Canada Cuts Off Ties with Palestine

[KipWellsFan]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[Rex Kickass]

I have a friend of mine who helped work to administer the Palestinian elections this January. He wants to go back and help the Palestinian people feed and educate themselves. The problem is without foreign aid to the PA a lot of that humanitarian aid won't get there. It won't be able to. This is such a complicated issue.

 

We're faced with a question of whether to support a legitimately elected legislature that happens to have a majority party whom we don't like - and hope that the responsibilities of legitimate power will moderate them, or whether to cut off this aid hoping that the new government will subjugate to the will of foreign agents that it didn't like that much to begin with.

 

The risks on either side is high, the benefits aren't.

 

Tough decision.

[EvilMonkey]

Why should we have to support them at all? How about some of thier rich arab neighbors ponying up some cash for business opportunities. Maybe if the Palastinians made something other than terrorists and car bombs, they might actually have an economy, people might actually have jobs, and just may not want to go and blow themselves up anymore. Instead, they sit there feeling sorry for themselves, playing the victim role perfectly, instead of doing something constructive to help themselves.

He said that Canada's decision to sever ties only encourages the Israeli government to "starve the Palestinian people."

Here's an idea, grow food! Or quit having kids you can't support! Or move! Quit depending on the world to save your ass.

 

Moshe Ronen, co-chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, said democracy has nothing to do with the decision.

 

"Hamas is a terrorist organization," Ronen said on Canada AM Thursday. "Hitler was elected democratically as well, so democracy has nothing to do with it."

 

Nice to see Canada having some balls. Way to go, neighbor to the north!

[Balta1701]

Why should we have to support them at all?  How about some of thier rich arab neighbors ponying up some cash for business opportunities.  Maybe if the Palastinians made something other than terrorists and car bombs, they might actually have an economy, people might actually have jobs, and just may not want to go and blow themselves up anymore. Instead, they sit there feeling sorry for themselves, playing the victim role perfectly, instead of doing something constructive to help themselves.

 

Here's an idea, grow food!  Or quit having kids you can't support!  Or move!  Quit depending on the world to save your ass.

Nice to see Canada having some balls.  Way to go, neighbor to the north!

I will grant you that you're right on the first part, that the Palestinians do play the victim role quite well, but in terms of an economy, it's also worth noting that since most of their trade actually has to come through Israel, Israel does have some responsibility for the poverty of their people. You can't exactly run an economy when you can't ship things to the sea or to your biggest market.

 

Then again, it's not exactly like you can condemn Israel for shutting it's borders when some portion of the people crossing wind up blowing each other up. This is your textbook "Vicious cycle"...Palestinians blow up Israelis, Israel responds with actions against Palestine, Palestine becomes even more poverty stricken, more people become radicalized and willing to blow up Israelis.

 

And when their "rich arab neighbors" do give cash, guess which organization has been best equipped to distribute that cash to the people through whatever programs have been run? Sadly, it's been Hamas.

[Rex Kickass]

The security wall that Israel built actually took a lot of the most arable land that the West Bank had and put it on the Israeli side of the wall.

[Texsox]

Do we have a moral responsibility as the worlds only superpower and the wealthiest civilization the world has ever seen, to care for the poor, suppressed, victims, etc. around the globe?

 

As a Christian, I feel a personal responsibility.

[WCSox]

Do we have a moral responsibility as the worlds only superpower and the wealthiest civilization the world has ever seen, to care for the poor, suppressed, victims, etc. around the globe?

 

As a Christian, I feel a personal responsibility.

 

Then feel free to donate to your charity of choice.

[Texsox]

Then feel free to donate to your charity of choice.

 

I do. My time, talents, and money. I also lobby my congressman and senators to think globally and try and help people regardless of geographic borders, religion, or race. By helping people everywhere, we help ourselves.

[WCSox]

I do. My time, talents, and money.

 

That's good.

 

I also lobby my congressman and senators to think globally and try and help people regardless of geographic borders, religion, or race.  By helping people everywhere, we help ourselves.

 

As long as the help doesn't come in the form of taxpayer revenue and it doesn't compromise national security, I agree.

Edited March 31, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

As long as the help doesn't come in the form of taxpayer revenue and it doesn't compromise national security, I agree.

What if it were to be judged as good for the country to basically use the U.S. government as a charity? For example, had the U.S. government given more dollars to rebuild Afghanistan in the mid-90's, this country might have avoided one of the worst days in its history. Or if the U.S. is a heavy trading partner with a country, say immediately to its south, who's economy is on the verge of collapse, then does it not behoove the U.S. to take steps to protect the economy of that trading partner in order to protect its own?

 

Both of those are the U.S. government using taxpayer dollars basically to support or rebuild other countries, and I think you can easily justify both of them, along with quite a few others.

[Rex Kickass]

That's good.

As long as the help doesn't come in the form of taxpayer revenue and it doesn't compromise national security, I agree.

One could make the argument that isolating a people turning to democracy in a region of the world where Democracy is rare is a compromise to our national security goals.

