In the aftermath of the Gaza blockade incident, the Obama administration has been relatively quiet, trying in its typical weak way to appease everyone, rather than taking a clear stand in support of our ally. The latest statement illustrates yet again that we have a foreign policy team that isn't particularly interested in advancing U.S. interests.
"We are working urgently with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other international partners to develop new procedures for delivering more goods and assistance to Gaza," said Mike Hammer, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.The last thing we should be doing is delivering goods to Hamas-controlled Gaza, a clear enemy of the United States. The Obama-administration is spending U.S. taxpayer money to help Hamas, a terrorist organization that hates the U.S. slightly less than it hates Israel.
"It remains a U.S. priority to provide assistance to the people of Gaza," Hammer said.What have the people of Gaza ever done to deserve a single penny of U.S. assistance, let alone be a "priority" for U.S. aid? If a nuclear terrorist device took out a U.S. city tomorrow, there'd be rejoicing in the streets of Gaza. Rather than finding new ways to undercut the Israel blockade, the U.S. should stand aside, let Israel do the dirty-work, and shield it from any effective international response. It is clearly in the U.S. interest for the blockade to remain in effect, and for Hamas to be deprived of the weapons and resources it needs to resume attacking Israel.
On the broader foreign policy front, the Obama administration continues the pretense that a state can separate the people of another state from their government, for purposes of policy. The Bush administration made a similar error, which reflects a lack of understanding of how states interact. It is simply not possible to make a clear distinction in most cases between the general population of a country and its government. For better or worse, a government represents the people to the outside world. No government can remain in power without the support of at least a substantial minority within its own country. And in the case of Hamas, it apparently has majority support in Gaza. The idea that we can help the people of Gaza, yet not help Hamas is ludicrous. By giving assistance to Gaza we are undermining the necessary blockade put in place by our ally Israel, and we are directly assisting a terrorist organization similar in nature to the Islamist enemies we are already at war with. By doing so we gain absolutely nothing. We aren't going to generate good will in Gaza, or a sense of gratitude. The Palestinians despise us. Look at any opinion poll. We will get no credit whatsoever for our efforts. The people of Gaza will take our aid, spit in our faces, and cheer the deaths of Americans whenever they fall to Islamist terrorist attacks. But the fools in charge of our foreign policy are more interested in appeasing international Israel-hating opinion than in U.S. interests.
Note: No HOT5 Daily today. It will return tomorrow.
The idea that American tax money is in some way helping Hamas keep control over Gaza is beyond frustrating. Just an hour ago I left my little brother (from the Big Brother program). He's a Katrina victim who's mother raises him and his two sisters all by herself. I asked my little brother what he did for his recent birthday and he said 'nothing. we couldn't afford to do anything.' Though I'm against government handouts, it seems to me that our government, non-profits, and society as a whole should be more worried about little brothers like mine instead of Hamas' followers.
ReplyDeleteFor better or worse, a government represents the people to the outside world. No government can remain in power without the support of at least a substantial minority within its own country.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty much the same thing Bin Laden says when justifying 9/11.
“You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake… This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies.”
ReplyDeletehttp://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
BIn Laden's argument is actually more nuanced than yours is, because America actually elects its leaders.
AJB,
ReplyDeleteYou are conflating two different positions. Bin Laden is arguing that a non-state organization such as Al Qaeda is justified in directly targeting American civilians because they elect the U.S. leaders that he is supposedly fighting against.
In contrast, I said nothing about directly targeting civilians -- let alone attempted to justify it -- but rather pointed out that the populations of states are represented by governments in dealings between states. When we have almost any sort of arrangement between states, whether peaceful or hostile, we deal with the government in power.
If Bin Laden argues that governments represent the people of states to the outside world, then he is correct. Just because he is terrorist enemy doesn't mean he can't state the obvious. It doesn't follow that his argument for deliberately targeting the civilian population has to be accepted.
Pat,
ReplyDeleteMany of our foreign aid programs are pretty dubious, but you'd think we could at least refrain from giving money to our enemies.