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

[dexterm]

After two waves of ethnic cleansing the refugee problem has been worsened by Israel repeatedly dragging its heels over the Palestinian right of return despite UN resolutions with the intention that one day they might say : Sorry the problem is now too big. 

Except of course Israel is somehow still large enough to absorb a further 16 million instant citizens if you happen to be the right religion!

 

Trump is now attempting a 3rd wave of ethnic cleansing by sleight of hand. Abolish UNWRA and ...pff!...millions of Palestinian refugees suddenly disappear.

Edited August 27, 2018 by dexterm

[dcutman]

Another Trump campaign promise kept. Keep up the good work.

[JimmyTheMook]

On 8/25/2018 at 9:18 AM, 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.

 

Mazel Tov !

 

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Another Trump campaign promise kept. Keep up the good work.

Exactly what does Trump's decision contribute to the resolution of the Palestinian Refugee problem? Even members of the IDF are against the decision as it only increases the risk of pushing more people into the arms of HAMAS and other Islamic extremists.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, farcanell said:

Hopefully more responsible and less self serving aid donors will redirect their aid from wherever trump diverts USaid too.... thereby enabling them (other aid donors) To send it to Palestinian relief efforts.

 

these other countries are unlikely to make knee jerk decisions, (what, with being responsible and all) so it may  be a trickle effect

 

personally, I really really want to see something like this happen.... and trumps reaction (much like I’m waiting to see what the Europeans will do in Iran ?)... hopefully his head will explode ???

 

I don't know why you assume many donor countries aren't self-serving. Putting up funds is often seen as giving some extra regional (or even international) prestige, theoretically more of a say on matters related to the conflict, and in the context of Arab/Muslim donors - part of ongoing rivalries.

 

As for "responsible" - you may want to revisit previous promises of providing funds to the Palestinians. The US was actually one of the  most consistent on this score. Regional donors are more known for not following up on their word. This either due to not having actual intentions, or political circumstances shifting.

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

It's interesting to note Israeli Defence officials do not support the proposed funding cuts by the Trump Administration, I understand you currently are of a similar POV.

 

Israeli defense officials told the country’s leaders Sunday that a swift cut in the budget of the UN’s Relief and Works Agency could lead to a vacuum in supplying basic services to the Gaza Strip, creating a gap that Hamas might fill. As per the link below the Trump decision is likely act of folly which will only exacerbate problems.

 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-officials-swift-cuts-in-unrwa-funds-will-create-vacuum-for-hamas-1.6413809

 

Getting back to UNRWA, I still do not understand why you claim the Agency perpetuates Palestinian refugee problems. UNRWA operates under a UN Mandate described below.

 

UNRWA is unique in terms of its long-standing commitment to one group of refugees. It has contributed to the welfare and human development of four generations of Palestine refugees, defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are also eligible for registration. 

UNRWA services are available to all those living in its areas of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

 

It's neither "interesting" or even surprising. It's how things been for quite a while. Posted pretty often on many of my posts, actually. The IDF, and other Israeli security and intelligence organizations do not see eye to eye with the Israeli government on a range of issues (another good example would be Iran). This stems from these organizations not being political entities, but professional ones. The same can be evidenced in other countries (more recently, US agencies vs. Trump).

 

As long as refugees remain refugees, their circumstances cannot be radically improved. This ultimately involves resettlement, and partial/full naturalization. The long-term existence of UNRWA operations create a situation in which neither the Palestinian refugees nor host countries (never mind other countries) have much motivation to alter things in a constructive, realistic manner.

 

Rather, maintaining the situation in which people remain refugees, and moreover, expanding the figures year by year, generation to generation relies on the illusion that the only solution possible is a full reversal of their predicament (as advertised and promised by various leaderships). In effect, each year this goes on, and which each generation added to the "list", the realistic chances of the touted "solution" become slimmer.

 

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

You can twist facts and history all you like, doesn't change reality. There is no unconditional "right of return" in this case as you often assert. Israel is not required or even expected to absorb masses of people who are hostile and do not recognize its sovereignty.

 

You also habitually and conveniently ignore the long standing positions of Arab and Palestinian leaderships - which were opposed to peaceful arrangements, concessions or agreements with Israel. This lasted for decades, but do talk about dragging feet and causing the situation to become more complicated.

