US Announces Additional Palestinian Aid

[oberliner]

The United States has announced it will give the Palestinian Authority an additional $150 million in aid this year, amid increasing tensions between the Palestinians and Israel over the stalled Middle East peace talks.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the new aid package Wednesday in a news conference that included a video link with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/US-Announces-Additional-Palestinian-Aid--107047048.html

[Tripmann]

1. Dear Hilary,you want to 'aid' palestinians? Help stop their future state being stolen piece by piece

[oberliner]

2. Clinton says Israel building plan not productive

Excerpt:

Clinton criticized Israel's Monday announcement that it was moving ahead with a housing project in a part of the occupied West Bank that Israel annexed to Jerusalem 43 years ago.

"This announcement was counterproductive to our efforts to resume negotiations," Clinton told reporters in an earlier appearance in Washington.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101110/pl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_usa

[Tripmann]

3. So its 'stop or we'll say stop again'. No wonder bibi can say and do whatever he likes.

[oberliner]

4. What would you want the US to do?

What should the administration be doing other than giving hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Palestinians and criticizing the actions of the Israeli government?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Easy: material sanctions on Israel

Threaten to cut aid, impose trade sanctions, reduce cooperation etc.

[oberliner]

6. You support the United States imposing economic sanctions on Israel?

That seems pretty extreme.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. No, it's very moderate.

Extreme is giving four times as much aid per capita as to any other country (and about 10 times more per capita than to anywhere else except a couple of places that only get it as a bribe to leave Israel alone) to a nation carrying out an illegal occupation of another with the intent that be permanent. Or, in the other direction, deploying troops to end the occupation.

Now, obviously, this is empty retoric because "extreme" is only meaningful in the context of a given political spectrum, and by American standards (as opposed to the standards of just about anywhere else in the world) sanctions on Israel, while not immensely extreme, are certainly a very long way from mainstream. But I hope I make my point.

[oberliner]

26. No, it's an extraordinarily extreme position that virtually everyone in Congress would oppose

You are obviously using a bizarre definition of the word moderate and/or you have no understanding of the United States.

[shaayecanaan]

21. Tell that to Iran...

a country that does a better job of protecting religious minorities than most in the region, which has friendly relations with all of its neighbours (with the exception of Afghanistan) and which has not invaded a country in the last 1000 years.

Also, the indigenous people of Persia are...Persians. So unlike South Africa, Canada, Australia, Israel and the US the state of Iran was not based on multiple acts of theft and murder.

[oberliner]

27. Iran had consistently financed and supported terrorist attacks against Israel over the past decades

That you (or anyone else) could claim that they have not "invaded a country in the last 1000 years" is absolutely preposterous.

[alanquatermass]

34. Precisely -- we imposed sanctions on Iran...

Cuba... and South Africa during apartheid...

But widdle tiny Iswail always gets vewwwy special tweetment.

Awww...

Makes me sick.

Fact: In poll after poll taken around the goddamn world, the nations MOST responsible for evil on this planet are the United States...

And Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

38. Are you serious?

'In poll after poll taken around the goddamn world, the nations MOST responsible for evil on this planet are the United States...

And Israel.'

While these nations are not necessarily universally popular, I was not aware that there had been polls, let alone repeated ones, about which nations are 'most responsible for evil on this planet'.

And do you seriously think that ISRAEL is more responsible for 'evil on this planet' than much bigger countries like China, Russia, (you do mention the USA), or even the UK? Or countries caught up in massive war at the moment, such as Darfur or Congo?

Supporting sanctions might be one thing (though I don't remember sanctions being imposed on the USA! - or most of the other countries I've mentioned); but where do you get all the hyperbole from?

[alanquatermass]

40. Facts are stubborn things. Check this out!

This report is from 2003, Brit, and I leave it for you to decide if Europe's opinion of Israel has improved any over the last seven years (Turkish flotilla, anyone?)


EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.

According to the same survey, Europeans believe the United States contributes the most to world instability along with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

The specially commissioned poll which asked citizens 15 questions on "the reconstruction of Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East and World peace", has caused controversy in Brussels.

