Trump redirects over $200 million in U.S. aid for West Bank, Gaza

[Morch]

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

It takes the average Palestinian four to six hours round trip, to cross into Israel, and get back home, to get back and forth to any meaningful job, due to the draconian security measures, by Israeli forces. That is not exactly what I would describe as a high quality of life. 

 

 A two state solution is the only solution possible at this point. Unless Israel is content to continue it's apartheid policies. 

 

Them "draconian security measures" wouldn't have anything to do with terrorist attacks and such, would they?

[sirineou]

12 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"We have undertaken a review of U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority and in the West Bank and Gaza to ensure these funds are spent in accordance with U.S. national interests and provide value to the U.S. taxpayer,"

 

12 hours ago, ezzra said:

How is it even conceivably possible that millions of palestinians still classified themselves a 'refugees' 70 years later, according to a UN estimate, there are about 40 thousands of the original displaced people still living, but the world has been burdened with supporting millions of their descended that also claim themselves to be refugees, and for the last 70 years has done nothing to better their lives mainly because of its leadership who got used to the billions in handouts over the years,

much of it was used for nefarious purposes like funding terrorism and paying salaries to terrorists either dead or in Israeli prisons,  

Trump did well to redirect those useless handout to a better, much more needed and appreciated elsewhere...

everybody knows that refugees have an expiration dare.

[ELVIS123456]

Trump is applying one simple factor to all aid - benefit to the people of America first. 

No benefit - redirect aid.  Repeated non benefit - cut aid.  Ongoing repeated non benefit - nil aid.

About time - all 'aid' should be measured in terms of real outcomes.

 

No positive outcomes should not mean more aid - failure to deliver positive outcomes means aid doesnt work (and never will).

There are many places where aid has delivered positive outcomes - such that over tome the aid id reduced and removed - having done its job.

But there are far more places where aid has not delivered positive outcomes - and the vested interests support/demand more aid.

 

[Morch]

This move was in the works since last year, it's not exactly "news", in this sense. And yes, initially other countries said they'll make the difference, but as far as I recall some of this remained hot air, as it often does.

 

IMO, this is part of a larger effort, to make the Palestinians more reliant (or dependent) on funds provided by specific players rather than getting funded through international bodies. This affords donors more leverage with regard to promoting political  goals. This seems to be tied to other related ideas and moves pushed by the Trump administration, which essentially seek to alter the parameters often associated with the conflict's resolution.

 

Somewhat late in the day to try and undo the folly that is UNRWA. All the more so when it isn't too clear what's plan B. Brings to mind Trump's treatment of Obamacare - neither UNRWA nor Obamacare were the best thing ever, but tossing them aside without a proper replacement is worse.

[BestB]

Makes perfect sense . Hamas and PA do not listen to anything US says, why should US support them?

 

There is zero gains for US admin or tax payers financially or culturally.

 

Turkey, Iran . Qatar all loud supporters of Palestinians, surely they can fulfil  the gap .

[candide]

38 minutes ago, farcanell said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

There ya go.... scroll down to the Roman period

I did. It confirms my point that they have not been expelled by the Romans (which does not mean, of course, that they have been happy with the Roman occupation).

"A Jewish diaspora existed for several centuries before the fall of the Second Temple, and their dwelling in other countries for the most part was not a result of compulsory dislocation.^[3]"

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[tropo]

8 hours ago, Tug said:

Just another way for trump to hurt the disadvantaged it’s his thing it’s what he does

So better to hurt the taxpayers then? Are US taxpayers responsible for all hardships around the world? I'm not a US citizen, but from where I'm sitting, it's a smart and necessary move.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Them "draconian security measures" wouldn't have anything to do with terrorist attacks and such, would they?

Chicken and egg comes to

mind.

 

Regardless, Israel’s use of ‘collective punishments’ is abhorrent.

