Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

Foreign Aid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Foreign Aid

    So, Secretary of State Clinton announced today that the US would be sending $900MM to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. And any of the money not going to the Palestinian Authority will be going to NGOs. Hamas--the terrorist organization--of course, politically controls Gaza. So how do we ensure that the money does not fall into the hands of Hamas? We have been assured that "safeguards" have been put in place.

    "Safeguards"? Yes, because we are so good at making sure that money goes exactly where it is supposed to. The first traunch of TARP funding worked out swimmingly well. At that was here at home, where we can actually control things. As if these hard-earned tax dollars aren't going to end up in the hands of Hamas.

    And why are we doing this? Because "Only by acting now can we turn this crisis into an opportunity that moves us closer to our shared goals," Clinton said. "By providing humanitarian aid to Gaza we also aim to foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized, a state that is a responsible partner, is at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors and is accountable to its people," she added.

    What on earth does that really mean? Read: we are going to pay (bribe) people to like us (that is, be "a responsible partner"). Yeah, I'm sure the backdoor (albeit unintentional) funding people (Hamas) who want to destroy our ally will motivate them to be "at peace" with Israel. Why don't we ever give people credit for actually believing what they claim and acting in accordance with those beliefs? Why are we condescending? Why do we think that everyone and everything is for sale, and that we have the right and ability to buy people's compliance with our values and goals just because we have the money? This is the same silly theory of foreign policy that resulted in the brilliant agreement we entered into with North Korea, whereby we paid them humanitarian relief in exchange for their agreement to stop developing nuclear capabilities. Which they promptly broke, after taking the money.

    Plus her reasoning reeks of self-interest under the guise of humantarianism. According to Clinton, we are sending money to use the Palestinians' current crisis to our advantage--to get the players situated at the table in a way that we believe is best for achieving out interests. That is NOT why you send humanitarian aid. You send aid...to HELP. To be altruistic. To be examples of decent human beings. You send aid because it is the right thing to do and you say, "This is not a commentary of Israeli-Palestinian politics. This is not about whose 'side' we're on. We are helping because America is a generous nation and we see people who are deeply suffering. And we want to help. We'll leave politics to another day. And if either side can't accept that explanation, then we will allow our actions to do our talking for us."

    I feel sorry for the Palestinian people. (I am NOT excusing Palestinian violence on Israelis--please don't misunderstand). They live in desperate poverty with outrageously high unemployment rates and little economic opportunity; they live under the constant threat of attacks; Arrafat essentially embezzled from them; they are exploited by the people claiming to represent their interests for political reasons; their neighboring Arab countries won't take Palestinian refugees and spend a lot of their time using the Palestinian cause as political baiting; and now the US government thinks that they can win them over (make them "see the light" about getting along with Israel) if we just pay them enough. Yeah, that's going to be money well spent. It will definitely turn their conditions around--by enabling the very people who are encouraging violence. And I am sure Israel will appreciate bomb materials being paid for with re-routed US aid.

  • #2
    Re: Foreign Aid

    Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
    So, Secretary of State Clinton announced today that the US would be sending $900MM to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. And any of the money not going to the Palestinian Authority will be going to NGOs. Hamas--the terrorist organization--of course, politically controls Gaza. So how do we ensure that the money does not fall into the hands of Hamas? We have been assured that "safeguards" have been put in place.
    You answered your own question. The money going to Gaza will go through NGOs. Or are you suggesting that the PA is going to funnel what they get to Hamas?

    I think the broad point here is important: failed states breed terrorists. If it were about ideology, the Europeans would have started bombing us years ago - most of them vehemently disagree with US policy. But it turns out that when you have economic opportunities, you find other ways to handle your political disputes. When you have no economic opportunities (like Gaza, where they won't even let the most basic supplies into the country), becoming a suicide bomber (or pirating ships off the coast of Somalia, etc) starts looking pretty good.

    These aid packages are miniscule portions of our federal budget, and the payout is well worth it.