The European Commission is coming under fire for publishing the results of a number of questions - relating to Iraqi reconstruction - while failing to publish the results which revealed the extent of mistrust of Israel and the United States in Europe.

[LeftishBrit]

41. Firstly...

this does not mean 'responsible for most of the (existing) evil on this planet'. 'Threat to world peace' can, and often does, mean 'trouble spot where there is a serious risk of conflict breaking out' or 'country which I know is currently a war zone'. Rather different. On the whole, I don't care for such phrases as 'responsible for most of the evil' when used of an entire country. It reminds me just that bit too much of Bush's 'Axis of Evil'.

Secondly, people are going to name countries that frequently come up in the media, or which their own countries are dealing with. This doesn't mean that these countries are the only ones at war.

[alanquatermass]

42. Okay for "responsible for most of the evil in the world", read --

-- "threat to world peace." Whatever. I don't want to quibble with you about semantics. The point is, Israel and the U.S. are unholy partners in an alliance threatening to completely destabilize the Middle East and, by extension, the entire goddamn world.

It is an Imperialist power grab, plain and simple.

And as for whether these results are accurate or not and need to be acted upon -- they are EXTREMELY accurate and need to be acted upon ASAP. Think about it: These aren't poor white-trash Southerners being polled, they are EUROPEANS. So we're talking about France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Monaco, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the UK -- ALL of goddamn Europe. And Europe, in case you didn't know, has one of the highest literacy rates on the entire goddamn planet, so I think its citizens know what the hell they're talking about.

[LeftishBrit]

43. I'm a Europaean citizen, thank you.

Hsving a 'high literacy rate' does not make you an expert on every aspect of world politics. Most people still rely on the news and focus on what is in the media. We know some of the places that are conflict zones; we don't necessarily know all of them; still less do we all have a crystal ball that will tell us WHICH countries will blow up in the future.

When you say 'acted upon ASAP' what precisely do you mean? What sort of actions?

[alanquatermass]

44. What sort of actions? Two words, Brit...

-- "Sanctions" and "Censure."

They worked against South Africa (apartheid has been scraped away into the dustbin of History) and they will work again now.

[oberliner]

45. That is preposterous

You really think that will bring peace?

[Tripmann]

10. Cut off funding and arms to a government making you look like jackasses is a good start.

[oberliner]

12. That could damage the fragile US economic recovery

Think of how that would impact the defense industry for example.

[Tripmann]

13. Theres plenty of ways that cash could stimulate the economy besides funding the war machine.

And the signal it would send to israel could well mark the beginning of the end of the conflict.

[oberliner]

16. I don't agree that the signal would mark the beginning of the end of the conflict

In fact, I think it would be more likely to mark the beginning of an even more widely expansive conflict than what we are seeing right now.

[Tripmann]

17. Ending funding is not the same as america not having israels back. It would be a clear signal

that america does not require israels support the way israel requires americas.

[oberliner]

18. I think a better approach would be more aggressive diplomacy

Get the relevant parties together and don't leave until a deal has been worked out. The US still ought to have enough clout to be able to make this happen.

[azurnoir]

23. how would this be accomplished? hold the "parties" as you call them hostage?

as to clout the US may have the clout but it does not IMO have the will, the US as it apparently must be pointed out again is not a dictatorship it is a democracy and there are a number of legislators in both the House and Senate that would not stand for anything greater than the "it's so unhelpful" mewling being issued from our state department these days

[oberliner]

25. Do what Bill Clinton did

Hold a meeting and do everything you can to not let it end without serious progress being made.

[azurnoir]

29. we see the results of that success till this very day n/t

[oberliner]

30. Exactly!

Would there even be a Palestinian Authority had it not been for the agreements he helped to forge? An Area A in the West Bank with full Palestinian civil control?

[shaayecanaan]

22. "Think of how that would impact the defense industry for example."

Its not often you hear these words on a liberal discussion board.

[oberliner]

24. Many many liberals work in the defense industry

Not sure if you are aware of this or not.

[alanquatermass]

33. Brilliant, shaay!!!

nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Now this is just lunatic - giving away less money would be bad for the US?

Are you seriously suggesting that giving away less money would be bad for the US? If they can't find something better to do with it, the money could be given straight to the US defence industry as a gift!

