Posted on 02/01/2006 10:09:49 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Buchanan defends foreign aid – for Hamas
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 1, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Ever since President Bush, sometime after 9-11, converted to neoconservatism, his Middle East policy has suffered from the triple defects of that subspecies of the Right: hubris, ideology and immaturity.
Neoconservatives see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. Like teenagers, they act on impulse and rail against the counsel of experience. "Often clever, never wise," Russell Kirk said of the breed.
Repeatedly, Bush was warned by traditional conservatives that to send a U.S. army to occupy Baghdad would engender Arab rage and Islamic terror. Heeding the "cakewalk" crowd, he refused to listen. Three years later, we are trying to extricate a U.S. army from Iraq with the least possible damage to U.S. security interests.
Prodded again by neoconservatives, Bush declared our true goal had always been to democratize Iraq and the entire Islamic world. His second Inaugural resonated less of Reagan than of Rousseau:
So, it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
To advance the end of "tyranny in our world," Bush began to call for elections across the Middle East. Again, he and Condi were warned that if these people were allowed to vote their convictions, they might just vote to throw us out and throw the Israelis into the sea.
Now that elections have been held, what do the returns show?
Propelled into or toward power have been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, pro-Iranian Shiite zealots in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Hamas in Gaza and on the West Bank.
Now, Condi, who denounced Bush's predecessors back to FDR for supporting dictators while preaching democracy in the Middle East, appears about to engage in a bit of hypocrisy of her own.
After insisting Hamas be included in the elections, Condi, stunned by the results and under pressure from Israel, has declared we will cut all aid to the Palestinian Authority if Hamas takes over the government, as Hamas was elected to do.
Bush agrees. Unless Hamas surrenders its weapons, abandons all armed resistance and recognizes Israel's right to exist, we will not give 10 cents to a Palestinian Authority that has Hamas as its head. Rice is said to be pressuring Europe to do the same. Unless Hamas remakes itself into a Mideast version of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Dr. King, we terminate aid.
Before adopting this knee-jerk reaction to an election we insisted go ahead, one trusts the president, this once, will think it through.
What is likely to happen if we proceed on such a course?
If we and the Europeans cut off aid, and Israel refuses to remit to the Palestinians the taxes they collect, the Palestinians will be put through hell for voting the wrong way. The Arabs will call us hypocrites who believe in elections only if they produce the results we demand.
And who could say they are wrong?
What will Hamas do? They are not going to disarm in the face of an Israeli military that has been killing Palestinians – collateral damage, of course – at four times the rate that Palestinians have been killing Israelis. They are not going to give up their trump card and recognize Israel's right to exist before they get a Palestinian state.
What will Hamas do? Hamas will accept the cut-off of aid, seek money from the Saudis and Iranians, do their best to keep the Palestinian people fed, clothed, housed and educated, and sacrifice for their people. And Hamas will fail. And when they fail, whom do we think will be blamed? When the Palestinian people have been broken because they voted the wrong way, whom do we think they will hate?
Let me propose another course. Put Hamas on probation.
For almost a year, Hamas has held to a truce with Israel and not engaged in attacks. Let America and Europe send word that if the truce holds, if Hamas does not attack Israeli civilians, if Hamas show its first concern is, as it claims, bettering the life of the Palestinian people, we will let the aid flow. But if Hamas reignites the war, we will not finance the war. We will terminate the aid.
Make Hamas responsible for continuing the aid. And make Hamas responsible for terminating it, if it comes to that.
Understandably, the Israelis are close to hysterical over the landslide for Hamas and are on a diplomatic campaign to have all donors end all aid to a Palestinian Authority dominated by Hamas.
But that is not in our interests. It is not even in Israel's interest. For it has been Israel's behavior, and uncritical U.S. support for that behavior, that produced this victory for Hamas. To continue on that road is to arrive at, literally, a dead end.
Bush has unleashed a revolution in the Middle East, and it is everywhere bringing to power Islamic fundamentalists. Either we deal with them, or fight them or get out of the Middle East.
In Hamas, as a duly elected body, we have not only a terrorist sponsoring state, we have a state of, by, and for the people, wholly comprised of terrorists! Somebody there needs to learn that actions have consequences. It may be too soon to begin shacking up the grids...but a year from now?
Pat B reminds me of Goldwater. A good conservative in his prime but increased age saw increased political senility.
Pat doesn't understand that Israel doesn't want a Palestinian state and the Palestinans don't want an Israel state. There is no intention to have negotiations regardless of who leads the Palestinians or who leads Israel. If Bush thinks a two-state solution is in our interests, then he better move the pile.
Was the creation of the Israel state a wise one in hind-sight? Given the turmoil of what's gone on since, it is a legitimate question to ask. I don't have the answer, either - I'm too young to understand the problems that faced the world body politic in its day. Maybe it goes back even further; to the resolution at the conclusion of WWI and the holding of Germany economically accountable for that war.
