Spreadin' Liberty — with Conditions
The United States is demanding that the newly-elected Hamas government return $50 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority. Hamas has agreed.
The State Department made the demand because it does "not want the money going to a Hamas-led government that refused to recognise Israel." The same BBC report claims:
The US has already said that it is reviewing all aid to the Palestinians in light of Hamas' election victory.
Much of that aid, by the way, goes to millions of displaced Palestinian refugees.
How can the Bush administration justify the devastation it has inflicted on the people of Iraq in the name of "spreading democracy," while at the same time withhold aid money from a duly-elected government because it disagrees with its policies?
Hamas' refusal to recognize the state of Israel is hardly a position that will ease tensions in the Middle East. Israel is here to stay, as provided by UN Resolution 181 in 1947. Hamas and the rest of the Middle East have to accept that fact.
But since 1948, the UN has also issued a number of resolutions in favor of the Palestinians, which Israel chooses to disregard as it sees fit — for example:
194 (1948), guaranteeing the right of return of displaced Palestinian refugees, and financial compensation for loss or damage to their property.
242 (1967), requiring the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," respect for the "sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area," and "a just settlement of the refugee problem."
338 (1973), reaffirming the provisions of Resolution 242.
446 (1979), stating that "all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
452 (1979), asserting that "the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity."
465 (1980), "deploring the refusal by Israel" to accept Resolution 446 and 452.
And on and on...
Aren't all these violations of UN Resolutions as harmful to the peace process as Hamas' hard-line against the state of Israel? So how, on the one hand, can we demand our $50 million back from the Palestinians, while continuing to give billions in financial aid to Israel? In fact, the billions in aid we give to Israel each year is more than we give to any other country in the world.
You know, I wonder if this is what the Arab street means when they accuse us of having a double standard in the Middle East?
Comments
Surprising...no. Saddening...yes. The real irony here is, IMHO, that Hamas learned the "real" lesson of American-style democracy: "If you take care of the people on the ground, they will elect you." This is the lesson the fueled the New York and Chicago political machines for decades, where the precinct captains made sure that the people in their wards were taken care of. This is exactly what Hamas did in the territories.
(Seperate note: Abi can you send me an email at kvkopf at gEEmail dot com? Got something I need to ask you.)
Posted by: Kvatch | February 19, 2006 02:26 PM
Well said. For some reason, when I think of the endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I picture two mountain goats, futilely butting heads over and over and over, instead of accepting that neither is going anywhere, and they're both better off sharing the sweet grass around them.
Bush's position here comes as no real surprise. It's been obvious for some time that he'll champion "self determination" as long as the results of that process are something with which he agrees. After all, it's a philosophy he first unveiled in the American presidential election of 2000.
Posted by: Bob P | February 19, 2006 02:58 PM
Did you happen to notice that none of those Israel-hating resolutions were passed AFTER John Bolton successfully reformed the corrupt UN?
And you people had the gall to bad-mouth him!
Posted by: Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker | February 19, 2006 03:34 PM
Kvatch - I don't know about that American-style democracy. We keep electing people nationally who don't give a damn about us.
BobP - I like that metaphor. But if two mountain goats butt each other off the mountain, the world is less two mountain goats. If the Israelis and Palestinians butt each other off the mountain, they're likely to take much of the world with them.
Rex - Bolton is a pussycat compared to a danger seeker like yourself. I bet you'd make a great UN ambassador. You'd really get into kicking some third-world ass.
Posted by: abi | February 19, 2006 03:58 PM
I think the comparison to the workings of the urban machines has merit. They did exactly that, 'took care' of people, and even small gestures carried a lot of weight in a time when few did anything to help. Whole familes, whole neighborhoods would hear about the job obtained or the money for a funeral...and these acts were effective. I think it IS important to talk about the aid and the pick-and-choose UN actions. We give the UN little authority to do much of anything, then we are critical of their effectiveness to assert a resolution. We have seen this with the resolutions regarding the Sudan.
Posted by: Lily, NSA Field Officer | February 19, 2006 09:45 PM
Lily, I don't disagree regarding local politics. But nationally, Congress and the President don't do what's needed to take care of the average guy — whether we're talking about health care, minimum wage, cutting taxes at the expense of social programs, etc.
Posted by: abi | February 19, 2006 10:42 PM
You know, I wonder if this is what the Arab street means when they accuse us of having a double standard in the Middle East?
Absolutely, and it's not just in the Middle East. I read an article in a Canadian paper about the Olympics and the way NBC is covering the games. It was highly critical of the fact that 95% of the coverage bragged up the USA and our athletes and gave very little coverage to the rest of the world. The opening ceremony was criticized too. Torino has a 2,000 year old history, yet NBC devoted only 3 minutes to it. These ceremonies were seen across the world and apparently the rest of the world was not happy that Torino was slighted that way.
Thanks to Bush and friends, our country is seen more and more as self-centered and self-serving by the rest of the world.
Posted by: Kathy | February 20, 2006 12:01 PM
I believe that's exactly what they mean, yes.
Posted by: Neil Shakespeare | February 20, 2006 05:13 PM