 |
Michael Anbar , PhD, is a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of Buffalo. Formerly a professor at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, he is the author of , published by iUniverse.
|
|
|
|
By Michael Anbar
March 5, 2007
 Bookmark to del.icio.us
We are being told that the EU is eager to renew it financial support of the PA once the Hamas-Fatah unity government has been established. If this information is correct, it is unreasonable. Why should the EU, currently under political and economic stress, in addition to its growing internal problems with its Muslim immigrants, invest hundreds of millions of Euros in the PA?
To answer this question let us recast it in generic form: Why should a country offer a significant portion of its fiscal resources to another country? Since there is no altruistic generosity in international relations, where Realpolitik prevails, there are several scenarios that make such support rational, desirable or even necessary:
1. Supporting another country that fights a common enemy, i.e., harming that enemy by proxy before it harms the donor.
2. Gain economic influence in the recipient country, i.e., giving the donor preferential treatment (lower prices) in purchase of recipient's products or in selling to it products of the donor at a higher than world market prices. One then expects a substantial net economic gain for the donor by the "generous" fiscal support.
3. Gain political influence in the recipient country so that it follows the donor's policies. This is called for when forming international political (e.g., at the UN) military or economic coalitions (trading blocks).
4. Bolster a friendly regime in the recipient country against a potentially less friendly internal opposition or an external common enemy.
5. Counter-balance fiscal support of an adversary donor.
6. Persuade the recipient country to commit against a third party, actions that would be unacceptable by the public of the donor, i.e., using the recipient as a hired gun.
7. A tribute to an enemy following defeat in order to avoid greater harm.
Except for the last one, we have witnessed each of these scenarios in recent years in the international political arena. Also American foreign aid is motivated following one of the first six scenarios.
Now let us consider Germany or France, the major players in the EU, and analyze their possible motives in rendering support to the PA. Let us consider the above scenarios one by one:
1. The only enemy of the PA, whether controlled by Fatah or by Hamas, is the State of Israel. Notwithstanding the traditional European misojudaism (anti-Semitism) and in spite of Israel's technological superiority over most European countries, no European politician is likely to consider Israel as a threat or an enemy. If such an intrinsic animosity to the Jewish state existed, one might have expected enhanced European support to Hamas, which is unequivocal in its intent to eliminate the State of Israel. It is unlikely that American pressure is solely responsible for the current boycott of the Hamas-controlled government of the PA, because the EU does not care much about US policies (see its position regarding Iraq); even if the EU did not wish to support Hamas openly it would have found other ways to do so.
The elimination of Israel is not in the best interest of the West. The destruction of Israel would have left the Middle East in greater chaos than it is today. A "Palestinian" Arab state that would undoubtedly soon include Jordan, would than be subdivided by Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia; Israel has evidently been the lynchpin that maintains the Hashemite sovereignty in Jordan, and it played a similar role regarding Lebanon (it lost that political position in 2006). There is also little doubt that Lebanon will eventually be annexed to Syria; this will certainly happen if Israel is wiped off the map. The three beneficiaries of the elimination of Israel, who will be supported by Russia and possibly also by China, will certainly not become friendlier to the West. Therefore, supporting the elimination of Israel does not seem to be in the best interest of the EU, not to speak of the US.
2. The PA has little to offer the EU in terms of a potential importer or exporter. The PA has virtually no natural resources and hardly any industry. Moreover, its impoverished population can hardly be considered a significant consumer of European goods.
3. The PA has practically nothing to offer as a political, economic or military ally of the EU.
4. EU's support of the PA could have been rationalized as an attempt to prevent the rise of a more radicalized Islamic movement in the territory controlled by the PA. This policy, if it existed, has failed completely with the spectacular rise of Hamas. However, also the support of the Fatah controlled PA makes little political sense as long as those Arabs focus all their resources on the destruction of Israel.
5. Support of the PA by Muslim countries has been rendered solely to enhance the war against the Jewish state. Since the support of the EU is not meant to achieve that goal, there is no commonality of interest or competition between those Muslim donors and the EU. However, EU support might complement Muslim fiscal support and result in a more likely destruction of the Jewish state, an unreasonable goal for the EU.
6. If the EU tacitly wished the destruction of Israel, supporting the PA would have made sense. However, strengthening the Islamic world must be the last thing the EU would be interested in at this point in time. Weakening the US by strengthening the Muslims is suicidal for the West, for the EU in particular, and the majority of Europeans are not likely to have given up their instinct of survival.
7. It is hard to believe that the EU wants to offer the PA substantial financial support as a tribute to appease the Muslims less they terrorize Europe at a higher intensity. For one, if Europe is at the verge of capitulation to the Arabs, supporting the PA and even sacrificing Israel will be an insufficient tribute. It would only embolden the Muslims to proceed with their planned conquest of the West. Since Europe is a softer target than the US, it will become the next victim of Islamic aggression.
Notwithstanding all these Realpolitik consideration there seem to be undercurrent pressures on the EU and on the US Administration to support the PA. A rudimentary analysis will conclude that the main beneficiary of the elimination of Israel would be the Saudis. It would allow them to eliminate Hashemite Jordan and possibly expand the Saudi kingdom to the Mediterranean plus giving them the glory of conquering Jerusalem, thus neutralizing Egypt's hegemony in the Sunni world. Realizing the power of Saudi money to buy political influence, is not beyond possibility that EU and US politicians are currently made to follow policies detrimental to the welfare of the countries they are expected to serve.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