 

 

[farcanell]

5 minutes ago, tropo said:

So better to hurt the taxpayers then? Are US taxpayers responsible for all hardships around the world? I'm not a US citizen, but from where I'm sitting, it's a smart and necessary move.

US tax payers are not responsible for the hardships of the world... and only contribute .15% of their GNI, making them one of the lessor contributors to aid... meaning a lot of countries are far more generous with aid

 

never mind.... but why is it a smart and nessesarily move?

 

in medieval times and earlier, starving out combatants was a common way of dealing with foes.... have we progressed so little that we still need to use starvation etc as a means to an end?.... very sad.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Them "draconian security measures" wouldn't have anything to do with terrorist attacks and such, would they?

 

Terrorist attacks by whom, the Israelis or the Palestinians? Oh I forgot. The Israelis always get a free pass, when they bomb civilian areas. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by spidermike007

[dexterm]

Trump's OP move is nothing to do with saving money for "high priority projects elsewhere". In denying funds to UNWRA he hopes the agency will fold. Forget about the humanitarian catastrophe and suffering it will cause as millions are denied food, education and healthcare. That's all part of the political blackmail.

 

His ploy is all about attempting to make the Palestinian refugee problem seem to disappear.

No agency for Palestinian refugees = no refugees= no right of return for Palestinian refugees to where they were born.

 

"Kushner said pushing to close UNRWA, end refugee status for Palestinian millions
Report quotes Palestinian official saying US peace envoys asked Jordan to move toward halting UNRWA's operations there as part of wider apparent efforts to shutter agency"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/kushner-said-pushing-to-end-refugee-status-for-millions-of-palestinians/

 

Netanyahu has been angling for this for the past 12 months at least. No doubt he has whispered his desires to Trump via Kushner.

 

"A spokesman for the Israel Embassy in Washington, Elad Strohmayer, told Foreign Policy: “We believe that UNRWA needs to pass from the world as it is an organization that advocates politically against Israel and perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/kushner-said-pushing-to-end-refugee-status-for-millions-of-palestinians/

 

People naturally flee the fighting during time of war...and often they are terrorized into leaving. When the fighting is over the first recourse is to send them back where they came from...in this case..to Israel!
 

Edited August 25, 2018 by dexterm

[tropo]

27 minutes ago, farcanell said:

US tax payers are not responsible for the hardships of the world... and only contribute .15% of their GNI, making them one of the lessor contributors to aid... meaning a lot of countries are far more generous with aid

 

never mind.... but why is it a smart and nessesarily move?

 

in medieval times and earlier, starving out combatants was a common way of dealing with foes.... have we progressed so little that we still need to use starvation etc as a means to an end?.... very sad.

Irrespective of the percentages, the taxpayers are paying it. Whether some other countries are more generous or not is irrelevant because this is US money being spent.

 

But seeing as you brought it up, which are the more generous countries you speak of? Where does the US rank?

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by tropo

[Enoon]

 

No problem, Russia and/or China will step in.

 

As one door closes another opens.

 

"Oops, I did it again"

 

Never mind.....it keeps the core vote happy:

 

 

 

[BestB]

20 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Trump's OP move is nothing to do with saving money for "high priority projects elsewhere". In denying funds to UNWRA he hopes the agency will fold. Forget about the humanitarian catastrophe and suffering it will cause as millions are denied food, education and healthcare. That's all part of the political blackmail.

 

His ploy is all about attempting to make the Palestinian refugee problem seem to disappear.

No agency for Palestinian refugees = no refugees= no right of return for Palestinian refugees to where they were born.

 

"Kushner said pushing to close UNRWA, end refugee status for Palestinian millions
Report quotes Palestinian official saying US peace envoys asked Jordan to move toward halting UNRWA's operations there as part of wider apparent efforts to shutter agency"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/kushner-said-pushing-to-end-refugee-status-for-millions-of-palestinians/

 

Netanyahu has been angling for this for the past 12 months at least. No doubt he has whispered his desires to Trump via Kushner.

