The title of this post is the conclusion that David Gerstman reaches after reading the conclusions of the EU's self-investigation of whether "European Union aid was diverted to fund Palestinian suicide bombers." I'm equally skeptical, noting that the Jerusalem Post also reports that the statement says:

"Some of the practices of the past, such as the payment of salaries to convicted persons or the financial aid given to the families of "martyrs" as well as the Fatah contributions by PA staff, are liable to be misunderstood and so to lead to allegations that the PA is supporting terrorism," it said.

"These issues should be raised with the PA."

The Israeli Foreign Ministry went even further, criticizing the report as a whitewash: "[t]here is specific, detailed, incontrovertible evidence that shows the contrary is the case." The belief that a commission like OLAF or the UN's (Volcker-led) internal Oil-for-Food investigation can release a public report condemning its own sponsor has never made much sense to me. It's one thing when the investigation is forward-looking, examining ongoing activity. But when it's a historical account and all the harms are in the past (conveniently, the PA has a new prime minister who everyone is crediting, right now at least, with cracking down on the PA's support for terror), it's all-too-easy for everyone to believe the only harm that can be done is to the organization's future interests.

That's the charitable view, of course. The other way to look at it is to believe that many in the EU believe that Palestinian terrorism is justified and intend to support it in the future. And that skepticism drives the organizational harms that whitewashing commissions always fail to recognize.