Article: "Push for Peace to Avert Violence, Gaza Donors Told" by Alastair Sharp and Will Rasmussen, Reuters
This article addresses some interesting issues. Donors gather and give billions of dollars to rebuild areas of the west bank that, withing a year or two, promptly get destroyed and then need to be rebuilt again. It seems as though many donors are asking the question, "Will we once again reconstruct something we built a few years ago and now has been hammered and flattened?" I think that this is a very interesting question. Of coarse if a was a donor I would want to see that there was some political progress before I dumped millions into the area.
I can also see why it would be hard to just no longer give any aid to the area even if there was no political progress. I feel like it is the responsibility of these third party's continue donating to the reconstruction of these areas even if there is not any political progress. Even if it is just for humanitarian reasons alone.
On the flip side of that is the fact that it is not worth donating any money if it is not allocated effectively to serve its desired purpose. The article states that "The United Nations and aid agencies say reconstruction will probably be hampered by the inability to deliver essential material such as cement and steel to the coastal strip because of an Israeli-led blockade. The Jewish state refuses to allow in material that militants could use to build rockets."
In the article the refusal of the west to recognize the "democratically elected" Hamas is also an issue. Should the West recognize Hamas as a lagitimate or continue to label it as a terrorist orgnization? Do you think that these donors and foreign countries should continue to give aid abd money? Should they make donations contingent on political change first?
ok it's Iraq but it's interesting
-
Here is a link to a blog put up by Morgan on a different Blog. There are a
number of entries that tie more to your topic than theirs. Enjoy.
15 years ago
Posts
I think that the West should recognize Hamas as a legitimate organization. The Palestinian people have elected Hamas through a democratic process and we should respect that. While part of Hamas may opperate as a terrorist organization, there are also many positive chapters. If we engage with the positive chapters, but not the terrorist chapters, these will gain legitimacy. I realize there is some overlap, but I think that you attempt to engage with the positive aspects, these will flourish. Besides, if we continue to ignore Hamas the terrorist sides gain more weight and support. This may be a naieve position, but at this point, what else can we do?
ReplyDeletehttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/02/20092416031770359.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/04/news/ML-Gaza-Hamas-UN.php
Until Hamas stops stuff like this there is no need for them to be recognized. I have no problem with Fatah being recognized as they are much less violent and open to talks. While Hamas prevents the UN from providing the Palestinians in Gaza with aid, there is no reason why it should be recognized. You make a good point that all Hamas members and "chapters" are not the same, yet there are so many different options as far as the PNA is concerned where I think that Hamas is a little more uniform than you are trying to say.
It's amazing what happens when US interests under the auspices of the quartet push for free and fair elections. Actually it isn't all that surprising that with legitimate elections, the Palestinian electorate votes for what to many is an illegitimate faction. The frustrations with Fatah and belief in Hamas as a voice of resistance paved its way to power. The concerns about the problems of the Palestinian Authority and any future State must be remembered when talking about factional reconciliation or power sharing. Hamas has indeed not shown itself to be a partner of good faith in reaching a peace agreement. Then again, Fatah cannot fully claim a position of representation for the Palestinian people, despite its international backers. Donors should give support to elements in Palestinian politics that demonstrate the best capability for achieving a just agreement with Israel. This may be a government of non-partisan technocrats, if there are any left to be found. Continuing the factional wrangling for power and armed fratricide isn't an effective way to reach peace.
ReplyDelete