Destroyed Palestinian Power Plant Generates Irony
It turns out the power plant that Israeli forces destroyed on Tuesday as part of Operation Summer Rains is insured.
But paying a claim on the plant, which was insured for $48 million, could prove problematic for the United States, which cut off funding for all infrastructure projects in the Palestinian territories after the militant group Hamas won legislative elections in January.
The plant took 5 years to build and cost $150 million to build– and one of the original investors was now-defunct Enron.
Fixing the facility could take weeks or even months–and then of course the violence in Gaza (even before this week) does not make the situation any easier for the prospects of fixing the plant.
The insurance that Morganti purchased covers “political violence,” which includes “wars, acts of terrorism, things like that,” Spinelli said. To be paid for the damage, the company must file a claim, and the Investment Corporation must determine whether the claim is covered by the policy, Spinelli said.
I wonder if terrorists carry no-fault insurance.
One final note: the funds for the insurance are kept in the US Treasury and are controlled by Congress, which raises another issue:
After the election of Hamas in January, a host of congressmen introduced bills designed to freeze US assistance to the Palestinian territories to prevent any financial benefit from reaching Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization. In April, the State Department announced it would cut off all planned funding for infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank.
Maybe Hamas can smuggle a new power plant in one of their suitcases.
Crossposted on Daled Amos
When it comes to insurance policies, damage caused by acts of war, etc. are typically excluded from coverage.
Strange that such perils would be specifically included in this policy. If it was, I expect the premiums would be a big factor in the GNP of the Palestinian economy.
No doubt the insurers will be looking for a way out of paying. Perhaps the annual premiums were not paid as so much else with the Palestinian economy does not get paid.
Failing coverage under the insurance policy, the U.S. really is on the horns of a dilemna, especially if they in any way guaranteed the Palestinians they would stand behind the insurers for any losses occasioned.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 29, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
It is too bad that every leader in the Palestinian entity could not be insured against making stupid, foolish, illogical, deadly, murderous, destructive decisions that eventually make the situation worse not only for Israelis but especially for themselves. Call it “mad dog insurance for criminally insane terrorists.” Israel could hold the policies and pay the premiums - it might pay for the war which never begins and never ends.
Comment by Gary Gerofsky
— June 29, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Very cutely stated Gary. To bad it can’t be so!
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 29, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
It will be better for Israel if the insurance pays for the damages otherwise according to the international law and Geneva Convention Israel has to pay the compensation (under mass punishment act)!
The bill can rise quickly if civilians die say in hospitals because of lack of electricity or children catch cold!
Comment by Kiumars
— June 29, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
Kiumars, you’re confused. Look up the 4th Geneva Convention which describes the rights of a prisoner of war… Please note that Israel opened the Karni crossing and in order to let humanitarian relief in.
In any case, please notice something that the UN said about humanitarian crisis that was ALREADY IN EFFECT ONE MONTH AGO (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18809&Cr=Middle&Cr1=palestin). Let’s see so one month ago people that donate to the Gaza Strip (which is about 2 billion dollars a year according to the CIA World Factbook) said they wouldn’t continue unless the Hamas government dedicated itself to non-violence. Hmmmmm….yea so their way of doing that was to kidnap a soldier?
Comment by responder
— July 4, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
Kiumars, please quote the sections of the Geneva Convention you are referring to.
Comment by Shy Guy
— July 5, 2006 @ 12:46 am