Israel's Smotrich could collapse Palestinian economy by ending bank waiver
Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has cancelled a waiver that Palestinian banks rely on to operate hours after five Western governments announced he faced sanctions, along with fellow ultra-nationalist Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, for inciting violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
Warnings have previously been raised that Israel's ending of the waiver could have devastating consequences for the Palestinian economy, which is dependent on the Israeli banking system as the Palestinian Authority (PA) does not have its own central bank or currency.
'Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has instructed Accountant General CPA Yali Rothenberg to cancel the indemnity provided to correspondent banks dealing with banks operating in Palestinian Authority territories,' Smotrich's office said in a statement on Tuesday, announcing the changes.
The statement also directly linked Smotrich's decision to the PA's international advocacy against the establishment of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, which the minister's office described as the 'delegitimisation campaign against the State of Israel internationally'.
Smotrich's decision to end the waiver came hours after Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom announced sanctions against him, as well as against Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir for their 'incitement of violence' against Palestinians.
The sanctions were not publicly linked to Smotrich's targeting of the PA, which governs parts of the occupied West Bank and represents Palestine at international forums, including the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
However, Smotrich has a history of blaming the PA and punishing the 2.7 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in retaliation for international condemnation of Israel's illegal occupation.
'For every country that unilaterally recognises a Palestinian state, we will establish a settlement,' Smotrich said in July 2024, as he announced that Israel was 'recognising' five illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank after five more countries – Norway, Spain, Ireland, Armenia and Slovenia – announced they were recognising Palestinian statehood.
He has also called for Israel to annex the occupied West Bank if the ICJ ruled that Israeli settlements are illegal.
The end of the waiver could have a devastating impact on the finances of Palestinians, particularly in the occupied West Bank, which has already suffered multiple economic blows over the past two years.
The overwhelming majority of exchanges in the West Bank and Gaza are in shekels, Israel's national currency, because Palestine is not allowed to have its own central bank or print its own currency, which means that Palestinian banks are reliant on Israeli banks to operate.
But Israeli banks only continue to work with the Palestinian banks because of the government waiver, which protects them from potential legal action relating to transactions with their Palestinian counterparts.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has repeatedly threatened to end the waiver in the past, prompting rebukes from even Israel's closest allies.
Janet Yellen, the United States Treasury Secretary in former President Joe Biden's administration, warned in May last year that 'to cut Palestinian banks from Israeli counterparts would create a humanitarian crisis'.
In July, G7 countries urged Israel to 'take necessary action' to ensure the continuity of Palestinian financial systems.
The UN has also warned that 'unilaterally cutting off Palestinian banks from the global banking system would be a violation of the fundamental principles of international law'.
Under this pressure, the Israeli government has agreed to extend the waiver for short periods. However, far-right ministers like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have always objected.
After one vote in November last year, Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted in Israeli courts of possessing a 'terror' organisation's propaganda material and supporting a 'terror' organisation, wrote in a post on X that he had a 'principled objection' to indemnifying the Israeli banks.
The Palestinian Authority should be completely cut off and 'collapsed', he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
13 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
The Democrats' resistance to Trump is a hollow performance
From March 31 to April 1, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker delivered a record-breaking 25-hour filibuster on the Senate floor of the United States Capitol. In his marathon speech, Booker repeatedly chastised President Donald Trump for his discriminatory politics and policies and for his attempts to circumvent the US Constitution. Booker also criticised both the Democratic and Republican parties for failing to do more to oppose Trump. 'Do better than me. Do better than we in this body. We are flawed and failed people,' he said unironically, adding, 'My voice is inadequate. My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they're trying to do.' Two days later, he proved himself right. Booker voted against two resolutions that would have limited US arms sales to Israel – just as Israeli forces once again intensified their genocidal campaign in Gaza. In doing so, he aligned himself with one of Trump's most extreme and violent foreign policy positions – and exposed the hollowness of the Democratic resistance. After all, you cannot claim to be fighting Trumpism at home while helping it advance abroad. That contradiction sits at the heart of the Democrats' paralysis. In the five months since Trump began his second term as president, meaningful opposition from the party has been almost nonexistent. The so-called resistance to his authoritarianism has been weaker than the sun over the Arctic in the dead of winter. The reason is simple: On many of the most consequential issues – Israel, immigration, policing – the Democrats are not resisting Trumpism. They are participating in it. A centre-right party that shares core positions with its far-right opponent cannot mount real opposition. It can only pretend to. It doesn't help that the Democratic Party is, in many respects, as beholden to wealthy, right-wing donors as the Republicans. What the party lacks in vision, it also lacks in leadership. As the old saying goes: If you want to understand a politician's priorities, follow the money. Or, in the words of Upton Sinclair in his 1941 novel Between Two Worlds: 'Find out who's putting up the money for a political party, and then you know what it will do.' Take Booker's votes against restricting arms to Israel. Since his first Senate run in 2013, he has received nearly $1m from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) and individual donors. A 2019 report from The Intercept described how Booker regularly communicated with the leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 'like teenagers'. With such a cosy relationship, his votes for genocide may be immoral, but they are not surprising. Then there is Hakeem Jeffries, the most powerful Democrat in the House of Representatives. In April, he and Booker held a two-person, all-day sit-in on the Capitol steps to protest proposed deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and food and jobs assistance programmes. 