 

"A spokesman for the Israel Embassy in Washington, Elad Strohmayer, told Foreign Policy: “We believe that UNRWA needs to pass from the world as it is an organization that advocates politically against Israel and perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/kushner-said-pushing-to-end-refugee-status-for-millions-of-palestinians/

 

People naturally flee the fighting during time of war...and often they are terrorized into leaving. When the fighting is over the first recourse is to send them back where they came from...in this case..to Israel!
 

All sounds nice and well written , just explain to me why US should be giving them money ? 

 

Even a charity that received donations shows some kind of appriciation in some shape or form, Palestinians do not .

 

So explain to me why US should continue to give out money ?

[farcanell]

9 minutes ago, tropo said:

But seeing as you brought it up, which are the more generous countries you speak of? Where does the US rank?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

 

20th out of 28 Development Assistant committee member states.... some might think it very sad of the worlds leading economy.

[dexterm]

21 minutes ago, BestB said:

All sounds nice and well written , just explain to me why US should be giving them money ? 

 

Even a charity that received donations shows some kind of appriciation in some shape or form, Palestinians do not .

 

So explain to me why US should continue to give out money ?

>>just explain to me why US should be giving them money ? 
..Common humanity, compassion for the weak, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc. We are all the same species...human beings.

 

Millions of refugees through no fault of their own at the mercy of the political intrigues of Israel, some corrupt Palestinian  leaders, and Trump's appeal to his populist America First political base will be underfed, lack basic healthcare, and lose their education and a chance in life we all enjoy as a result of his political games.

Edited August 25, 2018 by dexterm

[tropo]

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

 

20th out of 28 Development Assistant committee member states.... some might think it very sad of the worlds leading economy.

I see the US are 12th out of 28, for development aid per capita, and by far the biggest contributors. There is nothing sad about this at all.

 

What is sad is that people are getting upset when the US decides to reassess what they are doing with their development aid. A new administration should reassess where every dollar is going.

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>just explain to me why US should be giving them money ? 
..Common humanity, compassion for the weak, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc. We are all the same species...human beings.

 

Millions of refugees at the mercy of the political intrigues of Israel, some corrupt Palestinian  leaders, and Trump's appeal to his populist America First political base will be underfed, lack basic healthcare, and lose their education and a chance in life we all enjoy as a result of his political games.

So all of that common humanity etc etc etc applies to US only? 

 

And would it not be common humanity to show appreciation in return? Or is it one way street when it comes to humanity and compassion ?

 

Just to add , you say SOME corrupt Palestinian officials , could you name ones who are not corrupt? 

Edited August 25, 2018 by BestB

[farcanell]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>just explain to me why US should be giving them money ? 
..Common humanity, compassion for the weak, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc. We are all the same species...human beings.

 

Millions of refugees through no fault of their own at the mercy of the political intrigues of Israel, some corrupt Palestinian  leaders, and Trump's appeal to his populist America First political base will be underfed, lack basic healthcare, and lose their education and a chance in life we all enjoy as a result of his political games.

? well put... hopefully easily understood.

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

? well put... hopefully easily understood.

No, nothing but a BS to justify milking the cow.

[farcanell]

2 minutes ago, tropo said:

I see the US are 12th out of 28, for development aid per capita, and by far the biggest contributors. There is nothing sad about this at all.

 

What is sad is that people are getting upset when the US decides to reassess what they are doing with their development aid. A new administration should reassess where every dollar is going.

The list I supplied has the US at 20th by GNI.... it’s sad

 

if you have 100 dollars and donate 1 dollar, that’s 1%

if you have 1000 dollars and donate 1 dollar... that’s a cheapskate .1%

thats the US vs Norway... generous vs cheapskate.

 

now be honest... the US is redirecting its dollars toward other aid projects, away from peoples that have been established as being very needy of aid... he’s doing it for political milage amongst his base.... simply redirecting some of it would qualify as reassessing ... but all of it... despicable. 