    (And my standard disclaimer on foreign policy issues: I'm still not speaking for my employer.)
    Julia - legislative process lover and general government nerd, married to a PICU & Medical Ethics attending, raising a toddler son and expecting a baby daughter Oct '16.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Foreign Aid

      Originally posted by oceanchild
      Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
      So, Secretary of State Clinton announced today that the US would be sending $900MM to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. And any of the money not going to the Palestinian Authority will be going to NGOs. Hamas--the terrorist organization--of course, politically controls Gaza. So how do we ensure that the money does not fall into the hands of Hamas? We have been assured that "safeguards" have been put in place.
      You answered your own question. The money going to Gaza will go through NGOs. Or are you suggesting that the PA is going to funnel what they get to Hamas?

      I think the broad point here is important: failed states breed terrorists. If it were about ideology, the Europeans would have started bombing us years ago - most of them vehemently disagree with US policy. But it turns out that when you have economic opportunities, you find other ways to handle your political disputes. When you have no economic opportunities (like Gaza, where they won't even let the most basic supplies into the country), becoming a suicide bomber (or pirating ships off the coast of Somalia, etc) starts looking pretty good.

      These aid packages are miniscule portions of our federal budget, and the payout is well worth it.

      (And my standard disclaimer on foreign policy issues: I'm still not speaking for my employer.)
      I think the concern is that the money will get lost, mis-routed, or given to fronts for Hamas.

      I agree with you re: failed states breeding terrorists. But very successful states also breed terrorists. The 19 9/11 terrorists were upper-middle class, well-educated Saudis. And, of course, Bin Laden is very wealthy. While desperation from the injustices of poverty may cause some to adopt terrorism as a political tool, it is not a tool limited to those folks. It is clearly embraced by the better-off as well. Although, I suppose the reason terrorism is embraced by some in Gaza is very different than why it is embraced by Bin Laden's followers. For those in Gaza, it appears to be the only method they feel they have to attract attention to their cause and fight the Israeli authorities. It is a political statement (albeit cloaked in religious clothing to make it more socially excusable). For those sitting in universities and coffee houses in Europe plotting to fly planes into towers, it is the method that they embrace to carry out a religious calling for jihad.

      I disagree that it's money well-spent, if we are expecting a "return" on our investment in terms of political capital. Assuming that the poverty in Gaza is what causes the violence, a billion dollars in US aid isn't going to make Gaza and the West Bank any less of complete failures. It's just another no-return hand-out. Like I said, if we're going to do it, I'd rather do it for genuine humantarian reasons--admit that we'll never "get" anything (like a quid pro quo) from it, but say, "It's not about getting something. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do." And then oversee the disbursement of the money maybe through our own armed forces or through the UN (I don't know how these things work really). If the army knows how to do something well, it's organize. Could we find a way to send a limited number of troops in for a finite period--like a month or something--with the single purpose of providing humanitarian aid? Or would that just incense the political-baiters, accusing us of "occupying" them? How would Israel take it?

      Anything is better than writing a check and having it getting routed, one way or the other, to Hamas.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Foreign Aid

        Originally posted by oceanchild
        (And my standard disclaimer on foreign policy issues: I'm still not speaking for my employer.)
        I don't know who your employer is! But I've always been curious. I just know you've got some kind of high-powered position in DC. Sounds like you work for a Democratic Congressman or Senator. But, whatever you do, I understand the disclaimer! I often include the same disclaimer language whenever I prattle on about some legal thing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Foreign Aid

          Originally posted by LilySayWhat

          So is this part of our IMF budget?
          The only detail that was offered in the AP Wire story I read was that it is part of a "donors conference" of countries interested in helping. Any ideas what that might mean?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Foreign Aid

            Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
            Originally posted by oceanchild
            (And my standard disclaimer on foreign policy issues: I'm still not speaking for my employer.)
            I don't know who your employer is! But I've always been curious. I just know you've got some kind of high-powered position in DC. Sounds like you work for a Democratic Congressman or Senator. But, whatever you do, I understand the disclaimer! I often include the same disclaimer language whenever I prattle on about some legal thing.
            She works for the State Dept., and has often referred to herself as a "bureaucratic cog", so I don't think "high powered" is what you'd call it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Foreign Aid