'As Democrats, we're going to continue to stand on the side of the American people, and we will not rest until we bury this reckless Republican budget in the ground,' Jeffries declared. Three weeks later, Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' passed the House 215–214. Although the Senate may revise it, Jeffries's grandstanding had already proven hollow. Jeffries has shown far more resolve against antigenocide protesters. In April 2024 when pro-Palestinian student protests intensified and police raided encampments at Columbia University, he defended the use of New York police to arrest protesters and dismantle the camps. 'The antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation deployed by some students and outside protestors on college campuses in New York City and beyond is completely unacceptable and deeply disturbing,' Jeffries said in a news statement. There was no credible evidence to support his claim. He issued no similar statement in defence of Palestinians nor did he condemn Islamophobia or Zionist attacks on protesters. But he did raise more than $1.15m from AIPAC and other pro-Israel donors during his 2024 re-election campaign. Like Booker and Jeffries, other leading Democrats have chosen to posture against the marginalised rather than confront unjust policies. On January 30, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut posted on X: 'In the first week, Trump removed 7,300 people. On average, Biden was removing 15,000 a week. Under Biden 72 percent of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] arrests were criminals. Under Trump it's dropped to around 50 percent. Trump is removing less people and less criminals.' Whether he intended it or not, Murphy in effect endorsed a mass deportation regime that disproportionately targets migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean. Murphy is a leader who equivocates. Just two months earlier, he had written that 'mass deportation is a (terrible) response to Americans' real sense they are helpless in the face of global forces.' Yet by May, he was boasting about supporting the 'toughest bipartisan border security bill in a generation' as part of 'choosing this country over Donald Trump's campaign'. Murphy may be less beholden to corporate donors than others, but his role in leading the opposition is no less compromised. Even on issues on which Democrats have expressed rhetorical opposition – such as cuts to welfare and education – grandstanding has taken the place of real action. Despite Jeffries's occasional calls for a Democratic strategy to organise resistance, many in the party have chosen instead to cooperate with the administration. That explains how the Senate unanimously confirmed Marco Rubio – long an advocate of xenophobic and Islamophobic policies – as secretary of state by a vote of 99–0, including all 45 Democratic senators. It also explains why 10 Democrats (nine senators, one House member), including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, supported a continuing resolution in March that many agreed would hurt ordinary Americans. 'As bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,' Schumer said. With the Democratic Party applying the pressure of an ant on a mountain, the so-called resistance it claims to lead against Trump has been more than futile – it has become a grim parody. Nothing illustrates the party's rightward drift more clearly than its recent push to court billionaire and former Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk. On June 5 after Musk's public falling-out with Trump over the 'Big Beautiful Bill', Representative Ro Khanna said, 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' including 'a commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him'. By 'him', Khanna seemed to mean rich, white, highly skilled migrants – just as Trump's immigration plans have prioritised white South African farmers as 'refugees' and just as Musk has argued that the US should accept only highly skilled immigrants. Khanna's comments – and his campaign donations from individuals affiliated with Apple, Google, PayPal and Stanford University – place him squarely within the bipartisan elite consensus that dominates immigration and economic policymaking in the US. To mount real opposition, a party must have a clear, unified idea of what it would do differently. The Democratic Party has failed to offer such a vision. It continues to stand with Republicans on issue after issue – and when it claims to stand against them, it rarely follows through. It is long past time to stop hoping the Democratic Party will rescue the US from Trumpism. It won't. It can't. The party has become an unreliable and ideologically compromised actor in the struggle for democracy and justice. What is needed now is a mass movement to build a viable, independent, left-of-centre alternative. Because the Democrats have shown, again and again, that they are not it.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Mapping US troops and military bases in the Middle East
The United States announced on Wednesday that it is preparing a partial evacuation of its embassy in Iraq and has authorised 'the voluntary departure' of dependants of American personnel from locations across the Middle East, including Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, as regional security concerns rise. On Wednesday evening, US President Donald Trump explained that the decision to relocate staff was made because the region 'could be a dangerous place'. Tensions have been rising recently, fuelled by stalled negotiations between the US and Iran over its nuclear programme, further inflamed by Israel's repeated statements that it is prepared to launch a strike on Iran. The US has operated military bases in the Middle East for decades. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the US operates a broad network of military sites, both permanent and temporary, across at least 19 locations in the region. Of these, eight are permanent bases, located across Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The US's first deployment of soldiers in the Middle East was in July 1958 when combat troops were sent to Beirut during the Lebanon Crisis. At its height there were almost 15,000 Marines and Army troops in Lebanon. As of mid-2025, there are about 40,000 to 50,000 US troops in the Middle East, comprising personnel stationed in both large, permanent bases and smaller forward sites across the region. The countries with the most US troops include Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. These installations serve as critical hubs for air and naval operations, regional logistics, intelligence gathering and force projection. Below are some notable bases in the region.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Aid sites as ‘opportunities for killing' unprecedented, ex-UN chief
NewsFeed Aid sites as 'opportunities for killing' unprecedented, ex-UN chief 'Food has become an opportunity for killing, I've never heard of such a thing' Former UN aid chief Martin Griffiths slammed Israel's killing of Palestinians seeking aid. In an interview with Al Jazeera, he said the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was luring people to their deaths.