[farcanell]

4 minutes ago, BestB said:

No, nothing but a BS to justify milking the cow.

The cow has already been milked... the money will still be spent, just elsewhere... so not BS... it’s discriminative.

[BestB]

Just now, farcanell said:

The cow has already been milked... the money will still be spent, just elsewhere... so not BS... it’s discriminative.

No it is not, it is up to the cow where she gives her milk and there are by far more needy people elsewhere on the planet and those might be little more appreciative than the current bunch.

 

As they say, you rip what you sow 

[farcanell]

12 minutes ago, BestB said:

So all of that common humanity etc etc etc applies to US only? 

 

And would it not be common humanity to show appreciation in return? Or is it one way street when it comes to humanity and compassion ?

You mean like Qatar giving the USA 130 million in aid in the last decade or so?

 

wow... countries needing aid are hardly in the position to give aid, so it’s usually one way, just like the other countries that give aid (more generously)

 

what planet are you from, assuming that the US is the only aid giving country? Or the only country required to demonstrate common humanity?

[Chomper Higgot]

"We have undertaken a review of U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority and in the West Bank and Gaza to ensure these funds are spent in accordance with U.S. national interests and provide value to the U.S. taxpayer," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

So publish the review sand let’s all see the rationale behind this decision.

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

You mean like Qatar giving the USA 130 million in aid in the last decade or so?

 

wow... countries needing aid are hardly in the position to give aid, so it’s usually one way, just like the other countries that give aid (more generously)

 

what planet are you from, assuming that the US is the only aid giving country? Or the only country required to demonstrate common humanity?

I never said US was the only country, where exactly did you pull that from?

 

Just like i never said US a was the only country required to demonstrate anything

 

No need to put words in my mouth which i did not say

 

Go back and read again what i said, which i thought was pretty clear.

 

It is up to US who to give aid to and how much to give, just as it is up to US to cut off any aid when this aid is not appreciated.

 

Sure, Qatar, Turkey, Iran can pick up the bill and fill in the gap.

 

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"We have undertaken a review of U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority and in the West Bank and Gaza to ensure these funds are spent in accordance with U.S. national interests and provide value to the U.S. taxpayer," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

So publish the review sand let’s all see the rationale behind this decision.

Why should it be published?

[farcanell]

4 minutes ago, BestB said:

No it is not, it is up to the cow where she gives her milk and there are by far more needy people elsewhere on the planet and those might be little more appreciative than the current bunch.

 

As they say, you rip what you sow 

Which cow does your milk come from? Did she have a choice? Did she know that others are starving and need milk more desperately than you to survive? Would she have given you the milk if she knew this?

 

and... I dispute that there are far more needy people elsewhere.... needy yes, but far more... very debatable.

 

Reaping what you sow?

what?

the aid is for projects to help the people, not all are Hamas. Collateral damage during conflicts hits non combatants far worse than combatants, when talking about urban warfare etc 

[tropo]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

The list I supplied has the US at 20th by GNI.... it’s sad

 

if you have 100 dollars and donate 1 dollar, that’s 1%

if you have 1000 dollars and donate 1 dollar... that’s a cheapskate .1%

thats the US vs Norway... generous vs cheapskate.

 

now be honest... the US is redirecting its dollars toward other aid projects, away from peoples that have been established as being very needy of aid... he’s doing it for political milage amongst his base.... simply redirecting some of it would qualify as reassessing ... but all of it... despicable. 

I prefer 12th on the list, as a per capita gift.

 

Here's the problem I see. You're looking a gift horse in the mouth. That's sad! Just because another country (Norway) gives more (in percentage terms) doesn't mean it shouldn't be appreciated for what it is - a gift. Redirecting all or part of it is reassessing. According to the reference you linked, the US is donating $31.08 billion in development aid around the world. There's a lot of world to spend this in. Before you make your "despicable" comments, shouldn't you first determine where the $200 million is going next? It shouldn't be hard to find equally or more worthy beneficiaries.