Not merely would cutting aid to Israel not hurt the US economy, it would actually benefit it.

That said, while US aid to Israel is a *massive* amount when scaled against the Israeli population, it's an awful lot less when scaled against the US population, so the benefit (or, even if by some miracle involving antimatter it were harm, harm) would be fairly negligable.



I'm afraid I think this post is deeply disingenuous - I think that you oppose sanctions for other reasons, and are trying to throw up a clearly-spurious objection to them dishonestly.

[azurnoir]

7. How will these funds be delivered?

or will they go the way of our promised 1.15 billion to Haiti? Those funds are being held up by a single Republican Senator despite a cholera outbreak in Haiti

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9378965

[oberliner]

8. The United States has transferred $150 million in new aid to the Palestinian Authority

"This new funding will help the Palestinian Authority pay down its debt, continue to deliver services and security to its people, and keep the progress going," she said. "It will support our work together to expand Palestinians' access to schools, clinics and clean drinking water in both the West Bank and Gaza ."

The secretary of state said the funds bring U.S. direct budget assistance to the Palestinian Authority to $225 million this year. Overall support and investment to the Palestinians is nearly $600 million for the year.

[azurnoir]

9. actually these funds come from 2011 allocation

The US sped up delivery of $150 million in direct aid to the Palestinian Authority Wednesday, citing the need to fill an urgent budget shortfall.

“This figure underscores the strong determination of the American people and this administration to stand with our Palestinian friends even during difficult economic times,” declared US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in announcing the aid, which was taken from the $200 million the Obama administration plans to allocate to the PA in 2011.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=194796

so in reality this is not extra money it is money that mat well be blocked by the Congress to present it as otherwise is IMO somewhat misleading

[oberliner]

11. Your information is not accurate

This is new, previously unannounced aid that has been added to prior commitments.

None of these funds have ever been blocked by Congress.

[azurnoir]

14. Really that is not what JPost says and I should have said

the incoming Congress you know the one that will be in office in 2011

[oberliner]

15. You can take that up with Ms. Krieger

The incoming Congress is probably not going to want to work with Obama on much of anything.

[azurnoir]

19. the incoming Congress will most likely not work with Obama

which IMO lends to article in JPost being true

[oberliner]

28. That's a guess

Guessing is not journalism.

[azurnoir]

31. So Ms. Krieger's article is an opinion piece ?

Perhaps you should email her and find out.

[azurnoir]

32. Actually Ms. Krieger's article is entirely accurate from the office of the spokesman

U.S. Assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA)

Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
November 10, 2010

U.S. support to help build the institutions and capacities of a future Palestinian state is a central pillar of our strategy for Middle East peace, which includes a two-track approach to achieving, through a negotiated outcome, a sustainable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel.

Maintaining dependable assistance from the U.S. on which the Palestinian Authority can plan gives it the ability to continue with reforms and promote growth, which in turn will help reduce the need for donor support in the future. The PA has made steady progress in generating domestic revenue and reducing reliance on external donor support.

To provide needed and timely funds, the U.S. announced today that it had transferred an additional $150 million in direct assistance to the PA.

This $150 million, plus the $75 million provided in April 2010, brings to $225 million the total provided in CY 2010 in direct budget support for the PA. (Note, however, that the U.S. FY 2010 commitment to the PA for direct budget support was $150 million. $75 million was provided in late 2009; the remaining $75 million was provided in April 2010.) This is the Department’s first contribution in FY 2011.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/11/150812.htm

[oberliner]

35. The information in your post contradicts your claim

Namely this paragraph:


This $150 million, plus the $75 million provided in April 2010, brings to $225 million the total provided in CY 2010 in direct budget support for the PA. (Note, however, that the U.S. FY 2010 commitment to the PA for direct budget support was $150 million. $75 million was provided in late 2009; the remaining $75 million was provided in April 2010.) This is the Department’s first contribution in FY 2011.

[azurnoir]

36. the post says "This is the Department’s first contribution in FY 2011".

the money is from the 2011 budget period it in fact proves the article I posted

[LeftishBrit]

39. Good.