[WCSox]

What if it were to be judged as good for the country to basically use the U.S. government as a charity?  For example, had the U.S. government given more dollars to rebuild Afghanistan in the mid-90's, this country might have avoided one of the worst days in its history.

 

I seriously doubt that. Spending a ton of money to force out the Taliban didn't stop the Afghan government from nearly executing a person from converting to Christianity just recently. Throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it. American companies have invested a TON of money in the Saudi oil industry (substantially helping their economy in the process), yet that didn't stop a few Saudis from flying planes into the WTC.

 

Or if the U.S. is a heavy trading partner with a country, say immediately to its south, who's economy is on the verge of collapse, then does it not behoove the U.S. to take steps to protect the economy of that trading partner in order to protect its own?

 

Sure, as long as it's not at the expense of our own economy.

[WCSox]

One could make the argument that isolating a people turning to democracy in a region of the world where Democracy is rare is a compromise to our national security goals.

 

You're right. We should've kept our noses out of Eastern Europe in the '80s as well.

[Balta1701]

I seriously doubt that.  Spending a ton of money to force out the Taliban didn't stop the Afghan government from nearly executing a person from converting to Christianity just recently.  Throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it.  American companies have invested a TON of money in the Saudi oil industry (substantially helping their economy in the process), yet that didn't stop a few Saudis from flying planes into the WTC.

That's not what I was suggesting in Afghanistan. I was suggesting that the reason the Taliban was able to come to power in the first place was that after the Soviets withdrew, U.S. aid dried up, no rebuilding happened, and the government fell into civil war.

 

Had the U.S. been proactive with aid in that case, the Afghans might have been able to better recover from the Soviet invasion, and the Taliban may never have shown up in the first place. Yes, it would still have been a religious government, but it sure as hell would have been better than the Taliban.

[Balta1701]

You're right.  We should've kept our noses out of Eastern Europe in the '80s as well.

Um, basically that's what you're arguing. You don't want the U.S. spending taxpayer dollars in the form of aid to those sorts of countries. You don't want U.S. taxpayer dollars going to try to improve the lives of the Palestinians. Why would you want U.S. taxpayer dollars in the 80's going to help improve the lives of those behind the Iron curtain?

[WCSox]

That's not what I was suggesting in Afghanistan.  I was suggesting that the reason the Taliban was able to come to power in the first place was that after the Soviets withdrew, U.S. aid dried up, no rebuilding happened, and the government fell into civil war.

 

Had the U.S. been proactive with aid in that case, the Afghans might have been able to better recover from the Soviet invasion, and the Taliban may never have shown up in the first place.  Yes, it would still have been a religious government, but it sure as hell would have been better than the Taliban.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Didn't we help set up a puppet government in Iran in 1953? How'd that work out?

[Balta1701]

Are you sure about that?

 

Didn't we help set up a puppet government in Iran in 1953?  How'd that work out?

There's a huge difference between the CIA enforcing a government upon a country and the U.S. giving aid and rebuilding dollars to help a country get a government off the ground after a civil war.

 

For example...Greece faced a major communist insurrection after WWII. In fact, many of the countries in Western Europe could have fallen had there not been rebuilding efforts. But the U.S. used its economy to help those nations rebuild and help their government fight off the insurrections and create stability for the people, and those countries were then able to prosper.

Edited March 31, 2006 by Balta1701

[WCSox]

Um, basically that's what you're arguing.  You don't want the U.S. spending taxpayer dollars in the form of aid to those sorts of countries.  You don't want U.S. taxpayer dollars going to try to improve the lives of the Palestinians.  Why would you want U.S. taxpayer dollars in the 80's going to help improve the lives of those behind the Iron curtain?

 

No, that's what Rex is saying. I'm saying that it's not our RESPONSIBILITY to do so, particularly when the rest of the developed world isn't willing doing a damn thing.

 

I agree that it's in our interest to help other nations when feasible. And it's not like it hasn't been done already. I can cite examples from the Marshall Plan to the tsnumai relief efforts. However, it's NOT our "moral responsibility" to financially bail out every nation in the world with a weak economy.

[WCSox]

There's a huge difference between the CIA enforcing a government upon a country and the U.S. giving aid and rebuilding dollars to help a country get a government off the ground after a civil war.

 

For example...Greece faced a major communist insurrection after WWII. In fact, many of the countries in Western Europe could have fallen had there not been rebuilding efforts. But the U.S. used its economy to help those nations rebuild and help their government fight off the insurrections and create stability for the people, and those countries were then able to prosper

 

So, if we throw a bunch of money at, say a country immediate to our south that is overriden with crime and corruption, the money is going to get to its destination? The corrupt police and cartel bosses aren't going to get their hands on it? The government, which already goes out of its way to keep their people poor, isn't going to misappropriate it?

[Balta1701]

No, that's what Rex is saying.  I'm saying that it's not our RESPONSIBILITY to do so, particularly when the rest of the developed world isn't willing doing a damn thing.