Anyhow, the United States will be paying the indirect costs for our hand in those decisions for a long, long time to come. All we can do is to continue playing our cards and keep making the 'calls' and 'checks' while we still have chips on the table.
He's right on one thing here -- cutting off Hamas from Western $ invites the Saudis to start writing checks to them (and no, Pat isn't an antisemite -- he's just tetchy).
Pat has gone so far to the right, he's become an extreme leftist.
Remember, theirs is supposedly a religion of "peace" and they not only can, but do blame 9-11 on us. Hamas is an Iranian creation. To continue your analogy, the poker table we're sitting at is rapidly filling up with Iranian team members. If we don't start blowing some of them up, we might as well fold and go home. Supporting/sustaining any of them is no way to come out a winner.
We should eliminate all foreign aid...its unconstitutional and, as Senator Helms, once correctly noted...its money down a rat hole. Once the US cuts off all foreign aid to all foreign governments, the US government won't have to deal with the uncomfortable situation of having to cut off that aid to a democratically-elected government that's brought into power through an election we endorsed. Of course, we have the right to dispense foreign aid wherever we like...but the reality is that cutting off aid to the Palestinians after the election to Hamas (which is an enemy of Israel but not the US) will be seen as another example of US one-sidedeness in the Middle East. In the end, the push for democracy was, I believe, intended to eliminate the backwardness and authoritarianism of Middle Eastern governments because those conditions were seen as conducive to terrorism against the US. So obviously, the Arab and Muslim perceptions of the US are important to us and underly our approach to the Middle East. But, its no secret that the US is mostly reviled in the Middle East...for lots of reasons...the (correct I think) perception that we prop up corrupt regimes there...the perception that we benefit economically from the existence of these regimes...the (correct) perception that we favor Israel in their disputes with Arab Muslims...and the fact that as the lone superpower...we get a lot of blame for everything....fair or unfair
I think invading Iraq was a mistake...it seems to me that it will do nothing to improve our image in the minds of the Iraqis...I don't believe Saddam was ever really a serious threat to the US...and might even have been an ally had we not intervened in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (it is a fact that Iraq approached the Bush Administration before invading Kuwait and was told by April Glaspie that the US was "not interested in Mid East border disputes"). The US maintained a permanent base presence in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm...which was the original gripe of Bin Laden against the US.
I think that democracy in Iraq will ultimately strengthen Iran and, unless the US maintains a presence in Iraq for years to come (not something I think any of us want to pay for or have our children or grandchildren pay for)...the country will ultimately split apart...strengthening both the Shiites in Iran and Sunnis in Syria.
I guess I'm a non-interventionist (an isolationist some would say disparagingly)...the history of US foreign policy (and all nations; foreign policies) is one of unintended consequences...I think minding our own business is the best route...just my opinion
Don't be. He used to be very good. He's lost it now.
Yeah, and take his skanky sister with him. It's an election year, so predictably Bay Buchanan is suddenly on TV and radio again. Blech!
">>>>We do not need to appear to be rejecting a democratically elected government, do we?"
If only we'd given Germany more aid during the late 30's. Then we wouldn't have been rejected a democratically elected Chancellor. Count me in on bashing Buchanan."
Fine. But don't credit me for saying the first sentence in this reply, as it was another poster.
Two ditches on every road...
That's "Secretary Rice" to you, Buchanan, you @sshat.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh... never mind. Just... go, all right? Just put on your burqa and GO.
I think Goldwater was consistent the whole way though. He was always a Libertarian more then a conservative and never had much use for the Religious Right.
Pat, your Nazi flag is showing.
amas is no longer a fringe group. It is now in the drivers seat. It has political power.I think we should give them some time and see if they show any sign of changing their ways. Hamas should be required to recognize and pledge to the world to respect the territorial integrity of Israel.
Hamas has already made it clear that it will not do so. Have you not been paying attention to statements by Hamas members?
In return Israel should withdraw from all settlements on the West Bank.
What is a settlement? Does this include Jerusalem? Does it include land owned by Jews prior to the Arab invasions of 1948?
The settlements have been the chief stumbling block that prevents any kind of agreement.Israel has not ever offered to withdraw these settlements.They were illegal in the first place.
There is nothing illegal about building communities on disputed land.
Israel offered to withdraw from most of the land multiple times under Rabin, Peres, and Barak. The PLO responded with terror and Hamas never stopped.
The Palestinians are entitled to a country of their own.
Jordan is an Arab state on 3/4 of Palestine.
Take note the right wing in Israel is perfectly happy with Hamas. It gives them an excuse not to negotiate.
Quite teh opposite. The Hamas victory is exactly what Israeli conservatives warned of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.