The Arab states show their love for the 'Palestinians'
I'm sure you'll all be shocked - just shocked - to hear that 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA - the agency that takes care of 'Palestinian refugees' - are Western countries and not Arab states. In 2008, 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA's general fund were from the West, with the EU contributing over $116m., and the US more than $94m. Others, such as Sweden and the UK, each gave over $35m.Read it all.
Just one Arab country - Kuwait - appeared among UNRWA's top 20 benefactors. The Kuwaitis came in last on the list, having coughed up just $2.5m.
Given that Kuwait's oil revenues last year surged by 44 percent to nearly $78 billion, you would think that if they really, truly cared about the Palestinians, this would have been reflected in the size of their donation to UNRWA.
Nonetheless, when compared to the other five Arab states that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) - Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - the Kuwaitis come out looking generous.
In 2008, the combined revenues of the GCC states from oil production amounted to a whopping $575b. Yet their joint contribution to UNRWA's regular budget was a little more than $3.6m., signifying less than one one-thousandth of a percent of their total petroleum income! Bahrain gave a miserly $50,000, Oman forked over just $25,000, while Saudi Arabia coughed up zero.
I've been to Hadassah dinners where more money was raised in an hour than the Arab states seem willing to part with in an entire year.
In fact, over the past two decades, Arab regimes have been providing a steadily decreasing percentage of UNRWA's funding. In the 1980s, their contributions amounted to 8% of the group's annual budget, whereas now they comprise barely 3%.
As a result, Western states are currently providing more than 95% of the funds behind UNRWA's ongoing programs.
Michael Freund, who supplied these statistics, says that they show the Arabs' hypocrisy in lambasting Israel for its treatment of the 'Palestinians' while doing nothing to alleviate their conditions.
But there's another issue that bears looking into: Unlike refugees elsewhere in the world, who are resettled in a matter of months, the 'Palestinians' have had their refugee status perpetuated by UNRWA. It starts with the ridiculous definition of 'refugee' (having lived in 'Palestine' for two years before 1948), continues with the fact that 'refugee' status can be passed from generation to generation, and progresses to the refusal to move the 'refugees' into permanent housing. If the West controls 95-98% of UNRWA's purse strings, why isn't it forcing UNRWA to resolve the 'refugees' status rather than leaving them as perpetual hostages for purposes of undermining the Jewish state's existence? Is it a Western interest that there not be a state of Israel? The question at least deserves consideration.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:52 PM
1 Comments:
Carl - that's a very good question. Why isn't the West using its financial clout to demand a change in the UNRWA does business with a view to resettling refugees in the Arab countries where they now live with equal rights and opportunities and have UNRWA sunset its activities say in five years? It should be possible to do that which would go a long way towards resolving the Palestinian issue. If the Arab states object, then take the refugees out of the Middle East and resettle them elsewhere.
One way or another the Palestinians should no longer be held hostage to their own leaders and the Arab countries' opposition to Israel's existence. That single step alone would do more for Middle East peace than all the policy papers, diplomatic shuttles and negotiations combined.
Post a Comment
<< Home