Bush pledges big foreign aid to Palestine. Should we do it?
 

The whole Israel/Palestine thing has been flying a bit low on the radar for awhile now. All of a sudden, Bush is proposing big American foreign aid bucks for the Palestinians. Should we trust them? Where do you think this is headed?


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/535419.html

I think it's a great idea. Palestine is 50 years in the waiting, as it goes they have little infrastructure. Helping them will hopefully increase their effectiveness in dealing with terrorism so Israel doesn't have to. That in of itself will help the economy. Curfews and crossings will be eased, people can actually commute to a job, which help the economy. Kids will be able to go to school effectively as a result of eased security.

Also like Israel, I think the country needs a little help on the premise that it seems it has virtually nothing to offer the world as far as exports go.

Although the catch is we fucking better damn well make sure it gets allocated to the people. The "great" late Yassir Arafat is a great example of how aid can be abused. That evil fuck was sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars meant for his people, he wasn't their champion, they were his cash cow.

I think we should get the money back from Arafat's wife first.

But, Abbas seem pretty straight and trustworthy. I ilike the way things are going, there seems to be real hope for once.

What they really need is to get their institutions, infrastructure going to help move things along. Economic stimiulous in the right places should help provided a stable and secure environment can be produced. Maybe Israel can help provide training, advice and logistical support for their government and other stuff.

Billions in aid are still in Arafat's Swiss Bank account. His wife is the only one with access. Some first lady. What a cancer Arafat was. Hopefully the Palestinians will realize that and look towards a better future with abbas.

Of course you should do it.

Or do you only believe in invasions and massive numbers of civilian deaths to "promote democracy"?

The EU, the US and AL should all provide aid to the Palestinian Authority. If the ordinary man and woman in the street see their lot in life improve, then the violence will begin to decrease.


Mr Mephisto

OK, you got a chuckle out of me with the last bit. We've been pouring aid in for decades. It almost all ended up in numbered Swiss accounts. Well, except for the money they used to buy more guns and bombs, and that financed terrorism against Israel. We poured billions in, and it didn't do dick to help the average Palestinian. What makes you think it would now? Ever hear of throwing good money after bad?

I could get behind sending aid to Palestinians...provided that we actually invaded and bombed them into submission first. If we killed the right 15% of the population, peace would be possible. Until that 15% is dead, peace is NOT possible, it's just appeasement, which never works.

Please pass the troll.
Do not feed the troll.
Do not stop to look at the troll.
Move along.
Nothing to see here.


Mr Mephisto

the devil is in the details, as the old saw goes.
as one of a series of benalities in a speech made up entirely of them (regardless of who delivers it---the state of the union is pseduo-democracy at its height--congress is at its most politburo--coverage at its most sycophantic)....it is fairly meaningless.

as an idea, it is obviously a good one in principle.
but there is nothing more to say about it at the moment, really.
nothing about what kind of pressure might be brought to bear on israel for example.
nothing about how this idea might be situated in any policy context.

a side note: it is more than surreal to see references above to arafat, particularly now that he, like general franco, is and remains quite dead.... as if arafat was to blame for the miserable history of israeli-paelstinian relations, to the exclusion of things like the policy of settlements, a brutal occupation, etc etc etc....the terms of debate on this question are debilitating.

No no, the reference to Arafat was the "looting" of billions that are now in his widows hands. Because the context was "should we send money" and because we did in the past and it didn't get to the people, well, it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Nothing in the above posts mention Arafat's dealing with Israel or settlement etc.

Now, the assumption is (was) that Mahmoud Abbas is "uncorruptable" so presumabley that is why he got elected. In other words, he has the faith of the people. Arafat stubbornly held onto power far too long and prolonged the stalemate, lacked legitimacy and influence with Hamas and Israel.

So, yes, money if properly handle and administered should theoretically help in a pretty significant way.

It is a bit early to tell, but so far it looks promising. It takes two to tango so we'll see what Israel puts up. It does look like Bush is trying to coax Israel into more cooperation and Abbas is trying his darndest to things too.

Arafat is definitely relevant as a point of reference and a piece of history. Notice (so far) with him out of the way, things seem to be improving. I suppose hitory will eventually reveal Arafat's true colors.

the situation is changing because the pressures brought to bear on it have changed. arafat's death deprived sharon of his main villian, the main signifer on which he could blame the failure of both sides to reach anything approaching a working relationship.

arafat was more important as a signifier than anything else.
parallel: what would bush do if the magic signifier "terror" suddenly went away?

RB, I have to disagree, merely painting Arafat as a boogieman is just nieve and historically wrong. The man was a grade a Douche. His actions led to 2 destabilized neighboring countries (Jordan which recovered quickly, and Lebanon). His freedom and political group the PLO is the umbrella to several terrorist organizations, has been for over 30 years. He is responsible for inciting two intifada's which targetted Israel civilians. Plus look how well things worked out for Palestine under his rule. The Israeli's were right not to deal with him, he was a two faced coward.

Mojo, You're wrong: Grade AA Douche.

The Palestinian people deserve something considering we've financed a great deal of Isreals army; the same army that persecutes the Palestinians. I feel aweful about the human rights violations against the Palestinians. I hope for peace.
Do not respond to daswig.

Israel has long been an ally, and had an established central government. The Palestinians have never had a sovereign state, they forfeited it when they let Arab armies in to wage war against Israel, also they have never had a legitimate central authority. Any authority that knowingly, openly, and continuosly supports and funds terrorism has no room to complain when the country they are perpetuating attacks against moves in to regulate them.

You're right, they DO deserve something. A trial and lengthy prison sentence for a small minority of them would be a good start.

It's odd how the rest of the world didn't complain when it was an Egyptian or Syrian boot on their throats making them behave in a relatively civilized manner, but now that it's the Israelis, everybody is all pissed off about it.

BTW, hoping for peace by supporting the morally indefensible is called "appeasement". It's the idea that if you give the tiger what it wants, it'll eat you last. It's NEVER worked.

Well, the Administration has ear-marked the money.

What don't all you Bush supporters, who now disagree with this decision, vote Democrat next time? That's what a lot of us were telling you all the time! :)


Sheesh...

Mr Mephisto

4 more years of this is gonna be a disaster :(

Get serious Delirious, the Union has seen worse then Bush, we're still standing.

Democrats should have thought about that before putting the far-left John "Treason is Patriotic!" Kerry up as their nominee.