EU to pay gov't workers in Hamas-controlled Gaza

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

EU to pay gov't workers in Hamas-controlled Gaza
17 Jun 2007 15:58:02 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Adam Entous

JERUSALEM, June 17 (Reuters) - A European Union aid
programme plans to continue making subsistence payments
to tens of thousands of Palestinian government workers
and pensioners in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, EU
officials said on Sunday.

The EU payments may be one of the only financial cushions
for Gazans after Islamist Hamas seized control of the
territory in fierce fighting with President Mahmoud Abbas's
secular Fatah faction.

Israel and the United States want to isolate Hamas --
economically, diplomatically and militarily -- in the Gaza
Strip, while allowing funds to flow to the Western-backed
emergency government set up in the West Bank by Abbas.

-snip-

"It will continue to cover Gaza. It's not our policy to
strangle the Gaza people," a senior EU official said.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17552175.htm

[kurth]

1. It's protection money

for Europeans travelling and living in the Middle East.

[snappyturtle]

2. IMHO The U.S. didn't get the government it wanted and

consequently won't help fund the elected government it got.

[Shaktimaan]

3. the US doesn't give direct funding to any PA government.

It's against the law. The US mostly donates money through 3rd parties like the UNRWA, whose entire budget is mostly comprised of US funds. We give more money to the Palestinians for aid projects than the entire Arab world combined.

And I don't see why any government is obligated to give financing to terrorists just because they were elected. The Palestinians are free to elect whomever they want. But if they choose to elect a government whose platform is harmful to our interests, then there are going to be consequences. In this case, it was not just the US withholding aid, but the entire western world. If Hamas refuses to abide by the treaties their government previously signed, and insists that they will work against any kind of comprehensive peace agreement, why should we be obligated to fork over taxpayer's money to them? Why should we give any money to a government that will use it against our interests?

(we did give 20 mil to abbas recently, as an exception to the current law against direct funding.)

[snappyturtle]

5. Question about: "We give more money to Palestinians than the rest

of the Arab world." I'm assuming you know this as fact then can you tell me if this amount is less than or greater than the aid we give to Israel? You also say Hamas refuses to abide by the treaties their government previously signed. Israel refuses to abide by U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 and we don't cut off funding them. I think we need to butt out of both sides period.

[Shaktimaan]

6. The aid is far less

than the US gives to Israel. But bear in mind that the US gives aid to Palestinian refugees all over the middle east, not just in Palestine. And while the PA gets funding from a wide variety of nations, organizations and UN groups, Israel only gets aid from America. That said, Palestine is in greater need of aid and is not able to borrow money like Israel, (or any other nation) can. So, Palestine's aid is sparse compared with some other established nations, but if compared with other nationalist movements of nascent states, then they are quite wealthy. Why? Do you think America should be obligated to give everyone equal aid regardless of the kind of relationship they have? Israel has been a staunch ally of the US throughout the cold war, and the Palestinians have always supported our enemies. Their support of Saddam is the reason that they were evicted from Kuwait and lost Saudi aid. The US has been a better friend to the Palestinians than most Arab states. If they are not treated as well as Israel, it is not without cause.

The UN resolutions you cited are not relevant...

For one, they are not mandatory. They are suggested. Section VII resolutions from the security council are the only ones that are mandatory.

Two, no one has fulfilled them. For instance, refugees exist on both sides of the conflict. Do you see Yemen offering cash settlements to the Jewish people they evicted without cause? At least Israel allowed the Palestinians access to their accounts, let some of the refugees return and offered cash settlements to those who would accept a money for title deal. Jewish refugees received nothing from the Arab states they inhabited for thousands of years... in some cases, living there even before the Arabs invaded and took control. The resolutions also call for peace. After their implementation, Israel called for peace and was rejected by all of her Arab neighbors. So, while Israel fulfilled most of the points of the resolutions, she is unable to force anyone to cooperate on every issue or impose peace with Palestine.

Third, Israel did not commit themselves to the resolutions. But the PA did commit to their agreements. Oslo, for instance. This is far more critical (and binding, legally) than series VI UN resolutions. The implications of any nation reneging on every treaty every time elections are held is enormous. That means that any treaty the PA signs with Israel could be held to be void as soon as a new Prime Minister is elected. But Israel is still expected to hold up their side. For instance, if Israel trades land for peace and doesn't get peace in the end, would they be supported in an action to reoccupy Ramalla? No. So what's the point in negotiating with an entity that clearly states that they reserve the right to never fulfill their side of any agreement they come to?

We can't butt out. We are the world's sole superpower. Deal with it.

[razzleberry]

4. Hamas will take its cut

Hamas is not going to let
money go to Fatah cronies,
without getting their share.