Mike Freer MP

House of Commons

London SW1A OAA 

16 November 2012
Dear Mike
 

Thank you for your letter of 5 November, to Justine Greening, Secretary of State for
 

International Development, red:MF/JW, enclosing an email from your constituent, Mr. David Lewis, of 37 The Grove, London, N3 1QT, about DFlD's support to the Palestinian Authority (PA), in the context or recent allegations by Palestinian Media Watch.

 It is completely wrong to suggest that the UK is supporting terrorism. We have robust safeguards in place to ensure that our funds do not benefit terrorist groups, and ensure that our partners do the same. We are also vigorous in investigating allegations which are made. In addition to our own investigations, we draw on independent reports from neutral groups where these are available. For example, on the issue of textbooks, independent studies by Congressional Research Services, UNESCO and others have come to very different conclusions to those of Palestinian Media Watch, finding no evidence of incitement or anti-semitism.

Our support to the PA is helping to build the institutions vitally necessary to lay the groundwork for an effective and viable Palestinian State, living in peace and security with Israel. UK aid to the PA is also helping to deliver essential services such as health and education to poor and vulnerable people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Our development assistance to the PA is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding which reaffirms the PA's commitment to non-violence and a negotiated solution to the conflict. We continue to assess that President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are committed to non-violent pursuit of a two state solution. We have reviewed the allegations made by PMW in their recent report. While we are continuing to investigate some of the details, our overall assessment is that their accusations are flawed in many respects.
 

Firstly, it is important to understand that the Palestinian Authority operates two schemes in respect of prisoners. The first operates at the request of the Israeli authorities and is administered by an Israeli company. Under this agreement PA funds are used to cover the immediate needs of prisoners for food and clothing. This is in line with basic international law, and indeed we would normally expect the imprisoning authority to make such provision itself.
 

The second payment scheme is intended to assist families in need of assistance. There are a number of points in the PMW report relating to this support that are not borne out by the facts, as set out below.
 

PMW states that the PA's law refers to the payments as "salaries." The document referred to is a Cabinet Decision, not a law. The word used in the decision, "ratib," can be used for any regular payment, not just for salaries. The PA has now changed the wording in the Cabinet Decision to unambiguously refer to the payment as assistance - "Ia'ana." This is consistent with the PA's published budget which uses the same word for payments to prisoners families as it does for other social assistance payments. The payment is also unlike salaries in other ways, for example in that it cannot be used as a basis for mortgage lending.
 

[PMW comment: The information reported by the UK regarding the meaning of the Arabic word "ratib" is incorrect. "Ratib" is the word specifically used for "salaries". Note the precise definitions in two respected Arabic - English dictionaries:
 

"(pl. ????? rawatib) salary, pay, emolument;"
 [The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic]
 

"Rateb (rawateb) Salary (especially government officials and professionals). rawateb il-muwazzafin - officials' salaries."
 

["The Olive Tree dictionary - A Transliterated Dictionary of Conversational Eastern Arabic (Palestinian)]
 

PMW also say that the core payments cannot be social assistance because unmarried prisoners receive the basic payment and there are additional payments for wives and children. The Cabinet Decision states that "The spouse of the prisoner is the formal delegate to receive the payment unless the prisoner decides otherwise. If the prisoner was not married then one of the parents is delegated and the prisoner may choose one of them or any other family member."
 

[PMW comment: In all cases the prisoner is in sole control of the money and only he has the right to designate the person who will receive the payments on his behalf while he is in prison. As the PA law states and as quoted correctly by Duncan: the spouse is "the delegate" who receives the money "unless the prisoner decides otherwise." It is the prisoner's money and the prisoner's decision.] 
 

PMW states that the amount of the payment increases with the severity of the crime rather than the needs of the family. This is not the case. Prisoners given a long sentence start on the same payment as those serving other crimes, and families with other sources of public income do not receive the payment. PMW is correct that the highest payment to families is around 12,000 Shekels, which is around £2000 per month, Only 2 prisoners' families receive this high amount, and the basic payment received by the majority of prisoners' families is much lower.
 

[PMW comment: As reported by PMW previously, it is the PA's official newspaper Al-Hayat Al- Jadida that in a special financial supplement about PA salaries wrote that the average salary of prisoners is higher than that PA civil servants and PA military. (See reports in pdf)]
 

It is true that in some cases, payments may go to families of those who have committed the sort of crime that we utterly condemn. We believe, however, that it would be wrong to punish innocent children and other dependent family members by denying them access to social support. We have discussed these issues with the PA at the highest levels in recent weeks, and continue to encourage the PA to ensure that these payments are more transparent, needs-based and affordable. We have offered support to the PA in doing so. 
 

Providing assistance in the context of an unresolved conflict that has lasted more than 60 years presents some inevitable challenges. The UK is committed to resolving this conflict in a peaceful negotiated two state solution. I am sure this is a goal on which we both can agree.
 

Alan Duncan
 

"Dagbladet has asked the government a number of questions regarding Pal watch's (PMW's) information [on PA paying salaries to imprisoned terrorists], but the [Norwegian] Foreign Ministry denies these problems and refers to the salary payments as social benefits.
 

'The PA has, in the same way other countries' governments have, a variety of arrangements for social transfers to its citizens, including people who are imprisoned. Social benefits to the families of Palestinians in Israeli prisons are part of the total Palestinian social security system and are intended to compensate for loss of income. Such social transfers have been made for as long as the PA has existed and on social grounds, including considerations for children in the family,' writes Frode Overland Andersen in the Foreign Ministry in an email. That the prisoners receive a higher average salary than teachers, soldiers and others who perform key functions in a future Palestinian state, was not commented on by the Foreign Ministry..."

[Dagbladet.no (Norway), Sept. 4, 2011]


 

הוא הוסיף כי בשנים האחרונות הייתה תמיכה רבה מצד הממשלה בכל התקנות והחוקים המגנים על זכויות האסירים ומשפחותיהם, כמו גם על זכויות השהידים הלוחמים.