 

Israel could not feasibly support "further 16 million" citizens, whether instantly or otherwise - other than in your nonsense posts. And, of course, this isn't even what the OP is about.

 

As for your usual hyperbole - the US withholding funds UNRWA does not actually equate with UNRWA being "abolished". And the US (or rather, the Trump administration) changing its accepted designation of refugee status doesn't amount to "ethnic cleansing" - Palestinians will not cease to be Palestinians regardless of whether they are designated as refugees or not. Furthermore, the US move does not necessarily pertain to how other countries see things.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know why you assume many donor countries aren't self-serving. Putting up funds is often seen as giving some extra regional (or even international) prestige, theoretically more of a say on matters related to the conflict, and in the context of Arab/Muslim donors - part of ongoing rivalries.

 

As for "responsible" - you may want to revisit previous promises of providing funds to the Palestinians. The US was actually one of the  most consistent on this score. Regional donors are more known for not following up on their word. This either due to not having actual intentions, or political circumstances shifting.

 

I’m assuming it because other donors of aid ( don’t know about regional... not talking about regional at the moment) aren’t running around talking about, or actually cutting aid, to countries that they don’t like.

 

Worth noting is that the current potus has also threatened other countries, as well.... it’s not just Palestine. He’s “weaponizing” aid for his purpose and agenda elsewhere too.

 

when I hear another country say that it (they ) will withhold aid to aid recipient countries, if they don’t vote along US lines, (for example) then I will agree with your first paragraph (by that, I actually mean splashed across the media as a stand alone initiative)

 

The “prestige” involved with aid, is usually garnered by the giver.... that’s logical... that was even included in the definition supplied earlier in this thread. Recipient prestige increase... mmm... ok

 

So.... jan19 (following trumps earlier withholding of 65mill)... informed Palestinian sources say some Arab nations will withhold aid

but... April 21.... After UN cuts aid, 11 countries raise aid packages to Palestine.

now that’s what I’m talking about ???

 

anyway... yes the US has been a very reliable and responsible aid giver... (no contest) saving countless from misery.... but that seems to be changing under trump.... that’s the problem others will have to deal with. 

 

I acknowledge that you have invested time and thought into this, so perhaps it would be easier for you to point me towards the example you wish me to see, because searching “which countries have withheld aid from Palestine” seems to always lead back to trump, in one way or another.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

It's neither "interesting" or even surprising

The referenced IDF member's POV is interesting for me. However, as you say the Palestinian refugee situation currently seems to be intractable.

 

Worldwide a huge problem as countries around the world annually accept a very small number of UN managed refugees for resettlement in comparison to the millions officially designated as refugees.A number of countries are cutting back their vetted refugee intake. As an example the Trump Admin cutting back their annual intake by 50%. Overall very sad for the wasted lives and opportunities for the disenfranchised.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The referenced IDF member's POV is interesting for me. However, as you say the Palestinian refugee situation currently seems to be intractable.

 

Worldwide a huge problem as countries around the world annually accept a very small number of UN managed refugees for resettlement in comparison to the millions officially designated as refugees.A number of countries are cutting back their vetted refugee intake. As an example the Trump Admin cutting back their annual intake by 50%. Overall very sad for the wasted lives and opportunities for the disenfranchised.

 

Yeah, well...the point is that this was covered quite a bit both on various OP and posts. People just tend to generalize political views to countries as a whole based on bias, headlines or current leadership/politicians positions. The same, by the way, holds with regard to generalizations applied to Palestinian political views.

 

There's no argument that there are global refugee issues, and that they aren't getting resolved quite as planned. IMO, part of this relates to unrealistic expectations and/or unwillingness to step up and deal with issues, realistic solutions being unpopular.

 

Prolonging any refugee situation makes its resolution less viable. So in a sense, adhering to the ideals related to treatment of refugees can ultimately become a hindrance in regard to improving their lot.  

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, farcanell said:

I’m assuming it because other donors of aid ( don’t know about regional... not talking about regional at the moment) aren’t running around talking about, or actually cutting aid, to countries that they don’t like.

