History Repeats Itself

The answer is simple, albeit difficult for the PA’s donors – most importantly, the European Union – to accept.

The PA was established as a result of a series of agreements collectively known as the Oslo Accords. The collective term encompassed several major agreements, each adding another layer to the arrangements between Israel and the PLO.

The agreements started with the Declaration of Principles, signed in September 1993. That agreement was then followed by the Protocol on Economic Relations, signed in April 1994, and the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area, signed in May 1994. Soon after, pursuant to the agreements, Israel transferred control of designated parts of the Gaza Strip and the city of Jericho to the control of the PLO. The next major agreement, the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, was signed in September 1995.

While written agreements accumulated and Israel retreated from ever-expanding areas, another clear pattern emerged.

Despite having made concrete commitments, the PLO never saw itself as bound by them.

Thus, for example, a November 1995 report of the United States General Accounting Office to the Chairman, Committee on International Relations and the House of Representatives, already exposed what would soon be a consistent reality.

The report examined the PLO’s ability to support the PA, the new Palestinian governance body created by the accords.

Detailing estimated funding requirements, the report addressed, inter alia, three ostensible anomalies – one a governance issue, and the other two clear breaches of the agreements.

From a governance perspective, the report questioned why the PLO-PA mechanisms required the employment of 9,000 civil servants to replace the 1,600 employees of the Israeli civil administration.

More worryingly, the report questioned why the PLO-PA police force, which at the time was capped at 9,000 people, had already grown to over 18,000.

Using International Donations to Fund “Pay-For-Slay”

The report referenced one international mechanism established to help the PLO-PA cover expenses. Of the trust funds set up for this purpose, the World Bank’s Holst Fund was the largest and served as a central repository for donors wishing to disburse pledges through the Bank.

The report notes that, despite being dedicated to other purposes, the PA violated its grant agreement with the World Bank by spending $2 million of Holst funds on martyr payments. As noted above, martyr payments are a foundational element of the PLO-PA “Pay-for-Slay” policy.

The use of international donations to fund “Pay-for-Slay,” again through World Bank mechanisms, occurred repeatedly.

The EU Only Funds the PA Teachers

In theory, the EU restricts most of its direct aid to the PA for the purpose of delivering key public services, including the payment of teachers’, civil servants’, and healthcare workers’ salaries. By limiting the use of the EU funds for the payment of salaries to ostensibly legitimate employees, the EU is making its piecemeal effort to distance itself from funding “Pay-for-Slay.”

What the EU fails to recognize is that funding is fungible. By shouldering the onus of paying the PLO-PA’s ostensibly legitimate employees, the EU removes that burden from the PLO-PA and allows it to use its remaining funds to pay the terror rewards. Within that context, the EU also ignores the fact that it is the PLO-PA teachers who are the ones teaching the PLO-PA curriculum, which is recognized by the EU as antisemitic. Thus, while theoretically avoiding participation in “Pay-for-Slay,” the EU is merely funding the people who have brainwashed and indoctrinated generations of Palestinian to hate Israelis and seek their murder, and to hate Israel and seek its destruction.

Either way, the reality is clear. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the PLO-PA has used, and continues to use, both directly and indirectly, international donor funds to finance its “Pay-for-Slay” policy.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR