-blocks, checkpoints and issued additional permits for Palestinians to work in Israel.
Earlier this month Israel gave the PA an advance transfer of NIS 250 m. in tax funds.
An Israeli official added that a final status agreement would vastly improve the Palestinian economy and pave the way for increased private investment in the Palestinian territories. The official called on the PA to return to the negotiating table to conclude such an agreement with Israel.
No unilateral what?
Were the intifada I & II included into the Oslo protocols?
@ yamit82:
Yamit- If you write, Israel should withdraw from the U.N., it goes without saying that it must withdraw forthwith, (if not sooner). how about Monday morning.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Your question has the built-in assumption that being a member state in the UN is positive serving Israel’s national interest.
It does not serve our national interest and is a total negative. Switzerland does quite well from the outside of UN membership. She even hosts many UN institutions.
“Behold! It is a nation that will dwell in solitude and not be reckoned among the nations.”(Num. 23:9)
Jews are commanded to live in isolation and to separate ourselves from the Nations to the practical extent possible.
The Jewish people are not merely one more nation. “Though I put an end to all the nations among whom thou art scattered, but I will never put an end to thee” (Jeremiah 30:11)
It is G-d’s decree that the Jewish People must remain apart, separate from the nations, so as to be cut off from their alien culture. Toward that end, G-d established for the Jewish People a special land of their own, the Land of Israel. The concept of a Jewish People alone is tied to the concept that G-d is alone. G-d is alone and cannot be compared or equated to anything else. He is One and Unique, as it says (Deut. 4:35), “You are the ones who have been shown, so that you will know that the L-rd is G-d and there is none besides Him”; and, “To Him Who alone does great wonders” (Ps. 136:4). Just so, the Jewish People are alone, set apart from all the nations, as it says (Lev. 20:26), “I have separated you from the nations,” and, “It is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Num. 23:9).
Just as G-d stands apart from every concept in the world, so must Israel remain separate from all the other nations of the world.
@ Ted Belman:
Arab Massive building in areas B & C, most illegal, is the Arab attempt to create their facts on the ground. Yet everyone (America and the EU) including the GOI remain silent and even accommodating, contributive and supportive. Israel is condemned and the Arabs given a pass for doing the same thing, especially since the Arab violations of establishing facts which could change the status of the West Bank, dwarf Israel’s feeble and knee-jerk, inconsistent attempts.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Curio, you appear to be ignoring the directive to “encourage the settlement of Jews west of the Jordan River” as stated in San Remo,LofN, and UN Charter 80. I know of no internatinally binding treaty, agreement or resolution which has the legal effect of canceling this directive. The state of Israel currently is administrator of the west bank and as such is legally obligated to fulfill this directive(they have failed), the PA & Hamas are administrators of the muslim controlled areas (they also have failed). Please point out to me how Oslo nullifies, rescinds, cancels or limits these rights?
Ted Belman Said:
The status of the aforementioned areas includes those laws, treaties, etc. in force which have not been canceled. Therefore, as there is no specific mention of the canceling of the rights of Jews to settle west of the JOrdan River then it must be considered that the current status incorporated that right and should in law continue. Generally in law, my understanding is, that if 2 laws can be fulfilled simultaneously then they are not in conflict. GOI sovereignty should not be interpreted to cancel rights of world Jewry as they can simultaneously exist without legal conflict. Furthermore, even if there was express mention in Oslo, it is not a treaty and therefore cold not be considered to be superior to San Remo, LON or UN Charter 80.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I don’t expect the Arabs to remain quite. But I do epect them to honour the agreements. Your description of what Oslo forbids isn’t exact enough. Here is the exact wording:
Para 7 must be interpreted. What is proscribed is “step that will change the status of the West Bank”. Building settlements does not “change the status”. What do you think is meant by status? I think it means steps that amend the agreements because that is what determines the status. There is nothing in Oslo that prevents housing construction either in A, B, or C.
The WB should ask the Golf states to poor the “mula” for the Pal.
Pr. O is using his ignorance and or denial of the h/o of the Jews to push for the Arabs and Palestinians in general. The Jewish demos should be ashamed of themselves for supporting him against IL.
@ CuriousAmerican:
“though you place your nest among the stars, I will drag you down from there!”
And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him. And Esau said in his heart: ‘Let the days of mourning for my father be at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.’
“And he took Machalat, daughter of Ishmael for a wife”
“Edom and Ishmael, they make a covenant against You!”
Israel though degraded and ruled by client regimes will remain like a small vessel bobbing on the face of the deep when the pride of the Titanic goes down forever just as the Eternal One said Esau would be dragged down from its proud heights though it made its nest like an eagle……/
Esau is Edom (Red). Edom ultimately became Rome and Rome became Christianity today led by America.
Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin
@ CuriousAmerican:
The vote was not rigged it was touch and go until the last hour before the vote. Yes, the Zionists and Jewish supporters used every asset, called in every favor and diplomatic IOU and leverage at their disposal including threats and blackmail. So what! That’s the way the game is played by every nation state. Truth be said: It was Joe Stalin who sealed the deal in the Jews favor. America (Truman) pledged support but America did nothing to help. They all expected and maybe planned and hoped the Jews would be wiped out. For Truman, an antisemite in his own right, it was good politics to support Israel and after he changed the UN vote he immediately embargoed all arms and American volunteers to aid Israel thus hoping that the Arabs would complete Hitlers unfinished project. Nobody but a handful of crazy Jews believed the Jews wold survive no less win.
Didn’t matter the State then ould have been declared in any event. Our time had arrived and the historical moment would not be denied.
Israel’s juridical birth certificate is the pre-Holocaust League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 (provisionally operative from 1920) — not the post-Holocaust United Nations Palestine Partition Plan of 1947. Moreover, the Mandate was itself explicitly based upon the preexisting “historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” (Mandate for Palestine, Preamble, Paragraph 3)
Since the Jewish people’s right to reestablish their nation-state in the biblical Land of Israel became a pillar of international law decades before the advent of the Holocaust, and since this aspect of international law was merely a formal acknowledgment of the aboriginal Jewish right to the Land, it is a gross misrepresentation of History to claim that the State of Israel instead emerged from the womb of the United Nations.
Clearly, Israel exists not due to the issuance of the meager Palestine Partition Plan, but due only to the fact that the renascent Jewish State militarily defeated the seven Arab states (namely, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan fka Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen) which, together with the Arab League’s “Arab Liberation Army” and local “Palestinian” militias drawn from Arab population centers throughout the western portion of Mandatory Palestine, had sought to annihilate the Jewish State, thereby igniting Israel’s War of Independence.
Those who assert that Israel was created, rather than diminished, by the Palestine Partition Plan knowingly reverse Cause and Effect, as U.N. General Assembly Resolution no. 181 was the result — rather than the determinant — of Great Britain’s decision to quit the remainder of Mandatory Palestine. This is because, in February 1947, Great Britain had already announced its intention to completely withdraw from the western portion of Mandatory Palestine by August 1948. Since this announcement was made some 9 months prior to — and, in fact, served as the direct impetus for — the United Nations’ issuance of its Palestine Partition Plan, it is clear that the subsequent British withdrawal from the western portion of Mandatory Palestine in May 1948, the consequent Arab war of annihilation against the Jewish population centers thereof (in rank violation of the Palestine Partition Plan), and the ensuing emergence of the State of Israel therefrom all would have occurred regardless of the existence of the Palestine Partition Plan.
Conversely, had the Jewish population centers of the western portion of Mandatory Palestine been destroyed by the Arabs, and had Israel thereby lost its War of Independence, then neither United Nations’ resolutions nor supranational remorse would have sufficed to reverse such a catastrophic denouement.
Clearly, there is an enormous difference between endorsement and creation. While the United Nations certainly endorsed the establishment of modern Israel (at least within the tiny Partition Plan lines), that feckless endorsement (which was so violently rejected by the entire Arab, and larger Muslim, world) had no operative effect on the creation of the Jewish State precisely because it was stillborn.
Nonetheless, that endorsement did bestow upon Israel a unique international legal status, namely, that of being the only nation in the World whose establishment was officially endorsed by both the League of Nations and the United Nations.
CuriousAmerican Said:
CuriousAmerican Said:
You appear to contradict yourself, you attribute the changed votes to jewish zionists (to Trumans chagrin) rather than to US support. CuriousAmerican Said:
if truman was in support why was he furious, why did he not call them himself in support? presidential libraries tend to paint presidents in their best light, however, it appears that US support came later than the Soviets.
Would Israel still be in the UN were not the US regularly veto’ing anti-Israel motions.
Would Israel even exist had not the US and Europe voted in ’47 to partition Palestine?
What if the UN had voted no in ’47?
You are aware that the vote was postponed because Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines were going to vote no. Israel was on the verge of losing the vote.
According to the Harry Truman Library, unknown people called their governments and threatened to cut off aid from the US, if they voted no.
Harry Truman was furious, because he did not authorize such threats. Even though he himself supported the partition, he wanted the UN to operate freely. He was furious that agents unknown went behind his back.
Truman was furious
Truman was also mad at the pro-Arab State Department who refused to vote pro-Israel as he had instructed them to do.
