'If these people are so anti-Semitic, why should we do anything to help them?' - typical response to Mortimer B. Zuckerman's plea for Gaza aid.
The Palestinians in Gaza are sending Israel this message: they need Israel and they do not sound willing to reciprocate.
Especially, Palestinians insist, they need access to transport their products swiftly to conduct business in other countries. They and their brethren in surrounding Arab nations never bothered to think of that in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 2000.
Already, the Palestinian Authority has refused to funnel $14 million to compensate departing settlers so they can turn over the remaining greenhouses to the Palestinians. Due to bureaucratic rules, the United States Agency for International Development could not pass the money directly to Israel, since it does not qualify for help from the agency. The simple solution would have been for the agency to send the money to the Palestinian Authority, which would in turn hand over the money to the settlers. The Palestinians refused even that.
"The attitude was, 'We are not going to put our fingerprints on anything that helps the Jews,'" Mortimer B. Zuckerman told the New York Times.
Zuckerman sprang into action at the request of his friend James D. Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank and current Middle East envoy from the White House. Zuckerman, the New York Daily News publisher, real estate magnate and Jewish organizational leader, phoned his friends and fellow billionaires, who are also prominent Jewish philanthropists, to ask them to donate $14 million, through a private advocacy group called the Aspen Institute, to the greenhouse owners, so the Palestinians might acquire the greenhouses whose vegetables and flowers have been a major source of Israeli export income, as well as roughly 3,500 jobs for Palestinians, the Times reported.
In another news report, an Arab spokeswoman claimed the greenhouse owners should not profit after robbing from the Palestinians all these years.
Let's get this straight. The Palestinian Authority refuses to spend $14 million of someone else's money to provide employment for its own people just to spite Israel.
Zuckerman raised the money within two days, but not before encountering some stumbling blocks: "Some people said, 'Well, if these people are so anti-Semitic, why should we do anything to help them?'"
An obvious question. Shouldn't Zuckerman have demanded an answer from Wolfensohn before he leaned on his pals to give up their pocket change for the Palestinians?
If the Palestinians cannot hold their noses to compensate the greenhouse owners, how can they be expected to compromise on far more serious differences if negotiations ever resume?
Already, thousands of banners, bumper stickers, mugs and T-shirts carrying the slogan "Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem" were distributed to Gazans and funded by a United Nations agency. Even supposedly moderate PA President Mahmoud Abbas told a rally, "This step is only the first step, which will be completed in the West Bank and in Jerusalem. But the step has come as a result of patience and sacrifices of our people, of martyrs, of wounded, of houses destroyed. All of those have brought us the fruit we are celebrating."
In other words, the Palestinians are clamoring for more land giveaways while neglecting to speak of their responsibilities to Israel. Jonathan D. Reich of Lakeland, Florida, offered this advice in a letter published in the Times: "No one can stop the Palestinians from celebrating the Israeli withdrawal, even though they will celebrate with foreign aid money.... It's just that I think self-reflection would be more appropriate."
To put this in wider perspective, the Palestinians also want to rebuild a Gaza airport, establish a seaport, have ready access for its citizens to enter Israel for jobs, travel on a highway and/or rail link between Gaza and the West Bank through Israeli land and extend their fishing limits. Each demand could compromise Israeli security.
When Palestinian leaders urge negotiations on more territory, they conveniently forget there were already negotiations. What they demand now, after the deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis, they were offered on a silver platter in the summer of 2000 by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who was defeated for re-election by Ariel Sharon about six months later.
They must also understand that Israel is not leaving Gaza specifically to help them. The priority reasons are to consolidate Israel's defenses and concentrate its Jewish population, to guard against future demographic threats. Any other benefits that flow from this, no matter who is helped, will be icing on the cake.
Israel should try to work out a reasonable deal with the Palestinians where feasible, but Israel should make sure it gets something out of the deal. For starters, Israel should have put its foot down on the greenhouse money. No greenhouse money through public means, no further talks. Letting them get away with this sends the Palestinians a message: they can get something for nothing whenever they feel like it.
