Dreaming? You wanna know who’s fucking dreaming? You are, Nazzal. You are. You love that Western Aid money, but don’t want any strings attached, don’t you? Too fucking bad, asswhipe. You don’t want peace, you want destruction. Time for you to wake up and recognize reality. The majority of the Palestinian people want peace with Israel, and you represent the Palestinian people now. It’s all fun and games when you’re the opposition, but you’re running the show now. Act like it.
My bet: Hamas will spiral into all the the corruption and incompetence that Fatah wallowed in when it got the power.
File this under “Hamas getting what it wished for” in the “Careful what you wish for” cabinet.
How can anyone give them money when the money is going to be used in terrorist activity?
The aid money wouldn’t be going to Hamas any more than your tax dollars fund the Republican party. Cutting aid to Palestine simply because Hamas has a majority in Parliament (even though Fatah still holds the presidency) will have about as much effect as the embargo has had on Cuba. It simply gives Hamas an excuse if things fail. In my opinion, the aid should be available, with proper independent oversight to make sure it isn’t siphoned off.
If Hamas renounces violence, they should get every bit of the aid money. Until then, no fucking dice. Independent oversight didn’t help with Fatah corruption, why would it help now?
Renouncing violence is not enough. How about we have a couple of years of no bombs going off? Let’s see some action before we cut loose with any dinero.
Sorry if we can’t fund your hatred and violence…
… we can barely afford our own!
Except it won’t be the hatemongers starving in those two years. It will be women and children and the hatemongers will play off of the deaths to escalate the situation rather than changing their ways.
Cutting the aid imperils the innocent and inflames the moderate. Oversight and accountability are what the international community should insist on. If Hamas takes the rope and hangs themselves, that’s their choice. But to withhold the rope entirely means many innocents will be swept away and under. The hatemongers will still have covert sources of funds through private charities and non-governmental channels.
I agree, with possibly a joint EU-U.S. commission to tightly regulate where the money goes. If Hamas rejected this, it would be a clear indication of where their priorities lie.
A U.N.-administered fund would be an alternative, if we didn’t have vivid memories of how well oil-for-food worked out in Iraq.
Well, there’s that, too.
Wrong-O!! The aid goes to the government, not the party. And this is a government voted in by the majority of the people. Sorry, but you had to know this would happen. All they have to do is recognize the right of Israel to exist and they’ll be welcomed at the bargaining table. Democracy is great, now take some responsibility for your choices.
Didn’t I call this? It’s harder to govern than to oppose.
For those complaining that cutting off the aid will hurt the palestinian people allow me to posit the issue this way:
“The people hurt by the lack of aid are the ones who elected Hamas to a majority.”
I believe that Hamas leaders asking for the tap to keep flowing is the first sign of pain on the part of the new rulers. Hell, they’re the legitimate government of the palestinian people now…it’s time to act like it. Want to keep the aid flowing from the US? Stop directly opposing US policy in the region.
And I’m a big supporter of the new government there. It was clear there wasn’t going to be any real motion with the status quo. A shake up was called for and we got one. Now we see if they can make things happen. I have no problem with ‘strings-attached’ aid at all. Want charity instead of aid? Call the Red Crescent.
Agreed. If they aren’t willing to accept reasonable safeguards then fuck 'em.
And I’m really not too interested right now in forcing Hamas to disarm and recognize Israel. There’s time enough for that. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect them to do so, either, given that their rivals in the area (al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, etc) would still be armed. I’d rather see them keep the rhetoric but simply hold off on the violence. There’s no reason a several-year long truce couldn’t be negotiated with Israel. Both sides get what they want - Israel doesn’t get bombed by Hamas, and Hamas gets a fair shot at governing without losing face. Win-win.
On the other hand, you can’t run the same scheme that Hussein did since there wouldn’t be oil vouchers to disburse. And people would be looking closely at it.
That’s what I said.
It’s also a government that hasn’t attacked Israel.
Yeah, just like Fatah was welcomed at the bargaining table. Israel neuters the government, then complains when they can’t govern properly and uses it as an excuse to expand settlements, further pissing off the Arabs.
Real statemanship is needed right now, and there’s nobody capable of stepping up from either the US, Israel, the EU or likely Palestine.
What Hamas is basically saying is “If you don’t give us any money I won’t be responsible for the new friends we’re going to make”. It’s not as easy as saying no dice, Palestine.
You’re right… I missed the negative. But it doesn’t matter. The party now is the government.
It’s also a government that doesn’t recognize Israel’s existence.
Both sides have to give. The Israelis have given. The Palestinians need to do likewise. They’re the weaker part? Tough shit. Deal with it.
There has been plenty of statesmenship, and the Palestinians have fucked things up every time.
Children voted for Hamas? Hamas won unanimously?
If both of those were true I could agree with your view. They aren’t, and I don’t. In fact, I would argue if aid is cut off those who opposed Hamas will suffer the most. Hamas has more than enough clout to ensure unfair distribution of what there is to distribute(as Fatah did before them). I would hazard a guess that food and monies will flow mainly to those loyal to Hamas. By cutting aid we may very well end up starving those who oppose Hamas and further polarizing/infuriating the others.
Mtgman: We can still give aid directly to the people thru international aid agenies or our own agencies set up for that purpose. Not funneling it thru the Hamas dominated government sends a message to that government (and the people) as well as preventing that government from siphoning off money for terrorist or other violent activities.
Let me introduce you to this concept called ‘democracy’. It’s a system in which people vote for their leaders. And then the winners get to do what they want. The losers may organize opposition and attempt, especially in a parlimentary system, to block the majorities actions.
Is there always a potential problem with persecution of a minority? Hell, I’m a Jew so you’ll get no argument there. Nonetheless, they voted and Hamas won. If the US disagrees with that they have the right not to provide aid. Why is this so hard to parse? If Hamas wants the aid to flow they have a simple way to do so: cease supporting attacks against Israel and begin behaving like a civilized government. Do that and the tap runs full tilt.
I’m not talking about persecution. I’m talking about disenfranchisement. The Hamas government, if starved for resources like aid money, is more likely to withhold entitlements or distribution of those resources from segments of the population which opposed them. Given the history of governments in the region it is probably fair to say they will do this no matter how many resources they have, but it is a little harder to justify severe disparity in distribution when resources are ample.
I’m not saying the US, or other donor nations, should be forced to provide aid, and economic incentives/disincentives are certainly on the table. I just, in my cynical little head, see some probable downsides to cutting off aid which will increase suffering of those who are at least innocent, at best potential allies.
I’m saying the most likely outcome of a resource-starved Hamas government is further polarization/anger/frustration/resentment in the main Palestinian population and an effectively disenfranchised anti-Hamas minority.
If we’re doing a cost-benefit analysis on the proposal to cut funding I think these factors should be weighed.
When did “renounce violence” get added to the list of qualifications for receiving US foreign aid? And how many of the 150+ countries who received US foreign aid in 2004 (the last year I found information for online) have renounced violence?