MJ Rosenberg over at the Huffington Post believes that the U.S. is to blame for the recent collapse in Palestine's governance. Given the source, this is to be expected, but he makes a couple of statements that really hurt someone who believes in U.S. generosity.
To sum up the piece, Rosenberg say that the U.S. did not give any "carrots" to the Palestinians to encourage them to be civil. Setting aside, for a moment, that one should not have to give someone money to not kill people, he is still flat wrong.
A very little fact finding shows that the U.S. is the largest donor country in foreign aid to Palestine, donating approximately $100 million per year. This has been the case for well over ten years and continues. That the money was not provided in liquid currency directly to Hamas (I don't wonder why) makes it no less a carrot.
Why would Mr. Rosenberg make such a statement?
Having raised the topic, this begs another question. Why is it, with some very wealthy Arabic countries nearby, that the largest donor is the distant, heathen U.S.? It seems to me that The King of Saudi Arabia would simply have to forgo a new yacht this year, or Kuwait and Dubai could simply build a few fewer islands in "The World Islands" to exceed the U.S.'s donations. I wonder why this is? And, given this, the U.S. is nevertheless vilified by the very people they are so generous to.
From that, Mr. Rosenberg concludes that the U.S. is not giving enough. What kind of a person concludes that?
Over time, I've come to learn that that betting on the statement, "The U.S. is the single largest provider of foreign aid to (insert country here)," is pretty safe. The U.S. is the single most generous country in the history of, well, history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The quote was that the US did not
give any aid to the government of
Hamas. This is true.
The article also clearly stated that
the Palestinian people are at fault.
Money is a fungible resource. Any money flowing into the territory that addresses essential services is money that the Palestinian government did not have to spend, leaving them free to spend their money elsewhere. That the U.S. a) ensured that money was spent on the health and welfare of Palestinians and b) prevented it from being spent in total on arms by an organization the U.S. considers to be a terrorist organization seems prudent and it makes the money no less a carrot.
The article gave lip service, one sentence, to declaring the Palestinian fault. The entire rest of the article is dedicated to declaring the fault of the U.S. and Israel as if they are primarily to blame for the current state of affairs.
Maybe it would be more interesting to explore the responsibility Palestinians have for their own actions. It would be useful to identify in detail the wrongs they commit that they are responsible for, with no moral relativism, so that we know what expectations we can attach to the assistance we provide.
If the answer is, "none", then, in the words of the article, "to hell with them."
As a percentage of GDP the US gives less foreign aid than any other western country.
We are the least generous wealthy country.
Sorry, that's a fact.
As an absolute, the US gives more foreign aid than any other western country. The US is the most generous wealthy country. Sorry, that's a fact.
Besides, the percentage argument only takes into account raw dollars in pure federal aid. It completely fails to take into account the indirect expenditures the US makes securing the peace internationally (think NATO). It also fails to take into account private aid leaving the US which, percentage wise and as an absolute, is greater than any other country in the world.
Enjoy your persimmons.
rodrigo, you are welcome to comment here, but I do not read Spanish. As I do not know what your post says, I am deleting it. Please re-post in English.
Post a Comment