Palestinians to give back US aid

[Violet_Crumble]

The Palestinian Authority has agreed to return $50m (£28.7m) of American aid following a request from Washington.
The US State Department said that it did not want the money going to a Hamas-led government that refused to recognise Israel.

The US has already said that it is reviewing all aid to the Palestinians in light of Hamas' election victory.

As proof that it is serious, it has asked for $50m of aid to the Palestinian Authority to be returned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4726362.stm

[Benbow]

1. The US appears to be completely blind to how the world views it

Anyone can see how this will look in the eyes of the rest of the world. America, the richest country on earth, demands the return of its $50m aid money because it doesn't like the democratically elected government in Palestine. What's that Bush says, about bringing democracy to the rest of the world? Perhaps I missed something but wasn't that aid meant to be HUMANITARIAN aid, not a "bung" to keep a compliant Palestinian Authority under the US thumb?

Well, other countries will make up the deficit. Palestinians live in poverty; the Wall prevents their running a viable economy. America may be able to contemplate Palestinians starving but sure as Hell Britain and most European countries cannot.

I admire Hamas' dignity.

[barb162]

5. I think it's a very good move on the part of the US

"However, the State Department says it will continue to work to meet the humanitarian needs of ordinary Palestinians."


Let other countries make up the diff., there's plenty of wealth in the world. The US government should not support an FTO

[Benbow]

6. Empty statement, if you ask me n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Yeah, it wasn't very well thought out...

FTO? Is that the list where terrorist groups who are buddies with the US don't get included?

Violet...

[barb162]

18. It was quite well-thought

and I think the FTO list is pretty good too

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I didn't expect you to say otherwise...

But what's very clear is that there's been little thought put into it. What the US officially considers to be terrorist groups is merely a list of those who do pretty much the same stuff as those in the good graces of the US. And when it comes to the US and its totally hypocritical standards, hopefully not too many folk take what they have to say seriously...

And just to be really clear as to why I believe there was little thought put into the statement you made about it being good that the US has asked Hamas to return US aid - this request may have been intended to be political posturing, but the swiftness with which Hamas agreed to return the aid strongly suggests that they will get political mileage out of this. The US has a reputation for not giving a shit about people in the world outside the US (of course as in cases like Katrina, it doesn't give a shit about its own people either) which is going to be compounded by the US reacting in this manner to a democratically elected government. What was all that stuff from the US about democracy in the Middle East? They forgot to add the bit at the end that democracy is only okay if the US approves of who's elected...

And not once in some circles does anyone show the slightest bit of concern for the Palestinian people, who will be the victims in this if the US is successful in its attempts to stop any aid going through at all...



Violet...

[barb162]

28. wrong again, Violet

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Just saying 'wrong again' isn't very constructive, imo...

Maybe if you gave some indication as to what you think is wrong with what I said in my post?

Violet...

[barb162]

19. Yours is empty. Do you think US tax money should go to FTOs?

Do you support Hamas?

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Some people think that aid should go to the Palestinian people...

That doesn't mean they support Hamas, barb...

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

24. Maybe time to end military aid to Israel, also.

[cliss]

2. Not to worry.

Believe me, the Middle East takes care of its own. They will fill the gap. There's Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya and some others.

What the United States doesn't understand, in its rigid thinking, is that there are other countries to go to. We're not the only game in town.

Right now, the US is like a has-been Opera Singer. She's used to having it all.....servants, Bentley, Blackglama fur, Rolex Watch, the works. Now, she's past her prime and should be put out to pasture. She hasn't gotten the message yet: no one wants to hear her sing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Good analogy

Another thing, to continue it-she has always had her patrons, and she thinks they will still be there for her. But other singers have appeared on the stage, and offer more for the oil barons of the Middle East.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. This will only add to the concept of the West in the mind of

many people in the Middle East and developing world, especially Muslims. They have seen the US launch a war against a country that was virtually defenseless and then do nothing to stop looting and restore order or rebuild the infrastructure. They have heard the president call the war on terror a 'crusade' and have heard a US general say that the US should go over there and Christianize their nations. They have seen the US pay lip service to democracy while propping up the Pakistani dictator Musharrif or the royal House of Saud, which represses those of faiths other than Wahhabism, including Muslims of other sects, and now they have condemned the democratically elected government of Palestine. To top all that off, there's been the rage against the cartoons, something that many in the West have not understood.

