aid or not to aid
As you know, Hamas won a landslide victory in Palestinian Parliament election a couple days ago. Right many, many countries, mainly Western countries, are adjusting to this reality and busily forming new angle of engagement with Palestinian people.
Now here's the question that will tax your international policy wisdom and intellect.
Should the Western countries, who contributed 900 million dollars to the Palestinan Authority (PA) in 2005, which employ around 132,000 Palestinians, continue the aid this year?
The fact is the PA now belongs to Hamas, which still calls for the destruction of Israel and have launched 60 suicide attacks inside Israel.
Assume Hamas will not change its charter.
How would you advise Europe and U.S.A on this matter?
Now here's the question that will tax your international policy wisdom and intellect.
Should the Western countries, who contributed 900 million dollars to the Palestinan Authority (PA) in 2005, which employ around 132,000 Palestinians, continue the aid this year?
The fact is the PA now belongs to Hamas, which still calls for the destruction of Israel and have launched 60 suicide attacks inside Israel.
Assume Hamas will not change its charter.
How would you advise Europe and U.S.A on this matter?
posted by Dody G. at 10:26 PM
5 Comments:
Well, you have to at least make a credible threat to discontinue funding to the PA, to see if Hamas will tone down it's stance on Israel. They need that funding. Then you have to accept that we have also financed Isreal to do some questionable things as well. But in the end, it's a catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If you don't give them funding, the situation becomes more unstable, which could lead to more violence..OTOH, if you decide to fund, Hamas could use it to wreak more havoc. If I'm Bush, I'm looking for anything that will help my buddies get reelected in Nov.;) and since most US voters don't "care" about the Palestinian plight, you say "sorry" to the 132K affected people (not like we've cared that much in the past) and don't support Hamas in anyway. They're too much of a wildcard right now. Oh, ain't democracy a beautiful thing?
10:52 PM
Historically, the West has never had any qualms dealing or helping despots.
So if the funding is cut, it's actually unusual.
2:27 AM
The problem for the U.S. is that we got exactly what we wanted: a fairly elected Arab democracy. We just didn't think Hamas would be the winner.
To cut and run right away undermines all of the U.S.'s efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East. But continuing to support a group that calls for the "destruction of Israel" isn't kosher either (excuse the pun.)
The U.S. must attempt to embrace Hamas. There is a good chance they will move to a more central position before too long (you get elected by going to the extremes; you stay in power by appealing to the middle). It will be a bitter pill for the U.S. to swallow. But supporting the winning party is necessary if we maintain our hope to promote the growth of democracy in the Middle East.
If Hamas maintains their extreme views, we can cut our funding, actively disagree with them and take whatever actions are necessary if they act on their threats. But, if we truly believe in democracy, we must support the will of the Palestinian people. And we certainly can't run away so quickly after the election.
6:12 AM
Had Egyptian election been as fair as this Palestinian one, we would have seen the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt.
Should the US cut the 1 billion a year aid to Egypt as well?
6:44 AM
" There is a good chance they will move to a more central position before too long (you get elected by going to the extremes; you stay in power by appealing to the middle). "
Bush administration just disprove this assertion. "Compassionate Conservatism" anyone?
3:20 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home