 

Worth noting is that the current potus has also threatened other countries, as well.... it’s not just Palestine. He’s “weaponizing” aid for his purpose and agenda elsewhere too.

 

when I hear another country say that it (they ) will withhold aid to aid recipient countries, if they don’t vote along US lines, (for example) then I will agree with your first paragraph (by that, I actually mean splashed across the media as a stand alone initiative)

 

The “prestige” involved with aid, is usually garnered by the giver.... that’s logical... that was even included in the definition supplied earlier in this thread. Recipient prestige increase... mmm... ok

 

So.... jan19 (following trumps earlier withholding of 65mill)... informed Palestinian sources say some Arab nations will withhold aid

but... April 21.... After UN cuts aid, 11 countries raise aid packages to Palestine.

now that’s what I’m talking about ???

 

anyway... yes the US has been a very reliable and responsible aid giver... (no contest) saving countless from misery.... but that seems to be changing under trump.... that’s the problem others will have to deal with. 

 

I acknowledge that you have invested time and thought into this, so perhaps it would be easier for you to point me towards the example you wish me to see, because searching “which countries have withheld aid from Palestine” seems to always lead back to trump, in one way or another.

 

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to exclude regional donors from the equation. As for countries cutting aid based on politics, or refusing to support this or that group - quite often with regard to regional donors, and even non-regional players balk at providing funds which might be used for purposes they do not condone (example, payments to convicted terrorists) or organizations they do not support (example, Hamas).

 

With regard to the Trump administration "weaponizing" aid etc. - IMO, the difference compared to past administrations or other countries is less about substance, and more to do with the crude application. Governments do expect some sort of "payback", but granted not all are brutish about it as the Trump administration is.

 

Countries pledging funds and failing to meet promises is nothing new in this context. Examples aren't really hard to find on the net. Here's a bunch of related reports:

 

World Bank urges donors to fulfill Gaza pledges

https://apnews.com/bcd13b3502054cd59e1579eef64d6a68

 

Reconstructing Gaza - Donor Pledges

http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/rebuilding-gaza-donor-pledges

 

Which countries are failing to deliver Gaza aid?

http://www.irinnews.org/news/2015/05/22/which-countries-are-failing-deliver-gaza-aid

 

Gaza donations fall way short of pledges

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/gaza-donations-fall-short-pledges-150218060136423.html

 

'Empty words': Donors fail to deliver pledged Gaza aid

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/words-donors-fail-deliver-pledged-gaza-aid-150411113825302.html

 

Australia diverts Palestinian money amid fears of support for terrorists

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-diverts-palestinian-money-amid-fears-of-support-for-terrorists-20180702-p4zp2l.html

 

 

 

 

[simple1]

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, well...the point is that this was covered quite a bit both on various OP and posts. People just tend to generalize political views to countries as a whole based on bias, headlines or current leadership/politicians positions. The same, by the way, holds with regard to generalizations applied to Palestinian political views.

 

There's no argument that there are global refugee issues, and that they aren't getting resolved quite as planned. IMO, part of this relates to unrealistic expectations and/or unwillingness to step up and deal with issues, realistic solutions being unpopular.

 

Prolonging any refugee situation makes its resolution less viable. So in a sense, adhering to the ideals related to treatment of refugees can ultimately become a hindrance in regard to improving their lot.  

Personally I do not comprehend what you are inferring when you say...

 

"with the words adhering to the ideals related to treatment of refugees can ultimately become a hindrance in regard to improving their lot"

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Personally I do not comprehend what you are inferring when you say...

 

"with the words adhering to the ideals related to treatment of refugees can ultimately become a hindrance in regard to improving their lot"

 

Take, for example, the issue of "right of return". This isn't always possible, or even wise. If that's touted as the only solution, it means other, realistic (if less "perfect", or "just") alternatives are sidelined. In the mean time, the refugee numbers swell (due to "inheriting" the refugee status), thus making the issue or resettlement (or absorption by host/other countries) even more complicated.

[simple1]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Take, for example, the issue of "right of return". This isn't always possible, or even wise. If that's touted as the only solution, it means other, realistic (if less "perfect", or "just") alternatives are sidelined. In the mean time, the refugee numbers swell (due to "inheriting" the refugee status), thus making the issue or resettlement (or absorption by host/other countries) even more complicated.

