Today Condoleeza Rice reiterated that Hamas will receive no aid from the U.S., if it does not recognize the state of Israel.
And, the United States House of Representatives seconded that motion, voting that Hamas will not receive aid if they continue to call for the destruction of Israel:
The House measure approved Wednesday states that “no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.”
House Majority Leader John Boehner, speaking before the vote, said the measure would send a message to Hamas that Washington means business as it presses the Islamist group to break with its past views on Israel’s right to exist.
“The United States is encouraged by the open, free, and fair elections held by the Palestinian people, and we will continue to support their democratic reform efforts,” Boehner said in a statement earlier Wednesday.
“At the same time, the new government must be aware of both its domestic responsibilities and international obligations,” he said.
“The responsibility of self-government has real consequences for both Hamas and the future of the Palestinian people. Until Hamas changes course — dismantles its terrorist organization, and agrees to work towards a peaceful settlement with Israel — no taxpayer money should be provided to support the Palestinian government.
”Our message is clear,“ the Republican leader added. ”The United States does not and will not support terrorist organizations."
2 comments:
Let's hope its effective:
“no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.”
They've done things like this before. Note that it says no aid directly to the Palestinian Authority.Why did they insert the word "directly"?
When I hear that, I immediately think that is is implying-- that "indirectly" is ok.
And that's exactly what's often been done in the past-- no aid goes directly to the PA-- but lots of money goes to NGO's, various "charities", UN "Refugee" Agencies, etc. The U.S. gov't has done that before...
(Of course under Arafat, it really didn't matter too much who the aid went to-- so much of it ended up in his pocket (& the pockets of his cronies) while the majority of Palis remained poor).
The argument is that it is non-humanitarian to cut off aid. But the oil-rich Gulf states contribute so little now...they could pick up the slack.
(I also think there will be an increasing struggle for power and money between Abbas' supporters & Hamas-- if he gets too powerful, I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas kills him..)
I agree, ‘indirect aid’ will fund Hamas even if it only frees up other money for terror operations. I still see a crack in the resolve by the use of the word “until” as in “until Hamas changes course.” There should be no “and ifs or buts.”
Post a Comment