So Yamit, ease up. One day a week you should have a “I will not hate the Goy Today” set aside.
No one played fair. Even the ’47 voted was rigged, by imposters pretending to represent the USA and threatening countries if they did not vote yes.
Had the vote been fair – and not rigged by false representations – Israel would have lost the vote.
So Truman voted for Israel anyway, even though he was furious at their machinations.
Would any Israeli government have ceded a milometer of Land liberated in 67 and defended in 73 were not the USA and the EU pressuring Israel to do so?
Is the US an ally of Israel?
A chronological look at the evidence
The 1930’s – The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.
1939-1945 This year’s material is divided into the following sections:
1945 After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.
1947-48 – Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.
1949-1953 In Israel’s hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel’s mortal enemies.
1955 The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.
1958 Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does…nothing.
1964 The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?
1964-1967 Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.
1967 After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.
1967-70 The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.
1970 Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.
1973 The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Help came to late to influence the wars outcome.
1973-1975 The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.
1975 – Negative – The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.
1977 Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a ‘government in exile,’ and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.
1978 When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.
1979 Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
1981 The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.
1982-1983 The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.
1985 – 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.
1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.
2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.
3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust
4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?
1987-1988 The ‘First Intifada’ was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘underdogs.’
1989 With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the ‘only solution’ to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1991 Bush Sr.’s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.
1994 Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat’s henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.
1996-1997 The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.
2005 Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.
“CuriousAmerican Said:
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. HOwever, there is a reason for the schizophrenia of Israel and of the Jews. Both have operated for 2000 years under duress in order to survive. There is a continued dependence and fear, residual and real, which seeks approval from the master. This explains the appeasement an willingness to give up rights since before Israel began. My view is that no injustices can be allowed to remain based on this duress. Basic law states that agreements and statements made under duress are not binding. When Jews understand that they have been operating under duress and that they are being continually swindled then perhaps they will have the courage to repudiate the past. There is also the issue of changed circumstances in that it is becoming clearer that the muslims will not live in peace with the Jews and that those Jews who are perpetually idealistic, which made them willing to cede that which belongs to them,will have to give up their idealism regarding their “neighbors”. The Jews appeasement, docility and acquiescent schizophrenia should be understandable to any honest observer. The most important issue is to educate the jews out of their ghetto mentality of fear. Jews have a right to relyupon and demand those agreements and treaties which encourage their settlement west of the jordan river. The Oslo accords cannot rescind this right which belongs to world Jewry and not to the GOI. Whoever is sovereign over thee west bank is legally bound to encourage jewish settlement in international law. As the muslims maintain JEW FREE areas in ALL areas under their control that was part of the original palestine mandate they can obviously not be allowed sovereignty or control over the west bank. Any arguments or agreements which seek tto deny the jews justice give credibility that the jews must seek redress outside of the law in order to be able to fulfill the law. This is similar to the situation of segregation violation in the US which was followed by affirmative action to restore the damages of injustice. Jordans violation of jewish settlement rights during their occupation now requires affirmative action in the reverse. Israel is dealing with a vast array of swindlers and jew killers and must proceed with any tactic or strategy that foil their enemies. Ultimatley Oslo must end and the only questsion will be will the jews seize their opportunities or continue to be duped.CuriousAmerican Said:
I agree
If you assert that … your first goal must be to get OSLO thrown out. The Arab taking land in Area C is only a consequence of Oslo.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I stand by my assertion of theft or should I have said “tantamount to theft”. If a person starts to plant on someone else’s plot of land knowing that they have no right to, with the intention of depriving them of title to the land, they are illegally acquiring title to the land that belongs to someone else. That is theft or tantamount to theft. Adverse possession is a different concept. Title is only acquired in Canada for instance, if such possession is not challenged for 10 years by the owner. At any time during that ten year period, the owner can evict the person in possession.
The Tower and Stockade method. At least, give the Arabs credit for being good students of Jewish techniques used in the 1930s and 1940s. Imitation, though infuriating, is the sincerest form of flattery.
Ted, you are usually a good logician, but your statement, “By planting they are entitled to keep the lands by Ottoman law,” indicates that by Ottoman law they have acquired the land by something similar to what US law calls “adverse possession.” I used to have a lawyer in the family. The point is that your statement unintentionally insulates them from the charge of theft by its recognition of Ottoman Law.
Adverse possession is not theft. The Mandatory Zionists used a variation of adverse possession to take possession of state property from the British Mandatory power using the aforementioned Tower and Stockade method.
I AM NOT SAYING THE ARABS ARE RIGHT! I am saying that “theft” may not be the proper legal term.