OK

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to exclude regional donors from the equation. As for countries cutting aid based on politics, or refusing to support this or that group - quite often with regard to regional donors, and even non-regional players balk at providing funds which might be used for purposes they do not condone (example, payments to convicted terrorists) or organizations they do not support (example, Hamas).

 

With regard to the Trump administration "weaponizing" aid etc. - IMO, the difference compared to past administrations or other countries is less about substance, and more to do with the crude application. Governments do expect some sort of "payback", but granted not all are brutish about it as the Trump administration is.

 

Countries pledging funds and failing to meet promises is nothing new in this context. Examples aren't really hard to find on the net. Here's a bunch of related reports:

 

World Bank urges donors to fulfill Gaza pledges

https://apnews.com/bcd13b3502054cd59e1579eef64d6a68

 

Reconstructing Gaza - Donor Pledges

http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/rebuilding-gaza-donor-pledges

 

Which countries are failing to deliver Gaza aid?

http://www.irinnews.org/news/2015/05/22/which-countries-are-failing-deliver-gaza-aid

 

Gaza donations fall way short of pledges

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/gaza-donations-fall-short-pledges-150218060136423.html

 

'Empty words': Donors fail to deliver pledged Gaza aid

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/words-donors-fail-deliver-pledged-gaza-aid-150411113825302.html

 

Australia diverts Palestinian money amid fears of support for terrorists

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-diverts-palestinian-money-amid-fears-of-support-for-terrorists-20180702-p4zp2l.html

 

 

 

 

Thanks... a lot of links... a lot of reading.

 

that said... the last link about Australia, says that aid was forthcoming, just transparently (announced reallocation, per many suggestions on here about trumps planned reallocation) redirected elsewhere in Palestine, so a non issue (and ... Australia also gave 100% of monies pledged in Cairo)

 

as for the others, they are all continuous updates of the same thing, with the final report showing that the shortfall is almost all from regional players.... Qatar alone, is responsible for about 50% of the shortfall!

 

So... as to regional players, my comment wasn’t about not recognizing them, per say, but more about me not knowing enough about them, ergo not discussing those in the context of that post.

 

that said, (after reading those links) as it’s largely the regional players who have let the pledge fulfillment down... well... what can I say, other than to point out that these governments aren’t nessesarily very transparent nor good international players

 

this highlights the importance of responsible world leadership following through with aid promises..... the precedents of them not, is potentially disastrous, as it’s contagious, with lessor economies pointing the finger at big brothers failure, to justify its own.

 

mmm... pledges.... like on telethons... they rarely ever receive the total pledges.... and unbudgeted pledges from governments are tricky, I would have thought ( Greece, for example... damn near bankrupt... not honoring their pledge doesn’t surprise, nor turkey, amongst others)

 

of those pledges made in 2014... the US was amongst the countries (and there were a lot) that gave 100% of pledged money, but I’m guessing that was due to the obama admin.

 

but crucially... shortfall or withholding aid hasn’t been brought up by any other country as a beating stick, but rather, quasi legitimate “excuses” have been proffered, without any accompanying threats..... and that’s the guts of it, in my opinion.

 

It’s carrot on a stick thinking... which has been shown to be largely ineffectual... and adversely effecting those in desperate need, vs those it intends to effect

[geriatrickid]

On 8/24/2018 at 7:06 PM, simple1 said:

UNRWA supports 1.4 million registered Palestinian refugees throughout the M.E. The UNRWA definition of the term refugee, includes the patrilineal descendants of the original "Palestine refugees", but is limited to persons residing in UNRWA's areas of operation.

We are all well aware of Trump and Bolton's hard right political positions. The OP decision is a politically driven matter which provides no facts, nor do you, that UNRWA is diverting funds to HAMAS or families of killed terrorists.

OK, the UN has quantified the number of arabs it calls Palestinian refugees.

There were nearly  1,000,000 nationals of the jewish faith who were forced/obliged/expelled/terrorized out of multiple arab countries, including Egypt. Tunisia, Iraq, etc. What is the UN's position on these people? 