What kind of concept does a Muslim in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere have? I can't be sure, of course, because I am here in America, but I have some guesses:

1. The West wishes to impose their way of life and their religion upon the rest of the world; they see Western culture as superior and systematically put down the culture and ideas and ideals of Islam. This was graphically shown in the cartoons and the Western reaction to Muslim's peaceful protests. (I'm not talking about the violence here.)

2. The culture of the West pays lip service to democracy, but what they really worship is money and greed. They get it any way they can, and seem to glorify those who lie, cheat, and steal.

3. The culture of the West shows no respect for women by way of making them into sex objects, and then laugh or belittle Muslim women who dress in hijab, or take examples of cultural bias and say this is what Islam thinks of women. Though they say they believe in family, in justice, etc, the West has shown in their degrading treatment of prisoners, especially in taking innocent women and children to places like Abu Graib to "break" the men that they care little for families and the family unit, at least the families of Muslims. Since family and community life is at the heart of Islam, this is again an attack on the faith and the way of life ordained by God.


These concepts will be difficult to change, but we won't get anywhere at changing ideas if we don't walk our talk about being committed to democracy, religious freedom, and respect for all peoples.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Yr guesses are the same as mine...

Also, not only is this behaviour by the US adding to the already piss-poor concept of the West held outside Western countries, but it also adds to the appallingly piss-poor concept of the US held by many other Western countries (with the obvious exceptions of Israel and Micronesia)...

I remember posting an article a few days after Hamas won the Palestinian election that said the US, while posturing and making all sorts of threats about withdrawing aid, was asking Arab states to continue their funding. Now I'm reading articles that say the US is demanding Arab states stop their funding. Methinks, everyone should tell the US to bugger off and stop acting like it rules the world...

Hamas has made a politically astute move in agreeing to return the US aid, imo. They come out of it smelling a whole lot better than the US does...

Violet...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. I wasn't aware of the demands that Arab states stop their funding

This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The US is looking more and more like a bully to our Western allies, and like a real hater of Islam to the Muslim world. We need to have someone who isn't a complete idiot running our country.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. 'Rice Warns Arab States Not to Fund Hamas'

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran and other Middle East powers on Friday not to fund a Palestinian government led by Hamas and questioned whether the militant Islamic group could raise badly needed cash without changing its policies.

In an interview with Arab journalists, Rice delivered a blunt new warning to Iran.

``Iran has its own troubles with the international community and it might want to think twice about enhancing those troubles'' by bankrolling Hamas, Rice said.

The United States considers Hamas a terrorist group and Iran a patron of terrorism, and has no official dealings with either.

``I would hope that any state that is considering funding Hamas, a Hamas-led government, would think about the implications of that for the Middle East'' and for the goal of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Rice said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5628267,00.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Talk about bullying tactics!

And I fear those are rather empty threats, all in all, with one caveat. Everyone in the world knows how thin our troops are stretched in Iraq right now. The one thing that might give governments pause is the lunacy of this administration which, I believe, might feel it perfectly ok to launch a major nuclear war that will destroy the planet. There are madmen in the White House, I tell you.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Kindly reread my post

The parts that you italicized from it are my idea of what the Muslims in other parts of the world are thinking about the US. I think it is important for us to at least try and understand their point of view, even if we don't agree with it. By doing so, perhaps we can counteract some of the poison that is being spewed forth by so-called "clerics" who have personal power rather than peace on their minds.

If you would like, I would suggest you read this thread, as it gives more insight into the way of thinking of Muslims outside the US, and includes ways in which moderate Muslims can help try and heal the situation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=359x218

[pelsar]

15. i think your buying in to it....

the "muslims" those who are rioting, those who are now burning the danish flag are not protesting the US, they are protesting western values....thats the problem.

how to "counteract them".....well i would suggest looking perhaps at israeli muslims. A group of muslims who still protest, etc, but have accepted the western way of life and recognize it as far more civilized than those of their neighbors......

In fact they themselves reject "arab nationalistic parties and vote for the ones that are best for themselves...i.e. real integration. (despite the problems and discrimination).

start with them....their integration was not accomplished by "understanding the fanatics" it was acomplished by education....and thats the key.

the article is intersting ...except for a single sentence with in my mind....'blows it"
Failure to understand the true nature of Islam ...there is no TRUE Islam, just as there is not true Judaism or Christianity..they are interpreted at differernt times to mean different things..no more than that.

the more interesting aspect is the funding by saudi arabia to fanatical schools of thought....thats the heart of the matter...and now iran has joined in on the other side (and both think they have the TRUE versions.....)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Have you read the article

that I linked to? It was written by a brother Sufi from Indonesia. I think you will find it interesting, to say the least.

