The recently concluded trip of Secretary of state Hillary Clinton to the Middle East solidified U.S. positions on the peace process while leaving extensive questions regarding the Administration’s posture towards Israel and the Palestinians.
During comments with a variety of Israeli officials, Clinton emphasized the “shared values” of the two nations and their common interests. She described the relationship as unquestionably lasting, declaring it as “unshakable, durable, [and] fundamental.”
In comments with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas, Clinton reaffirmed the need for a two state solution and the rights of the residents of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. She declared recent demolitions of Palestinian homes by the Israeli government “unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the roadmap.”
Similarly, both in her comments and in comments to the press upon leaving the region, Clinton mentioned the urgency of obtaining a lasting peace. She noted the hasty appointment of Special Envoy George Mitchell on her first day in office and the second day of the Obama Administration as indicative of U.S, desire to prioritize a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Clinton declared that the U.S. would begin in “a coordinating and facilitating role” that could potentially evolve into suggesting criteria for the final peace plan.
However, while these statements clearly identify U.S. policy, many questions surround the recent Gaza aid conference in Cairo and the specifics surrounding the administration of funding. While the Palestinian Authority only request $ $2.7 billion, it received $4.4 billion and obtained additional pledges to bring the total sum to nearly double the original request. This massive gap produces questions to the specific use of funds and whether long-term development could come to the fore-front of spending priorities.
While the United States pledged an additional $900 million towards Palestinians, the exact break-down of these funds remains unclear. Of these funds, $600 million will assist the Palestinian Authority provide certain services and help with budgetary shortfalls. The remaining $300 million will support Gazans following Operation Cast Lead.
It remains unclear what portion of the funds would provide emergency aid to Gazans, such as food and medicines, or provide reconstruction aid, such as cement. Moreover, while Hamas as a group will not officially receive any of the $300 million in U.S. funds towards Gaza, with USAID and UNRWA administering the money, the oversight of Congress and the State Department over each purchase and delivery remains to be determined. In the past, the Palestinian Authority’s administration of funding remained shrouded in corruption and theft, a repetition of which could hurt the Palestinian people and would greatly strain some of the staunch pro-Palestinian statements made by Clinton on her visit.
Similarly, Congress, once appropriating the funding, may enshrine caveats onto the funding. For example, Hamas must release abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, halt terror attacks, or acknowledge Israel’s right to exist before Gaza receives funding. All of these criteria would delay additional humanitarian aid and the beginning of the redevelopment in Gaza. However, legislation mandating oversight to prevent theft and support of terror would improve the efficacy and efficiency of these funds.
The State Department must clarify the specific breakdown of funding and maintain consistent oversight on U.S. funding alongside a watchful on the surplus of aid obtained by the PA this week. Congress should quickly enact legislation to provide humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Gaza, however strict guidelines should delineate the role of each institution administering the funds.
