Chronicle urges US to fund Hamas (but only indirectly!)
by Owen Courrèges · 05/18/2006 9:05 amOk, I’m back. I’ve been taking a blogging hiatus, but still reading the Chronicle to see if they’d print an editorial that would leave me sufficiently outraged to return to LST. They’ve accomplished just that with their latest offering on how to deal with Hamas:
The United States has made some bad investments in brutal regimes. Saddam Hussein’s government (when it was fighting Iran) comes to mind; so do the Taliban (when they were ejecting Soviet troops from Afghanistan). There’s good reason to balk now at the idea of facilitating salary payments for Palestinian civil servants.
Oh boy…
First of all, it’s inaccurate to say that we “invested” in Saddam Hussein’s regime. It ignores the complex dynamic afoot in the Iran-Iraq War. Our attitude was best voiced by Henry Kissinger, who at the time remarked “It’s a shame they both can’t lose.” We didn’t have some affinity for Iraq; we offered assistance to Hussein simply so that Iraq wouldn’t fall to the revolutionary government of Iran, which would have been disasterous. Ultimately we were successful, and the war ended in a stalemate. In retrospect, it is hardly obvious that the result was negative.
Secondly, we NEVER, EVER invested in the Taliban. That’s a vicious lie, and whoever wrote this editorial has recklessly ignored the facts. In Afghanistan, it is true that we funded the mujahadeen in their battle against the Soviets. Some of the mujahadeen went on to become the Taliban, but the Taliban didn’t exist as an entity until the mid-90’s, long after the war was over. We couldn’t have invested in the Taliban before they existed.
But now let’s get to the thesis of the editorial, shall we?
The administration has made the right choice, though, by pledging humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians: Last week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced $10 million in medical supplies will go to West Bank and Gaza hospitals. The U.S. government should also consider easing the way for other countries to pay salaries to Palestinian civil servants.
[...]
Bankrolling civil servants of a terrorist government is distasteful at best, risky at worst. One can argue it only shores up Hamas’ intransigence — and rewards Palestinians for electing a terrorist government.
But the United States quickly loses its ethical standing by doing nothing as Palestinian hospitals fail and children go hungry. As Rice said, that’s not our intention. International help for Palestinian civilians might ward off a societal tailspin — and it might give Hamas time to show, if not verbalize, a more moderate position.
I disagree with Bush’s policy, and the Chronicle’s addition only makes it worse. People are going hungry and dying in other nations that DON’T go around electing terrorist governments. The Palestinians have not only shown themselves unable to provide basic services, but they have thumbed their noses at the people who pay for their government and keep them afloat. I, for one, am sick of it. I’m tired of the West dumping money into Palestine, and having them respond with something along the lines of: “Thank you, you evil, imperialist pigs! P.S. Destroy Israel! ALALALALALALALALALALALA!”
The idea of indirectly funding the salaries of government officials is even worse. It’s basically no different from funding Hamas itself, and they know it. The Chronicle is essentially arguing for capitulation, which makes us appear weak and pathetic to an enemy that exploits our compassion and mocks our good-intentions. This is no time to go wobbly, as Thatcher once remarked. It’s a time to take a hard line.
Hence I say we should cut off all aid, and let the Palestinians take care of themselves unless they elect a rational government. This could have three possible results — 1) the Palestinians could build up their economy to a point of self-sufficiency, negating the need for foreign aid, 2) their society could collapse and their population will scatter to the four winds, solving the problem or 3) they could kick Hamas out in subsequent elections, thus making them deserving of aid. There’s no way the West can lose.
What do you fine folks think?
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
38 Responses to “Chronicle urges US to fund Hamas (but only indirectly!)”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
I think this city suffers greatly from being a one-paper town.
