I picture Nelson Muntz. In a turbin.
I’m hearing echoes of Ronald Reagan and ‘Constructive Engagement’ of South Africa in this.
I don’t see a means by which we can ‘encourage’ the new Hamas government without withholding aid. This has, at a minimum, captured their attention right off the bat. And it’s provided a clear signal for what the US wants from the new government.
I think that’s shorthand for “violence as a means to affect political change”. At least, that is what I mean by it.
BTW, US law prohibits giving aid to terrorist organizations. Unless Bush takes Hamas off the list of organizations that advocate the use of terror tactics (and only he can do that), no aid can flow to a Hamas-let government. The Europeans may have different requirements/constraints.
I definitely think we should aid Hamas. Not with money, but with weapons: Ordnance, dropped right on top of them.
Well, that would, at this point, be called ‘war’ as they’ve made the respectable ranks of national government (sort of).
Here’s some more food for thought from Hamas.
He’s saying the right things. But call me a cynic…I’ll want to see some movement before being all kissy-kissy.
Hrrrmmm, I thought Hamas ‘won’, but only like 30-40% of the parlament seats. They aren’t event he biggest bloc, are they? So they aren’t the ‘government’, just a powerful part of it. Or am I totally wrong about the election? 
Yep, they took like 55% or so of the available seats. A majority and an unexpected one, IIRC.
I do not support the US funding of an unreformed Hamas-led government. However, I can’t help being concerned about the unintended consequences of a failed nation that is already hotbed of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists. If all support is withheld by the west, Palestine will seek more support from like minded countries, namely Iran and Syria. Is this really in our interest?
OK, how many of the 150 countries to which the US gives foreign aid have renounced violence as a means to effect political change?
They don’t need to renounce it because it’s not part of their governments’ official policies.
Are you joking? Is this in fact a joke? Am I being whooshed here?
I’m not seeing the parallels. South Africa was actively engaged in military actions against their neighbors. They were doing more than talking or standing by old words. If things continue to blow up and Hamas is responsible I could see the parallels, but not at the moment.
Remember Fatah’s charter also called for the liquidation of Israel from its founding ~1967 to the Oslo Accords in '93(?). Aid flowed to the Fatah controlled government without demands for the renunciation of their charter.
I guess I just don’t see this as such a big deal. A Palestinian government controlled by a party chartered in opposition to Israel’s existance is nothing new. It is sad to see us go backwards from Oslo to now, but when weighing words against aid which tens of thousands rely on, I’d still choose aid. If Hamas succeeds in diverting funds from general coffers into terrorism activities? Then the well dries up. Until then I wouldn’t take the food from people because of some asshole’s speechifying. I know what it’s like to have a choice between two evils in an election, and I think it is possible to help the people while still discouraging continued terrorism.
Enjoy,
Steven
No, I’m not joking. Hamas considers civilians to be legitimate military targets, and considers violence targeted specifically against civilians to be a legitimate means of affecting political change.
Why, for instance, would it be wrong to send in convoys with food and medicine instead of giving them money which can quickly and easily be turned into weapons?
#1: Liquidity. Food and medicine flown in and given to the populace means the government spends less money on food and medicine, and therefore has more money to spend on guns and bombs.
#2: If we continue to send aid, even basic humanitarian aid, to Palestine while their government continues to call for a liquidation of all Jews, then there’s no incentive for that population to vote in a party that actually wants to make an honest peace.
For the record, I do support cutting any and all aid until Hamas agrees to come to the negotiating table. I was just wondering why money was the sole focus of the discussion.
True. I hadn’t thought of that.
That’s my thinking as well.
Not only is it a joke, it’s a shaggy dog story. First it was “renounce violence.” Then it was “renounce violence as a means of effecting political change.” Then it’s “renounce violence as a means of effecting political change as a matter of government policy,” and now it’s “renounce violence as a means of effecting political change as a matter of government policy that’s targeted specifically at civilians.”
What other countries to which the United States gives foreign aid does the government of the United States hold to this standard, in any of its permutations? Any?
Pardon me for explaining it to you. :rolleyes:
Do you think Hamas is just another political party, like the Torries or the Whigs? Hamas uses as condones suicide bombing of civilian targets. Most countries have a problem with that. You don’t?
Why do we have to treat every country the same?