Every time we get one of these threads which serve as an excuse to let loose a torrent of anti semitic and  hateful comments, no one addresses this issue. Not even an acknowledgement.

 

On 8/25/2018 at 12:40 AM, thaiguzzi said:

How is it even conceivable that Israel just gives them SOME OF THEIR OWN LAND back?

Not difficult.

I know you are a Zionist and you expect the world to have pity on your people from the atrocities of WW II, but how about pity on the displaced people by the country of The Jews?

Yeah, thought so. One rule for your lot and one rule for the Palestinians.

Shameful.

And what of the arabs who lost everything because they were jewish. You demand that Israel hand over land. Israel is the equivalent of a city state and is the smallest state in the middle east. They have already lost much of their territory following multiple invasions by Arabs, Turks, Africans and Europeans over the centuries. We have seen how the handing over of land has gone in the past. Israel handed over the Sinai and still suffered terror attacks. Israel pulled out of the former Egyptian territory of Gaza and faces daily attacks from Gaza. Israel pulled out of Lebanon's border areas and still suffers attacks.

 

And where are you on the  repatriation of land and assets to the arabs expelled/ terrorized/expelled/ forced out of arab countries because they were jewish? To date, not one of the people demanding Israel give up everything,  says anything on this issue. Are you even aware of what the arabs did? The  Egyptians gave 48-72 hours  notice to its jews when they expelled them in the 50's. Are you aware of the  mass murders in Bahgdad that saw Iraqi jews slaughtered and beaten in the streets? Has it dawned on you that this is one of the reasons why Israelis of that lineage don't  embrace your demands?

 

22 hours ago, simple1 said:

Exactly what does Trump's decision contribute to the resolution of the Palestinian Refugee problem? Even members of the IDF are against the decision as it only increases the risk of pushing more people into the arms of HAMAS and other Islamic extremists.

It encourages the Arabs to stop being benefits dependent. The Palestinian territories are a welfare state. Why work when there are billions of Euro/dollars for doing nothing. Where were you when Arafat and his cronies were looting the PLA? How is it that the PLA representatives maintain a luxurious lifestyle at their foreign locations? For a  people so  destitute, the PLA has a nice fleet of expensive Mercedes and BMWs.

 

So what if a few members of the IDF  want to keep paying extortion. If it was coming out of their pay, they would not be so generous. If people  embrace Hamas, it's not because of a lack of money. Try considering their culture and religious practices.

 

Nothing is stopping you from contributing to Abdullah and his many wives and children if you so wish. The jewish community supports building schools and hospitals in Israel. Much of their university network  and R&D capability was funded by contributions from  its refugee diaspora. And yet, despite  having a higher birthrate and a wealthy presence in other countries, the Palestinian diaspora gives little to its people. They expect others to support them and to pay for everything. That should tell you what's wrong. Every ethnic group which has succeeded in tough circumstances, the Irish and Italians in the USA, the jews around the world, the Chinese did it through hard work and staying focused on self improvement.  They didn't expect nor rely on handouts.

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by geriatrickid

[simple1]

36 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

OK, the UN has quantified the number of arabs it calls Palestinian refugees.

There were nearly  1,000,000 nationals of the jewish faith who were forced/obliged/expelled/terrorized out of multiple arab countries, including Egypt. Tunisia, Iraq, etc. What is the UN's position on these people? <snip rant>

It is not for the UN to own responsibility to negotiate compensation, but to facilitate negotiations. However, an article covering some of the effort to claim an estimated $350 billion in compensation (good luck with that!) by lobbying the UN is provided below.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-refugees-from-arab-lands-seek-justice-at-united-nations/

 

I understand the Israelis had previously ruled out final peace negotiations unless the evicted Jewish community received compensation. Has the Israeli government finalised the compensation offer for Palestinian refugee compensation?

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/compensation-for-palestinian-refugees-law-politics-and-praxis/C5CE1B9FEE96AB8DA5C7CB3F7F1D63E8

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by simple1

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Israel is the equivalent of a city state and is the smallest state in the middle east.