 

I agree that it's in our interest to help other nations when feasible.  And it's not like it hasn't been done already.  I can cite examples from the Marshall Plan to the tsnumai relief efforts.  However, it's NOT our "moral responsibility" to financially bail out every nation in the world with a weak economy.

Ah, that makes more sense than the position it sounded like you were taking.

 

So, there are a couple of points here that are enlightening I think. While we're talking about Palestine, the U.S. may have a moral responsibility to do something there, but there are also important strategic concerns, due to the area of the world it is in, the intensity of the objections on both sides, resource supplies, and so forth. So there may be 2 reasons for the U.S. to help out in that case; moral responsibilty and strategic reasons that help out the U.S. You would argue that if the strategic reason disappeared (say Saudi Arabia ran out of oil or something like that), the U.S. would be under no moral obligation to keep helping the Palestinians.

 

Interesting line of thought. Not sure I agree with either a yes or a no. Let's try a different case. How about something like the issue of Aids in Africa, or of the Rwandan genocide? Africa right now isn't a huge economic partner of the U.S., and it's not a huge strategic concern. So, in terms of most things that matter aside from how nations view us...the U.S. has limited strategic interest in saving lives over there, from something like AIDS or during a genocide like in Rwanda or Sudan. To what extent would you say morality should drive the U.S. to take action? SHould the U.S. have considered a small military intervention in Rwanda if it could have saved 300,000 lives? Should the U.S. be willing to spend a few tens of billions of dollars to actually save tens of millions of lives from AIDS? I guess I think that there has to be some level at which doing the right thing has to outweigh the fact that it's being done with tax dollars.

[Texsox]

What is your position in spending the money on bombs, human lives, bullets, etc.? I assume then you would be against the war in Iraq.

[WCSox]

Ah, that makes more sense than the position it sounded like you were taking.

 

So, there are a couple of points here that are enlightening I think.  While we're talking about Palestine, the U.S. may have a moral responsibility to do something there, but there are also important strategic concerns, due to the area of the world it is in, the intensity of the objections on both sides, resource supplies, and so forth.  So there may be 2 reasons for the U.S. to help out in that case; moral responsibilty and strategic reasons that help out the U.S.  You would argue that if the strategic reason disappeared (say Saudi Arabia ran out of oil or something like that), the U.S. would be under no moral obligation to keep helping the Palestinians.

 

In general, I agree. I'm also disappointed in the way that our government always backs Israel, regardless of what they've done. However, I would be hesitant to financially support the Palestinians if Hamas is going to be running their government.

 

Interesting line of thought.  Not sure I agree with either a yes or a no.  Let's try a different case.  How about something like the issue of Aids in Africa, or of the Rwandan genocide?  Africa right now isn't a huge economic partner of the U.S., and it's not a huge strategic concern.  So, in terms of most things that matter aside from how nations view us...the U.S. has limited strategic interest in saving lives over there, from something like AIDS or during a genocide like in Rwanda or Sudan.  To what extent would you say morality should drive the U.S. to take action?  SHould the U.S. have considered a small military intervention in Rwanda if it could have saved 300,000 lives?  Should the U.S. be willing to spend a few tens of billions of dollars to actually save tens of millions of lives from AIDS?  I guess I think that there has to be some level at which doing the right thing has to outweigh the fact that it's being done with tax dollars.

 

The genocides in Rwanda and Sudan should be financially-addressed by not only the U.S., but the entire U.N.

 

However, I completely disagree with you on the AIDS issue. We've been throwing money (and condoms) at them since the '80s, yet too many African men refuse to wear prophylactics and still think that it's "macho" to have extra-marital affairs. It's a social behavior problem that they (and only they) can solve.

Edited March 31, 2006 by WCSox

[WCSox]

What is your position in spending the money on bombs, human lives, bullets, etc.? I assume then you would be against the war in Iraq.

 

If I were alive in 1941, I would've fully-supported the spending of "money on bombs, human lives, bullets, etc." to take Hitler out of power as well.

[Balta1701]

However, I completely disagree with you on the AIDS issue.  We've been throwing money (and condoms) at them since the '80s, yet too many African men refuse to wear prophylactics and still think that it's "macho" to have extra-marital affairs.  It's a social behavior problem that they (and only they) can solve.

Except, I would counter by saying that there are examples of places where throwing those sorts of campaigns together actually have worked while they're funded...Uganda for example was able to use international aid dollars and loan dollars (on the order of a few hundred million dollars total) to distribute condoms and launch education programs, which worked together to massively cut the number of cases of Aids in that country.

[WCSox]

Except, I would counter by saying that there are examples of places where throwing those sorts of campaigns together actually have worked while they're funded...Uganda for example was able to use international aid dollars and loan dollars (on the order of a few hundred million dollars total) to distribute condoms and launch education programs, which worked together to massively cut the number of cases of Aids in that country.

 

Unfortunately, that seems to be the exception rather than the norm.

 

Changing socially-ingrained behavior is very difficult. For example, kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan didn't do much to change the extremist fundamentalist religious/political climate. Women are still afraid to go outside without burkas in many places and we just saw a man set to be executed for converting to Christianity.