[Information contained in this commentary was reported in the New York Times and the Washington Post.]
The Palestinians in Gaza are sending Israel this message: they need Israel and they do not sound willing to reciprocate.
Especially, Palestinians insist, they need access to transport their products swiftly to conduct business in other countries. They and their brethren in surrounding Arab nations never bothered to think of that in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 2000.
Already, the Palestinian Authority has refused to funnel $14 million to compensate departing settlers so they can turn over the remaining greenhouses to the Palestinians. Due to bureaucratic rules, the United States Agency for International Development could not pass the money directly to Israel, since it does not qualify for help from the agency. The simple solution would have been for the agency to send the money to the Palestinian Authority, which would in turn hand over the money to the settlers. The Palestinians refused even that.
"The attitude was, 'We are not going to put our fingerprints on anything that helps the Jews,'" Mortimer B. Zuckerman told the New York Times.
Zuckerman sprang into action at the request of his friend James D. Wolfensohn, the former president of the World Bank and current Middle East envoy from the White House. Zuckerman, the New York Daily News publisher, real estate magnate and Jewish organizational leader, phoned his friends and fellow billionaires, who are also prominent Jewish philanthropists, to ask them to donate $14 million, through a private advocacy group called the Aspen Institute, to the greenhouse owners, so the Palestinians might acquire the greenhouses whose vegetables and flowers have been a major source of Israeli export income, as well as roughly 3,500 jobs for Palestinians, the Times reported.
In another news report, an Arab spokeswoman claimed the greenhouse owners should not profit after robbing from the Palestinians all these years.
Let's get this straight. The Palestinian Authority refuses to spend $14 million of someone else's money to provide employment for its own people just to spite Israel.
Zuckerman raised the money within two days, but not before encountering some stumbling blocks: "Some people said, 'Well, if these people are so anti-Semitic, why should we do anything to help them?'"
An obvious question. Shouldn't Zuckerman have demanded an answer from Wolfensohn before he leaned on his pals to give up their pocket change for the Palestinians?
If the Palestinians cannot hold their noses to compensate the greenhouse owners, how can they be expected to compromise on far more serious differences if negotiations ever resume?
Already, thousands of banners, bumper stickers, mugs and T-shirts carrying the slogan "Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem" were distributed to Gazans and funded by a United Nations agency. Even supposedly moderate PA President Mahmoud Abbas told a rally, "This step is only the first step, which will be completed in the West Bank and in Jerusalem. But the step has come as a result of patience and sacrifices of our people, of martyrs, of wounded, of houses destroyed. All of those have brought us the fruit we are celebrating."
In other words, the Palestinians are clamoring for more land giveaways while neglecting to speak of their responsibilities to Israel. Jonathan D. Reich of Lakeland, Florida, offered this advice in a letter published in the Times: "No one can stop the Palestinians from celebrating the Israeli withdrawal, even though they will celebrate with foreign aid money.... It's just that I think self-reflection would be more appropriate."
To put this in wider perspective, the Palestinians also want to rebuild a Gaza airport, establish a seaport, have ready access for its citizens to enter Israel for jobs, travel on a highway and/or rail link between Gaza and the West Bank through Israeli land and extend their fishing limits. Each demand could compromise Israeli security.
When Palestinian leaders urge negotiations on more territory, they conveniently forget there were already negotiations. What they demand now, after the deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis, they were offered on a silver platter in the summer of 2000 by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who was defeated for re-election by Ariel Sharon about six months later.
They must also understand that Israel is not leaving Gaza specifically to help them. The priority reasons are to consolidate Israel's defenses and concentrate its Jewish population, to guard against future demographic threats. Any other benefits that flow from this, no matter who is helped, will be icing on the cake.
Israel should try to work out a reasonable deal with the Palestinians where feasible, but Israel should make sure it gets something out of the deal. For starters, Israel should have put its foot down on the greenhouse money. No greenhouse money through public means, no further talks. Letting them get away with this sends the Palestinians a message: they can get something for nothing whenever they feel like it.
[Information contained in this commentary was reported in the New York Times and the Washington Post.]