It's vague as to the relevance of such reference to the topic but fact-checking shows the following nation sizes (rounded to nearest 100km²)

Bahrain     770

Cyprus    3,600

Lebanon 4,000

Qatar    11,600

Kuwait 17,800

Israel    20,800

As regards Israel as "the equivalent of a city state" (I define as an autonomous, self-governing community) -rounded to nominal population size

Best known city states:

Vatican City 1,000

Monaco        38,500

Singapore    5.6 million

Lesser known:

Gibraltar       34,400

vs

Israel 8.6 million

Israel is not comparable to a single city state so it clearly has no equivalent as a city state nor is it the smallest state in the Middle East.

 

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, farcanell said:

Thanks... a lot of links... a lot of reading.

 

that said... the last link about Australia, says that aid was forthcoming, just transparently (announced reallocation, per many suggestions on here about trumps planned reallocation) redirected elsewhere in Palestine, so a non issue (and ... Australia also gave 100% of monies pledged in Cairo)

 

as for the others, they are all continuous updates of the same thing, with the final report showing that the shortfall is almost all from regional players.... Qatar alone, is responsible for about 50% of the shortfall!

 

So... as to regional players, my comment wasn’t about not recognizing them, per say, but more about me not knowing enough about them, ergo not discussing those in the context of that post.

 

that said, (after reading those links) as it’s largely the regional players who have let the pledge fulfillment down... well... what can I say, other than to point out that these governments aren’t nessesarily very transparent nor good international players

 

this highlights the importance of responsible world leadership following through with aid promises..... the precedents of them not, is potentially disastrous, as it’s contagious, with lessor economies pointing the finger at big brothers failure, to justify its own.

 

mmm... pledges.... like on telethons... they rarely ever receive the total pledges.... and unbudgeted pledges from governments are tricky, I would have thought ( Greece, for example... damn near bankrupt... not honoring their pledge doesn’t surprise, nor turkey, amongst others)

 

of those pledges made in 2014... the US was amongst the countries (and there were a lot) that gave 100% of pledged money, but I’m guessing that was due to the obama admin.

 

but crucially... shortfall or withholding aid hasn’t been brought up by any other country as a beating stick, but rather, quasi legitimate “excuses” have been proffered, without any accompanying threats..... and that’s the guts of it, in my opinion.

 

It’s carrot on a stick thinking... which has been shown to be largely ineffectual... and adversely effecting those in desperate need, vs those it intends to effect

 

The bit about Australia was more related to the point made about donors sometimes conditioning/diverting funds so that these won't be used for ends they do not support. There are many other instances involving similar situations. Also, there were and there are, instances in which the allocation of funds is directly tied with political support for one faction or another, or with political compliance by the recipient. The latter being somewhat more explicit with regard to regional donors. By the way, even the Palestinians themselves apply the same - the PA withholding funds and economic support from the Hamas and the Gaza Strip, until the former relent and accept political concessions is a standing issue. 

 

Western donors balk at providing funds to projects related to Hamas, or those who raise concerns Hamas will benefit. The same holds for some regional donors as well. Similarly, regional donors sometimes condition their support for certain projects on other potential donors being sidelined, or their own involvement highlighted. The assertion that such moves weren't used by other any other country as a "beating stick" is incorrect.

 

As for this being ineffectual - a more accurate take would be that the manner in which this instance was applied is problematic. But generally speaking economic pressure is pretty much a standard feature in the diplomatic toolboxes related to the conflict. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I think this it related to the scope of the expected effect - more useful for localized, specific issues, rather than bringing about monumental changes.

 

 

[Ron19]

Off topic post removed.

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The bit about Australia was more related to the point made about donors sometimes conditioning/diverting funds so that these won't be used for ends they do not support. There are many other instances involving similar situations. Also, there were and there are, instances in which the allocation of funds is directly tied with political support for one faction or another, or with political compliance by the recipient. The latter being somewhat more explicit with regard to regional donors. By the way, even the Palestinians themselves apply the same - the PA withholding funds and economic support from the Hamas and the Gaza Strip, until the former relent and accept political concessions is a standing issue. 

 

Western donors balk at providing funds to projects related to Hamas, or those who raise concerns Hamas will benefit. The same holds for some regional donors as well. Similarly, regional donors sometimes condition their support for certain projects on other potential donors being sidelined, or their own involvement highlighted. The assertion that such moves weren't used by other any other country as a "beating stick" is incorrect.

