How, by Every Metric, Israel’s Occupation of Gaza Improved Gazans’ Quality of Life

July 15 2019

Responding to a recent report lamenting the current plight of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Barbara Kay points to some relevant facts about the radically improved conditions there under Israeli rule, a few effects of which endured even following Israel’s 2005 withdrawal:

[I]n 1967, when Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza began, life expectancy stood at forty-eight. By 2000, it had leaped to seventy-two, higher not only than in most Arab countries, but higher than in South America and some EU countries. In 1967, infant mortality among Palestinians was at about 157 per 1,000 births. In 2006 it was 21 per 1,000 births, significantly lower than in neighboring Arab and North African countries. Indeed, Palestinian infant mortality rates are now better than in Turkey and Bulgaria, and Gaza still ranks third in the world for natural population increase due to highbirth rates and low death rates.

As for poverty, a little context is in order. Gaza gets plenty of money. . . . But it doesn’t go toward infrastructure. It goes to expanding the public sector, rewarding terrorists and paying religious clerics to broadcast hysterical Judeophobia more or less full time. In spite of all this, Gaza’s gross national income per capita (GNI) is $1,760, which seems nugatory to us but isn’t for the region, where the average GNI is $1,593.

Nobody wants to be ruled by another country, and nobody wants to stop ruling the Palestinians more than Israel does. But if the subject of a report is life under Israeli rule, it is not too much to ask that the report reflect more than superficial knowledge, and provide objectivity and balance. Or is it?

Read more at National Post

More about: Gaza Strip, Hamas, Palestinians

The Palestinian Prime Minister Rails against Peace at the Council of Foreign Relations

On November 17, the Palestinian Authority (PA) prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, appeared at the Council on Foreign Relations, America’s most prestigious and influential foreign-policy institution. While there, Shtayyeh took the opportunity to lambast Arab states for making peace with Israel. Dore Gold comments:

[Perhaps Shtayyeh] would prefer that Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates declare the end of their conflicts with Israel only after all Palestinian political demands are met; however, he refused to recognize that Arab states have a right to defend their vital interests.

Since 1948, they had suspended these rights for the sake of the Palestinian cause. What Shtayyeh ultimately wants is for the Palestinians to continue to hold their past veto power over the Arab world. Essentially, he wants the Arabs to be [like the] Iranians, who supply Palestinian organizations like Hamas with weapons and money while taking the most extreme positions against peace. What the Arabs have begun to say this year is that this option is no longer on the table.

Frankly, the cracks in the Palestinian veto of peace that appeared in 2020 are undeniable. Shtayyeh is unprepared to answer why. The story of that split began with the fact that the response of the Palestinian leadership to every proposal for peace since the 2000 Camp David Summit with President Clinton has been a loud but consistent “No.”

Read more at Jerusalem Post

More about: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Palestinian Authority, U.S. Foreign policy