Great to read the “wisdom of Owen” again - don’t be such a stranger! I find it interesting that NO PAPER OR OTHER OFFICIAL SOURCE ever mentions that the West Bank was ILLEGALLY ANNEXED from Israel by Jordan and the Gaza Strip was ILLEGALLY ANNEXED by Egypt from Israel back in the late 40’s early 50’s. They also never mention that the Jews that left other countries in the region were not compensated for their possesions left behind. Nor do they mention that a roughly equal number of “Palestinians”, (actually ethnic Arabs/jordanians) that replaced the Jews that left the various countries in the region, were not welcomed into the society but instead were condemned to refugee camps. This had the effect of turning them into attack dogs. Why did not the “Arab Brotherhood” welcome its brothers and integrate them into society so that all could live in peace?!? Could it be that the Arabs are the most racist, biggoted people on the planet? Is it possible that any attempt to negotiate with them is only viewed with contempt as weakness? One of the constant themes through the Bible is that the Jews are Gods chosen people and that the devil hates them and wants to destroy them. The Arabs are doing the devils bidding.
In light of the recent US 4 billion $ contribution to Columbia to fight cocaine production (yeah, getting our moneys worth again), we need to halt all foreign funding and aid of any type. First see how great an idea the support idea plays with other nations and what they’re willing to contribute and then pony up our US money.
We DOUBLE other nation contributions then we can puff out our chest and show everyone we’re TWICE as generous, caring, compassionate (and foolish) as the other contributors. Put this policy in effect even in disaster situations. We need the greenbacks to stay within our borders.
#2) You might want to read up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements
The West Bank and Gaza Strip were given to the Jordanians and Egyptians respectively. This line existed until the 1967 war in which Israel, not the Arabs, annexed those two pieces of property.
Always ask yourself this…what if some world court decided in the year 3900 AD that the US was actually the homeland of the Native Americans and decided to give them back the land that the “white man” had stolen from them over the course of 200 years. You and your descendents had “civilized a barren wasteland” for around 2000 years and felt that longevity of occupation had rendered the land yours. With that in mind, put yourself in the Arab’s shoes. Wouldn’t you fight to overcome such an “injustice”?
Nice. The US should support a democratic society only when they elect people we like. It just goes to show that conservatives don’t give a damn about real Democracy… just Democracy that they agree with.
Also, you might want to educate yourself about the Iraq-Iran War. It was Iraq who fired the first shot. The “revolutionary government of Iran” didn’t invade Iraq or threaten Saddam’s regime.
Max, democracy has to be coupled with the rule of law, otherwise it degenerates into warring factions killing each other. Like the Paleostinians have.
#6) With that being said, would you recognize Hamas as the elected will of the Palestinian people if they followed the rule of Palestinian law and stepped back from a civil war with Fatah?
Aid (or the withholding of same) should be contingent on our agreement with the government in charge, no problem with that, but recognition should only be contingent on the proof of free and fair elections. We cannot pick and choose which elections to back and which to ignore based on an outcome acceptable to the US. For better or for worse, the will of the Palestinians is that Hamas represent them. We either respect democracy or we don’t.
#4 I will investigate the 1949 armistice on hard copy; Old E- Brittannica’s as time permits. I do not blindly believe on-line anything. When the Israelis settled the land in 1949 (for the 2nd time, the first being about 1900 BC for about 2800 years) it was indeed a barren wasteland; and they did indeed bring it to life and make it productive enough to export food. If yoiu will look back over the last 50 years or so it is always the Arabs fighting, terrorizing, etc the jews to exterminate them or “push them into the sea”. The jews are willing to live in peace but the arabs willnot allow it. I marvel at the restraint of the Israelis that they have not wiped out the “Palestinians” completely from Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. When a group of people has publicly, officially and repeatedly sworn to exterminate your group of people,AND HAS TAKEN NUMEROUS STEPS TO DO SO, a reasonable person would take severe action in self defense. In my view Israel is completely within it’s rights to expel all “Palestinians” from Israel proper and both Gaza and West Bank. The Israelis deserve to be able to live in peace. Also you did not respond to the horrible treatment the “Palestinians” got at the hands of their arab brothers.
maxkelley,
We support democracy, but that’s hardly our only goal. A democratic regime could, with the full support of the populace, kill people for wearing purple trousers, and surely any sane person would object to the result. Democracy is necessary but not alone sufficient to establish a good regime. This should be fairly obvious for anyone who’s paying attention.
I didn’t say that Iran started the war, but they were at war, and would probably have occupied Iraq had they emerged victorious. And although Iran did not threaten Hussein’s regime directly, their revolution was spreading in the Middle East. Surely Hussein — as a Sunni leader in a majority Shiite nation — was not wrong in viewing the trend as threatening.