 

As for this being ineffectual - a more accurate take would be that the manner in which this instance was applied is problematic. But generally speaking economic pressure is pretty much a standard feature in the diplomatic toolboxes related to the conflict. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I think this it related to the scope of the expected effect - more useful for localized, specific issues, rather than bringing about monumental changes.

 

 

I understand all that your saying, but I’m still looking for another example of approved funds being withdrawn unless the recipient nations government complies with such gross threatening measures

 

we already know that trump likes yes men, and rewards them by placing them on the swamps higher ground.... I believe we are seeing the same thing with country favoritism... wherein if you don’t follow the leader, your ostracized.

 

this denies aid to the impoverished who need it, when a truculent leader / dictator/ junta refuses to comply because he care little for his people (or more about his ideals, I suppose)

 

in the example concerning australia, they clearly demonstrated how they would deliver aid to the intended recipients vs to overt Hamas sources.... which seems to me to be a responsible approach to the ideals of humanitarian aid, whilst endeavoring as much as possible, to deny funds to a terrorist organization. (Or other unintended recipients)

 

with regards to gaining advantages for aid, which is completely understandable, and another tool in the statesman’s toolbox, this does not mean all aid must gain an advantage (beyond prestige) which is why we have labeled it “humanitarian” aid.... humanitarian aid shouldn’t be tied to political concessesions, in general, and not at all in cases of such adject suffering.

 

anyway, this is obviously just my opinion, (linked to my ideals), but it addresses the point I was probably trying to make initially... that I think it’s a crappy deed by trump

 

if others have also done it... it was also a crappy deed.... shame on them.... but today... this OP... shame on trump.

 

that said.... without knowing the specifics of the reallocation of funds, I might be having a knee jerk emotional response to the headlines.

 

 

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, farcanell said:

I understand all that your saying, but I’m still looking for another example of approved funds being withdrawn unless the recipient nations government complies with such gross threatening measures

 

we already know that trump likes yes men, and rewards them by placing them on the swamps higher ground.... I believe we are seeing the same thing with country favoritism... wherein if you don’t follow the leader, your ostracized.

 

this denies aid to the impoverished who need it, when a truculent leader / dictator/ junta refuses to comply because he care little for his people (or more about his ideals, I suppose)

 

in the example concerning australia, they clearly demonstrated how they would deliver aid to the intended recipients vs to overt Hamas sources.... which seems to me to be a responsible approach to the ideals of humanitarian aid, whilst endeavoring as much as possible, to deny funds to a terrorist organization. (Or other unintended recipients)

 

with regards to gaining advantages for aid, which is completely understandable, and another tool in the statesman’s toolbox, this does not mean all aid must gain an advantage (beyond prestige) which is why we have labeled it “humanitarian” aid.... humanitarian aid shouldn’t be tied to political concessesions, in general, and not at all in cases of such adject suffering.

 

anyway, this is obviously just my opinion, (linked to my ideals), but it addresses the point I was probably trying to make initially... that I think it’s a crappy deed by trump

 

if others have also done it... it was also a crappy deed.... shame on them.... but today... this OP... shame on trump.

 

that said.... without knowing the specifics of the reallocation of funds, I might be having a knee jerk emotional response to the headlines.

 

 

 

The most obvious example was cited a few times already. When Hamas won the Palestinian general elections, but maintained refused to alter its agenda, most foreign donors placed limitations on aid provided. Similarly, Israel, Egypt and the PA itself make use of the same when dealing with Hamas. Other regional donors tied provision of aid with the Palestinian Authority adopting measures, following this or that policy or whatnot. It's all pretty much standard fare, and many instances of this were the subject of past topics, even.

 

Whether the Trump administration version is rooted in some plan, or reflects the Presidents' thin skin and need for adulation can be argued. IMO, more like the former, supported by the latter.

 

It needs to be said that these cuts do not imply the US doesn't provide any and all aid whatsoever to the Palestinians. Other venues remain as they were, for now. And I would venture that one way or the other, some of the withheld funds will be either channeled to other Palestinian projects, or simply delayed. Note that this doesn't imply Trump's move being a good choice, if anything it enhances quite the opposite view.