              Originally posted by Jane
              Originally posted by GrayMatterWife
              Originally posted by oceanchild
              (And my standard disclaimer on foreign policy issues: I'm still not speaking for my employer.)
              I don't know who your employer is! But I've always been curious. I just know you've got some kind of high-powered position in DC. Sounds like you work for a Democratic Congressman or Senator. But, whatever you do, I understand the disclaimer! I often include the same disclaimer language whenever I prattle on about some legal thing.
              She works for the State Dept., and has often referred to herself as a "bureaucratic cog", so I don't think "high powered" is what you'd call it.
              Oh, geez. Open mouth, insert foot. Again.



              Did I ever mention that I've been meaning to read "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? Or maybe they have a book "How Not to Lose Friends and Completely Alienate People"?

              Julie, of course I did not mean the thread as any criticism of you.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Foreign Aid

                I don't think Julia is crafting policy. I think discussion of the State Department and policy is still fair game here in the Debates forum!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Foreign Aid

                  I don't craft any policy. I'm a paralegal. I work in ethics and financial disclosure. And I don't speak for Hillary, just like I never spoke for Condi. That's all. The State Department is absolutely fair game.

                  Lily, I tried to figure out which budget this came from, and it isn't clear to me. My guess is it will actually be USAID money. I absolutely agree that too much of our "aid" just ends up being weapons for people we think are on our side but turn out not to be. In this case, though, I'm sure it's humanitarian aid. Anything else would anger the Israelis too much, and we're rarely in the business of angering the Israelis.

                  Abigail, I don't see why we need to get the military involved. If I'm right and it's USAID money, USAID has regional people who oversee their contracts. I do think it's a good investment, because it makes Hamas's continued ranting about how everyone is out to get the Palestinian people less palatable. And that makes a difference. You weaken support gradually.

                  You make a good point about Saudi Arabia, but there's a huge disconnect between the Saudi government and the Saudi people that I think is a factor. We have to handle every region/country/province as it is, and the fact about Gaza is they are completely blockaded. (See? I'll make the humanitarian argument too! I'm equal opportunity!) They need food and medicine and basic humanitarian provisions.

                  Sorry, that was a bit of a jumble. I'm willing to give this a chance to succeed, is all.
                  Julia - legislative process lover and general government nerd, married to a PICU & Medical Ethics attending, raising a toddler son and expecting a baby daughter Oct '16.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Foreign Aid

                    Originally posted by oceanchild
                    I'm a paralegal.
                    Ah, ha!! I knew it!!! I was betting you were a lawyer or in the legal field in some way, based on something about your postings--tone or argument style, maybe? It's like there is a "legal nerd" radar. I'm looking for an appropriately bookish nerd emoticon, but I can't find one...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Foreign Aid

                      My title is paralegal specialist, but I don't have any legal training or anything. Just an international relations major who was in the right place at the right time.
                      Julia - legislative process lover and general government nerd, married to a PICU & Medical Ethics attending, raising a toddler son and expecting a baby daughter Oct '16.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Foreign Aid

                        Originally posted by oceanchild
                        My title is paralegal specialist, but I don't have any legal training or anything. Just an international relations major who was in the right place at the right time.
                        Hey, whatever works. I've worked with paralegals with no paralegal training who knew more law than most of the attorneys with whom they worked. I think it's a matter of being willing to learn. (Or you can make yourself look awesome by pairing yourself up with a first-year associate who genuinely know less than nothing--enough law to spell the words but not enough to know how to use them...yeah, I once saw a first-year mouth off to a paralegal and she REALLY put him in his place about the law. Too funny. The attorney was a snot and deserve it. The rest of us associates took her out for beers.)

                        But I'm on the verge of hijacking my own thread!

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X