Available at 
Tweet
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.
"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.
I think discussion of the State Department and policy is still fair game here in the Debates forum!!!
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.
Comment