May 6, 2006
JUST DON'T DIRTY MY HANDS:
Hamas sanctions squeeze the life out of West Bank (Jane Flanagan, 07/05/2006, Sunday Telegraph)
With Hamas refusing to condemn a recent suicide attack, aid workers fear that the isolated Palestinian government - and the limited services available to its people - may soon collapse. Aid agencies would be overwhelmed if expected to pick up the pieces."All the international aid agencies put together will not be able to replace the services that the Palestinian Authority provides," said David Shearer, the head of the United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs.
As government coffers empty and the flow of trade and goods into the Palestinian territories dries up, medical supplies in hospitals are running dangerously low and basic food supplies are unaffordable for most families.
Last week a group of 36 aid agencies working with Palestinians, including the British groups Merlin and Save the Children UK, wrote a joint letter to Israel urging it to fulfil last November's agreement to allow trade in and out of Gaza. Israel has remained insistent on keeping tight checks on traffic to prevent terrorist attacks.
The economy of the Palestinian territories has been propped up by outside support since the early 1990s, when the PA was created out of the Oslo peace process as the future government of a nascent Palestinian state. In spite of the continued fighting that stalled progress towards creating a Palestinian state, the international community kept faith with the PA, ploughing in billions of pounds.
The World Bank estimates that only 12 per cent of the PA's economic activity was ever internally generated. The rest came from outside, either through Palestinians earning wages in Israel or foreign donor support. When Yasser Arafat, then the Palestinian leader, launched the armed intifada in late 2000, Israel closed the checkpoints to the occupied territories, reducing the income from foreign earnings to a trickle. By the time Hamas won power in January's general election, the PA was in debt to the tune of £451 million.
When aid was suspended by Brussels and Washington, Hamas asked Muslim nations for funding and won promises of tens of millions of pounds from friendly Arab nations - only to run into another problem. International banks have refused to transfer these Arab funds to the PA, for fear of being proscribed by the United States banking authorities for helping Hamas, which is on Washington's list of terrorist organisations.
They have reason to be cautious. Five years ago, when al-Aqsa Islamic Bank in the West Bank city of Ramallah was described by President George W Bush as "a financial arm of Hamas'', its global business vanished overnight. Both America and Europe agree that economic sanctions should hurt the Hamas administration, not the Palestinian people.
Odd thing about our Left, you could starve every Palestinian to death via transnational sanctions and they'd not bat an eyelash, but the use of military force in places where it can save lives by changing the regime and allowing sanctions to be lifted is more than they can tolerate. It's as if the positive use of American force serves to delegitimize any cause in their eyes. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 6, 2006 9:48 PM
To a person without a hammer, nothing looks like a nail.
Posted by: Lou Gots at May 6, 2006 10:24 PMWhen Clinton was President, it was 'their armed forces'. I think it's just like any other would be dictator, power that is not controlled by them must be co-oped or destroyed.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 6, 2006 10:26 PMThe left approves of the use of the military only where there are no important US interests at stake.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 6, 2006 10:57 PMThe left has started many wars where they believed important US interests were at stake.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 6, 2006 11:01 PM"as if"?
Posted by: Noel at May 6, 2006 11:29 PMThen pull out. Let them begin to handle it on their own. Tough love, as it were. Make the young rake get it together or let him fall! They have have had enough warnings! Let the hammer fall!*
*Pity the childen.
Posted by: Mikey at May 7, 2006 12:13 AMRobert: Such as?
Posted by: David Cohen at May 7, 2006 11:17 AMThe world is paying attention, we grabbed them by their cash flow - and about $)%()*$% time we did it to somebody. And some will follow or wait US out til the next election......
Posted by: Sandy P at May 7, 2006 11:39 AMMr. Cohen, The Great War, World War II, the Korean War, the Balkens all come to mind. Now, their definition of National Interest and yours may differ....
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 7, 2006 12:02 PMRobert: You're under the impression that the American left started WWI, WWII, the Korean War and the Balkans war? The Balkans is the preeminent example of where the left was happy to use military power because no important national interest was at stake.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 7, 2006 12:29 PMThank you for your time Mr. Cohen. Started our participation in the wars in question. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Following the lead of the 'right' multinational coalition is an important national interest to the left, which is why they had to be a part of the Balkans war. Remember all the Democrats running again Bush? They all promised to work in lockstep with our allies(France, Germany, you know, the cool kids).
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 7, 2006 1:03 PMRobert: I would prefer if you didn't think me for my time. It makes me feel that I ought to be charging you.
WWI: No US national interest at stake, nor did Wilson pretend that there was. We were fighting for Democracy and the world.
WWII: The Japanese attacked us.
Korea: The Koreans attacked us.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 7, 2006 4:22 PMIt makes me feel that I ought to be charging you.
Now you're talkin....
Posted by: oj at May 7, 2006 4:51 PM Mr. Cohen, thanks again.
WWI: Advancing Democracy and the World was a national interest for the Left. Progressives, remember.
WWII: The germans didn't attack us, the Japanese did after the U.S. goverment(run by the Left at that time) had embargoed their country and sided with the Chinese. Even then, as OJ has pointed out, we could have sat that one out. Fortress America was a real possibility.
Korea: I though the North Koreans attacked the South, and we went to the U.N. and then defended South Korea as part of a Multinational peacekeeping force. How and when did they attack us first? What should I be reading to make up for this hole in my knowledge?
Robert: I think we may have reached the he said/he said portion of the discussion, but I continue to insist that not even Wilson thought there was any compelling national interest in joining WWI, which is why he had to dress it up in terms of saving democracy and making the world perfect.
We had troops in S. Korea when the North attacked. Japan had been the colonial power in Korea, and as their conquerer, we were their successor.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 8, 2006 12:26 PMThere was a moral case for WWI, not a national security one.
Posted by: oj at May 8, 2006 12:36 PM I'm just saying that 'outgrowing' the nation state and forming a world goverment is in the national interest, as far as the left is concerned, thus League of Nations and United Nations. You and I my disagree with that, but I don't think they are being deliberately contrary.
I had no idea we were acting as proxies for the Imperial Japanese in Korea. Thanks.