In any event, it would have been disasterous for the US if Iran had won.
Willie,
This isn’t logical — it’s a non sequitur. We can favor democracy while still holding that it isn’t the end-all. Democracies can elect bad governments, and other nations, while still supporting the democratic process, are not bound to support the result. There’s nothing inconsistent about supporting democracy yet not supporting the decision to elect a terrorist government.
I always thought that the losers of a war were just that, losers. Since the Arabs started the 67 war and lost the land to the winner of the war,Israel, who was only defending itself, I think Isreal should get to keep the spoils of the war they didn’t start.
And if Iran should ever attacks Israel, then they will be justifiably annexed by Israel without any complaint from me.
#8 Bonecrusher, Isreal cannot afford to vanquish all the Palastinians from Israel for the same reason we have all the illegals in are country; they need people to do the jobs thier own citizens won’t do, like clean toilets are have their cars washed.
Willie,
Sure, but that’s not the situation here. The British ruled the area, and while they were ruling it, Jewish settlers poured in. By 1948, there were approximately 650,000 Jews who had settled in the area. Due in large part to the Jewish influx starting in the late 19th century, there had been an economic boom in the area that resulted in the Arab population nearly doubling. Accordingly, nearly half of the Arabs weren’t historical residents of the region.
The UN partition plan attempted to carve out a compromise plan, giving Arabs their land and the Israeli’s theirs. The Arabs wouldn’t accept a reasonable compromise, however, and decided to make war instead. They aren’t exactly the sympathetic figures you portray them to be.
Can anyone tell me what the Arab world in general has produced? What inventions, technology, medicine, etc.? If it weren’t for the free nations, they would still be sitting on their oil. The western world helped them get it out of the ground and to the pipeline. What have any of them done to improve the world? I’m just too lazy to google!
#13) In my book, neither the Israelis or the Arabs are sympathetic. The scenario I described concerning North America/the Native Americans/and Americans of European descent is exactly the situation. Only the characters are different.
The British only ruled this area after the fall of the Ottoman Turks during WW I (1918-1948), prior to that it was ruled by the Romans (40 B.C.-400 A.D.), the Byzantines (400 A.D.-560 A.D.), the Arabs (560-A.D.-1500 A.D.) and the Turks (1500 A.D.-1918 A.D.) *all dates being approximate.
By 1948 there may have been half a million Jews in Palestine, but they were dwarfed by the millions of Palestinians who had lived there since the time of Goliath (of Gath, a Palestinian (pre-Islamic) city, located in the present day Gaza Strip). While there has always been a small Jewish presence in Palestine, it wasn’t until Theodor Herzel and his development of Zionism that Jews began to flock to Palestine and to see the land as belonging to them exclusively.
A good book on the creation of the state of Israel and the Arab/Israeli conflict is “Holy War: A History of the Crusades” by Karen Armstrong.
Willie,
In 1948 there were slightly fewer than one million Arabs in the region. When Jewish immigration began in the late 19th century, that figure was hovering around half a million. Talking about Arab inhabitants over time doesn’t erase the fact that there simply weren’t that many Arabs there.
They were seeking a homeland to escape persecution, and they decided on a historical one, which is hardly blameworthy. They legally immigrated to the area, which was sparsely populated at the time. I fail to see how the Israelis are the bad guys in all of this.
#10) We may choose the course you propose, but we do so at the expense of our credibility. It looks to the rest of the world as if we are shopping for results that we approve of. That is part and parcel of why the US has lost respect in the world and, furthermore, serves as fuel for the fundamentalist fire that rages throughout the Arab world.
#16) That sounds eerily like the rationale used by 18th century Americans of European descent when describing North America and to rationalize the genocide of a people that followed.
How can you miss the parallel?
Willie,
Nonsense. We have never given the impression that we approve of any government provided it is democratic, regardless of its other shortcomings. If the Arab world sees the situation as you do, then they clearly haven’t evolved beyond two-dimensional thinking, and it is thus their own glaring stupidity that fuels the “fundamentalist fire.”
More likely, the problem is that much of the Arab world has been radicalized, doesn’t respect freedom or democracy, and expects the US to bowl over and accept their foolishness, with the resulting consequences for the rest of the world. Ain’t gonna happen.
Willie,
What genocide? What the heck are you talking about? Your parallel has fallen apart… Immigration is NOT genocide.
If you look, you can find legitimate, scholarly sounding sources for both sides of the claim to this particular land. To counter “Holy War: A History of the Crusades” by Karen Armstrong, I would offer this by Hal Lindsey:
The emphasis is added by me. The article, which was researched for one of Lindsey’s books (which I am currently reading), goes on to draw a parallel to our situation with migrant laborers.
I suppose, more than anything else, I offer this to show that the dispute about the “genuine” ownership of this land has gone on for centuries and will continue, despite the best efforts of any man.
#20) The genocide of which I wrote is the one that took place during the 18th and 19th centuries here in the good ole’ U.S. of A.
The same mindset that afflicted our early settlers was/is present in Israel today.
I don’t think I mentioned immigration.
BSue,
Exactly. The Israelis BOUGHT land. They came legally. They didn’t just come in and start butchering Arabs. They also cultivated the land, brought in money, and improved the economic conditions in the area — all to the benefit of the Arabs living there.
Then the Arabs decided that their bigotry was more important to them than peace and their own well-being, and have been battling the Jews ever since.
Willie,
The Israelis weren’t practicing genocide. All they did was immigrate. The parallel is dead.
BSue
#21
You are so
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/sargevining/SPOTON.jpg
It it weren’t for the Jews who created something out of nothing, the Palestinians would still be bedouin shepherds wondering the hills. Look how the Palestinians reacted to Israel putting up the wall! It kept them to and from their jobs!
The tie to migrant workers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and the early Pelestinians is perfect! Man, now that is a parallel!
#25 Neo
Thanx - I am amazed that I can string two words together coherently but am grateful for the award. Makes staying home sick worthwhile ;0)
#23) Owen:
You wrote:
“They also cultivated the land, brought in money, and improved the economic conditions in the area — all to the benefit of the Arabs living there”.
That’s one way of looking at it. The Arabs sure seem grateful towards their “benefactors”. Geez…
BSue
Hope you get betta!
Willie,
Yep. They’re not grateful, just like they’re not grateful to the West for funding their government and keeping their children from starving. They’re a self-indulgent, violent, ungrateful society. What I’m recommending is a wake-up call.
#29) Owen:
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
The Arabs do not seem to desire the same things as the West (freedom, democracy, equal rights for women, etc…). They place a higher emphasis on religion and have no concept of a separation of mosque and state. Most of the things we in the West espouse are contradictory to their religious, cultural, and societal beliefs. They look at our culture and see us as (to quote you) “self-indulgent, violent” and obsessed with sex. Small wonder given the “entertainment” we export around the globe.
Listen, I am not an Arab apologist. There is a segment of Arab society that sickens me, but we should not judge an entire people based on the actions of a few violent souls. The Arabs, no matter the pre-1948 numbers you cite, had their land taken from them by the West. They see the creation of the state of Israel as a result of the European guilt over the Holocaust. I’m not saying I totally agree with that position, but it does help me to understand the average (i.e. non-terrorist) Arab mindset, that’s all.
#14…stomach worms, I think, neocon!
The palestinian question may, unfortunately, resolve itself with the palestinians killing the palestinians. Witness the fractious nature of the palestinian state leading to Hamas palestinians and Fatah palestinians getting into violent gunfights today. Truly sad.
For whatever reason going back to biblical times, the history of the Middle East has been a history of conflict: conflict over nation, conflict over tribe, conflict over clan, conflict over religion, conflict over sect, conflict over ethnicity, conflict over class, . . . . The only times there has been extended periods of relative stability has been when there has been a strong military exerting control: Ottomans, Persians, Roman.
It seems we are condemned to repeat history, rather than learn from it.
Sunny
#31
Whoa! Maybe you are right!
I can’t think of anything else either. I even googled it. IMHO, the Arabs are leeches who take and take but give very little.
Willsin
#32
You’re premise is probably right. Killing is the only thing they understand, given their culture and their “honor.” I am surprised Israel hasn’t taken them out yet, but that is probably due to the Western influence - go along to get along! I wish the westerners would just back off and let Israel handle this on their own. There would be a lot less strife and zero suicide bombers. Another example of the west’s meddling.