[pelsar]

17. read it....

and others in my quest to understand the "world today"....have talked to muslims of various "stripes".....and have come to a very "non liberal conclusion.....

[USA_1]

11. I Guess This Means Israel Will Return the Trillions ...

... it got from the USA.

Good. That will help reduce the Bush created deficit.

[barb162]

20. Why should they? They are our good ally

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Suharto was a good ally at one point...

Moral of the story: Saying that Israel is a good ally of the US isn't putting it in great company...

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

25. They are a good ally of US power interests.

When the US could not fund the Contras in Nicaragua, Israel helped out.
When the US could not fund the Apartheid govt in South Africa, Israel helped out.
when the US could not fund the neo-nazi regime in Argentina, Israel helped out.

US power interests could always count on Israel to fill the gap.

Now, for those of us in the United States who work for international law, human rights, workers rights and fair trade, an end to the massive arms trade, then Israel is not a good ally.

[not systems]

26. When we couldn't directly sell weapons to Iran...

to encourage the Iran Iraq fratricide they helped out also.

[Tom Joad]

27. Oh yeah, that's a good one. In fact, a big Israel aid supporter also

supported aid to Saddam. Arming both sides!!
In 1987 Daniel Pipes, darling of the ADL and President Bush, wrote an article for The New Republic advocating aid to Saddam.
I have a pdf copy of the article here: http://tomjoad.org/pipes.htm
For those who may be skeptical, look it up yourself.

The point is that the arming of Israel is not about peace, but about US power projected in the Middle East. It is not about democracy, but as anyone who has read Chomsky understands, US foreign policy is about preventing democracy, by any means necessary.

[pelsar]

30. thats your summary of US policy?

US foreign policy is about preventing democracy, by any means necessary.
---------

just out of curiosity has this been for the last 50+ years or 100? or 200?...

[Tom Joad]

31. Sad, isn't it.

Like anything that can fit in a post, it is summing up something that is more complicated. However, for the power elite in the United States, the question has most always been as to how to prevent the spread of democracy, and therefore stop the threat to their power, wealth, privilege.

Individuals certainly acted with many different agendas. It all gets complicated.

Just look at US history though. Very bloody. Often in alliance with the with the most brutal dictators. Supporting genocide in East Timor, Guatamala. Killing millions in Southeast Asia. Supporting coups in South America (like Pinochet). Now killing tens of thousands in the Middle East. Supporting military occupation in Palestine. Enforcing unjust trade laws that keep the poor, poor. In short, terrorizing most of the world.

All the while running this massive propaganda machine that we do it all for liberty, apple pie, and motherhood.

Again, read Chomsky.

I know there are millions of Americans that act for justice, who work tirelessly for peace. Sometimes that changes US policy (e.g. ending US support for South Africa apartheid). Such things come despite the wishes of the elite, not from them.

As to your history question, let Mark Twain give you a hint (It didn't start with Bush... or even Nixon!):

From Mark Twain:
I left these shores, at Vancouver, a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific. It seemed tiresome and tame for it to content itself with the Rockies. Why not spread its wings over the Philippines, I asked myself? And I thought it would be a real good thing to do.

I said to myself, here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves.

But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem.

Later Mark Twain signed a statement that read in part:

" steps be taken at once to stop … the killing of prisoners, the
shooting without trial of suspected persons, the use of torture, … the
wanton destruction of private property, and everywhere the barbarous
methods of waging war, which this nation from its infancy has ever
condemned.”

[pelsar]

32. tainted....

your confusing a philosophical way of life as if a country lives only by that. Its not about "preventing democracy"

Countries foreign policies (including the US) up until post WWII were driven by soley by resources...the need to acquire and protect the resources that substain its way of life. Post WWII a some liberal thought entered within, but still the underlying reasons were strategic.

For instance a democratic and stable germany meant no war, more stability and less risk for the US, same holds true for japan.

perhaps you should try reading up on military thoughts and philosphies..they are far less "flowery" and more definitive as to why countries do what they do.

btw what the US does and just about every other country on the globe... in one form of the other weakens your arguement of how the "US terrorizses"...with your definition perhaps you can find a successful country that doesnt?...