For the life of me what is the Obama Administration doing giving nearly a billion dollars to the Palestinians in a time of recession?
I am not opposed to foreign aid. Far from it.
But approximately $300 million of that figure is going to Gaza. In fact, nearly $4 billion is going to Gaza from other donors worldwide. Despite assurances from the State Department that the money will only go through international agencies like UNRWA does anyone honestly believe there is anyone to stop Hamas from getting its hands on this money anytime it wanted?
Frankly, UNRWA is little more than a front for Hamas. Hell, UNRWA gave John Kerry a letter from Hamas addressed to President Obama. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/02/lawmakers-worry-gaza-aid-away-hamas/ Let us also remember when UNRWA admitted Israel hadn't bombed any of its schools Hamas retaliated by stealing ten tons of food and blankets from its warehouses.
So I am hardly reassured when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, "By providing humanitarian aid to Gaza we also aim to foster conditions to 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."
If I had a chance to speak with Secretary Clinton I would tell her analysis requires a willing suspension of disbelief.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Quite a bit of this discussion supports a view of how to resolve all of this conflict, as put forth by someone who sought admission to the Institute for Applied Common Sense, but whose request was rejected.
That solution? Simply divide the country up geographically, and peaceably allow people to shift to the section which conforms to their beliefs. Sort of a negotiated civil division without the war.
According to our colleague, we should have done this a long time ago. He feels that it's almost ludicrous to think that people with such widely varying views of the world and life can live together in any type of productive fashion.
He also argues that people will gladly pick up and leave the area where they previously lived, if they knew that like-minded citizens would be in their neighborhoods, and vote for the same candidates and policies consistent with their beliefs. In fact, he contends that there would be no need for debate and checks and balances in government. Group Think and Group Speak would smooth out lots of issues.
Homogeneity, at least in terms of basic core values, would rule the day. He submits that mixing people together, who do not wish to be together, i.e. a forced melting pot, has nothing but negative ramifications.
Post a Comment