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.
What a hideous bigot.
If Israel were destroyed and the 5.5 million Jews there killed, this would break the back of Jewish Conservatives because they'd be so demoralized by the slaughter. It might leave an opening for Pat and his Paleo gang to move in the vacum and regain the influence they lost during the Reagan administration and the Mel Bradford fiasco.
There may be method to Pat's madness afterall.
Pat's reasoning is appealing for sure. We have been supporting elections in an area that is controlled by a series of theocracies that have contolled the lives of these people for hundreds of years. The political structure in these Islamic countries has been established in order to facilitate control by the religious powers.
We have been successful in overturning dictators/political leaders such as Saddam. Essentially, he was a secular leader. However, how much luck have we really had limiting the control and influence of the religious leaders. Almost none. Take Al Sadr in Iraq. This man was leading a revolt! He was directly responsible for loss of American and Iraqi lives at the hands of terrorists. But, in the end, he becomes part of the political process. We couldn't take him out.
I guess my point is that it is very risky to try to spread Democracy on the political front without altering the religious impact. And my friends, we haven't found a way to do that. Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that these people have embraced their God-given right to self-determination. But, if we want these people to not support terrorists, we have to find a way to overcome the impact of these religious leaders.
This is a very hard subject to get your hands on. In the end, I don't know which option is the best to take. Should we just get rid of the bad guys and rely on the hope that the people will make the right decisions, or should we work to change the hearts of the people so that they will get rid of the bad guys on their own.
I don't know which is right. I know that the attack on Iraq was absolutely necessary. We have to have the courage to get rid of killers and butchers like Saddam. But, after that, I don't know what is the best way to help the people set up their political structures.
Any ideas?
With democracy comes responsibility. We have no obligation to send them anything. Let Allah feed them.
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.
Pat, since when do we owe anybody foreign aid?
Cordially,
But, however much I cannot stand the guy, I do believe he's calling this portion of it correctly:
To advance the end of "tyranny in our world," Bush began to call for elections across the Middle East...If we and the Europeans cut off aid, and Israel refuses to remit to the Palestinians the taxes they collect, the Palestinians willbe put through hell[lose their handouts] for voting the wrong way. The Arabs will call us hypocrites who believe in elections only if they produce the results we demand.
This does not mean that I think that we should keep the aid flowing, though. But, when we don't, you know what the Arab reaction will be. Pat may be a kook but on this matter he sees the writing on the wall with more clarity than many of us here are seeing it.
No, he simply hates Israel.
As always happens in a thread on a Buchanan article...its clear most posters don't read or don't understand the point Buchanan is making. The US already sends billions of dollars in foreign aid to the Palestinians (the wisdom and Constitutionality of that aid...or any foreign aid for that matter...is another matter altogether). Now that Hamas has been chosen by the Palestinians in a democratic election for which the Administration pushed...what happens if we cut foreign aid off? Buchanan believes that:
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
Is Buchanan wrong? Most posters won't bother answering or even thinking about it...too busy calling Buchanan an "anti-Semite", a "bigot", a "lunatic", etc.
Buchanan is precisely correct in this. And once again, he demonstrates his ability to become lost in the forest because all he sees are trees. This quote would be devastatingly accurate if it had been applied as a criticism of the idiotic Bush Doctrine in general. Unfortunately, he uses it as a justification for his anti-Israel stance and the unthinkable act of using American taxpayers' money to fund a degenerate and despicable terrorist entity.
"I Like Pat...I kill him last!"
Go Pat, Go! (preferably a long way away for a very long time)
Supporting murderers is worse than being a hypocrite. We don't aupport terrorists or countries that harbor such. The hamasidal maniacs in palestine knew that. They made their choice.
Just because we support the democratic process doesn't mean we have to neccessarily support the regime that results from that process.
Pat's true colors are showing again.
I know that there's no way that you were able to see my reply before you began posting yours (given the time/date stamp of yours). I am glad you posted your comment because I know that I (or you) would have taken a lot of flak if it was a lone view. So here's my question to you: are we the only two - of a light handful - whom are replying on this thread?
In the case of Hamas, they have publicly and loudly proclaimed their desire to see the end of Israel and their support of terrorism. Palestinians elected these jokers in full knowledge. They will undoubtedly reap accordingly. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Frankly, offering Hamas a chance to recant (which wouldn't be worth the breath required to claim it) is probably overly generous. Carpet bombing seems far more appropriate. I see absolutely nothing with condemning the Hamas government nor the Palestinian people suffering for their decision.
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.