Israel, rather than relying on relic Ottoman, or British codices, should start writing laws of her own to address the matter.
Wow! And here was the media telling us that it was a generous offer.
I guess the International Community believed the initial media reports.
Look, if the Oslo agreements were effectually almost worthless, why did Israel even sign them?
Why doesn’t Israel just void them?
A good portion of Israel does not want to cede Judea and Samaria. You have one part of the Israeli government promising to negotiate while prominent members of the government openly outright annexation without enfranchisement, or even – to use the antiseptic term – ethnic relocation.
Israel’s government is schizophrenic.
Does it want the land or not?!
If it wants the land … why does it even allow the pretense of Oslo?
Since it does allow Oslo, can it really blame the Arabs for expecting the lands which have been held out to them? Can it expect the Arabs to remain quiet while Israel – in a unilateral course of action, which Oslo forbids – builds settlements? Oslo does not mention settlements, but it forbids unilateral actions which is what the settlements are. So, again the Arabs are merely good imitators. Now, they take unilateral action.
If you find Arab actions offensive, can you imagine how they find Israel settlement construction?
Ted, you operate from a position of: Greater Eretz Yisroel, and you want to apply it to the OSLO situation.
This cannot be done. If you want to say the Arabs must obey Oslo, then ironically you must insist that Israel obey Oslo, and retreat from uniltaeral settlements. Again, the settlements are illegal because of their UNILATERAL nature.
You are treating the symptom. The problem is Oslo.
Rather than getting mad at the Arabs, get the Israeli government to void OSLO.
Until then, you have no standing.
Napoleon said: When you come to take Vienna, TAKE VIENNA!
The problem here is that the Israeli government is of two minds. If they want Judea and Samaria, then withdraw out of Oslo.
Until then, you have given a wide range of options to the Arabs, and you cannot blame them for exercising them.
Ted, whether spoken or not, the accords held out the promise.
If Israel wants the land, it must UNILATERALLY VOID OSLO, and brace for the firestorm.
It will come.
There is no getting around that. You cannot blame the Arabs for expecting a promise (even a vague one) held out them.
Your site favors annexation. So stop beating around the bush. The only logical solution is to VOID OSLO.
Until then, the Arab Tower and Stockade methods are, at worst, misdemeanors.
When you come to take Judea and Samaria. TAKE JUDEA AND SAMARIA!
Then you have to deal with 2,000,000 Arabs in Judea and Samaria, but first you most deal with Oslo.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The lands in Area C are either owned by Palestinians, Jews or they are “State Lands”. The Arabs plant on these lands and build on them without the consent of Israel the owner. By planting they are entitled to keep the lands by Ottoman law. Thus they are stealing the land.
CuriousAmerican Said:
It did not. The Accords were negotiated in private between Arafat and Rabin. Rabin called the shots because Arafat had no power. Thus the Accords favour Israel. It is the international community that wishes to impose its desires on them to achieve a certain end. But Israel entered the Accords without promising a state or making any promises on boundaries. The only way the PA could get anything is to conclude a deal. Short of doing so they have no entitlements. Israel would never have entered the accords had they not felt totally in control of the out come. The problem is that Israel didn’t count on the international community imposing its will on the Accords and negotiations.
That is why I said “in theory.”
Certainly, the Barak offer of 2000 included a lot of area C.
That being said: Maybe Israel should not have signed Oslo; but having done so, it left the area murky.
I do not know that you can call Palestinian development in Area C theft UNLESS Israel outright voids Oslo, which maybe it should.
By saying the area is up for future negotiation – and Oslo does require that NO side take unilateral actions – it does seem to prevent Israel also from developing the area.
If Israel wants to claim the area pursuant to San Remo, then fine; but Israel should be honest about it, and say Oslo is over.
Israel cannot claim to abide by Oslo – which forbids unilateral actions – while it takes unilateral actions itself.
The problem is OSLO not my interpretation.
Under OSLO, you can accuse the PA of acting outside of OSLO, but I am not sure you can accuse them of theft.
Oslo left the impression that Area C and B would eventually be given to the PA. No one would have considered area A the only area left open to the PA, or there would have been no need for future negotiation.
By saying C and B were open to negotiation, it left the arrangement murky.
Don’t blame me. Blame Oslo.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Make the case. Nothing in Oslo implies such rights, let alone spells them out. What they will be entitled to is to be determined by negotiations.
Maybe Israel should not have signed OSLO; but having signed Oslo, in theory Israel conceded that eventually Area C would be under PA rule, so you cannot accuse the PA of stealing area C. At best, you can only say it is taking premature control of the area.
Maybe Israel should walk out of Oslo.