#33…Neocon…I agree…the West stay out of it. My money would be on Israel any day. It’s a pity Moshe Dayan isn’t still around…or someone just like him to lead them. Then I’d be guaranteed of a windfall!
Willie,
Well, their beliefs are intolerant, tryannical, and utterly unworthy of global respect. I’m not some let’s-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya cultural relativist. I believe that certain cultural attributes are positive and some are negative. The “let’s subjugate women, crush human freedom, and support tyranny” attitude of the Arab world is entirely unacceptable.
For the record, I don’t admire our sex-obsessed, violent culture. I’d rather we take a major step backwards. But the Arabs offer an alternative that involves treating women like chattel and murdering innocent women and children. They don’t hold the moral high ground here.
A “few violent souls?” Oh, no… Their entire society is infected.
#1: They elected Hamas.
#2: Mein Kamph made it on their “best seller” list.
They are a sick and depraved culture. They are obessed with Jew-hatred, and until they give up that irrational hatred, they will never be functionally distinct from the Nazis in their beliefs.
Polls show that two-thirds of Palestinians support suicide bombings. That goes a long way to showing that the average Palestinian does, in fact, support terrorism. This supposedly moderate Palestian you speak of is, sadly, nothing more than a myth. Most of them are terrorist-supporting Nazi-esque anti-Semites.
Secondly, the Arabs did indeed have their land taken by the West (i.e. Britain) but not by the Israelis. The Israelis bought most of their land, and assumed the rest after being repeatedly attacked. Besides, the Arabs have nothing to complain about from a historical perspective. Didn’t they assume control of the land by conquering it?
Hear! Hear! Owen!
#35) Owen:
Numbers don’t lie. If ALL Arabs were as you describe them, then by sheer force of numbers they would have crushed Israel, given the fact that there is a small group of Jews surrounded by millions upon millions of Arabs.
I will grant your point that there are some Arabs that fit your profile, but I believe, as with all groups of human beings, that they are in the minority. Call me an optimist.
Point by point:
The Palestinians elected Hamas because Hamas has spent the past decade running social service and health clinics, directly improving the lot of the average Palestinian. There is no better campaign mechanism than direct, immediate help to people whose vote you seek. Yes, Hamas also conducts and promotes suicide bombings (possibly learned from the Jewish terrorist group Irgun) and for that they should be criticized and punished, and I will even go further and say that there is probably a segment of Palestinians that support their violent actions (I’ll await a source for your polling numbers), but let’s not forget that the vote for Hamas was also a protest vote against Fatah for the ineptitude and fraud that Fatah exhibited in running the Palestinian Authority. Like all humans the Palestinians decided that the group in power wasn’t improving their lot in life and elected an alternative in the hopes that things might get better. That’s a basic human drive, whether done by violence or the ballot box.
The Israelis bought some, not most of their land. The rest came from the spoils of the 1948 and 1967 wars.
And, as abhorent as it is, unfortunately, “Mein Kampf” is probably read throught most of the world, not just among Arabs. Sickness of the soul knows no cultural, racial, or religous bounds, it is present in all of humankind.
Life is not black and white, no matter how hard you try to paint it as such. Just look at your (and my) daily life. If that makes me a cultural relativist in your book, then so be it. I’ll gladly wear that mantle.
Willie,
You’d think that, wouldn’t you? But the Arabs have both tried and failed to conquer Israel many times (read up on modern Middle East history — you’ll see what I mean here). The reason is that the Israelis are smarter and better equipped, and have thus been able to overcome the problem of having smaller numbers.
Several polls have shown that roughly two-thirds of Palestinians support suicide bombings. I know of no poll that has shown of anything short of a majority supporting suicide bombings.
True. I guess the Arabs shouldn’t have attacked Israel, huh? Seriously, for strategic reasons alone, Israel needed to occupy more land. As you note, they’re surrounded.
Name one other place it makes the best-seller list. No, it’s not just a matter of people reading it; it’s a matter of it being extremely popular.
It isn’t black and white, no, but in this case the Israelis are far more sympathetic than the Arabs. The Israelis aren’t supporters of terrorism, nor do they subscribe to a vile race-hatred. That draws the line pretty firmly.