Powered by WebAds

Friday, May 12, 2006

Financing Terror

In today's Washington Times, Diane West gets it right:
The real here question is, Why does the Hamas-run government bear "sole" responsibility? What about its supporters, i.e. the Palestinian voters who gave that Hamas-run government a landslide victory? In the world according to the Bush administration, they remain voiceless victims even after exercising their political will at the ballot box, voting into power an outlaw organization whose charter unfolds under a statement by Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." Regardless of whether this heinous call to jihad leaves any peace for the so-called "Quartet" to process, Ms. Ricecontinued: "Hamas' policies and actions should not deprive the Palestinian people of their legitimate humanitarian needs."

Why ever not? Why shouldn't Hamas' "policies and actions," driven by a Hitlerian plan to "obliterate" Israel, deprive Hamas constituents of their "needs," humanitarian or otherwise — particularly when it comes to support from civilized nation-states spilling blood and treasure to fend off Islamic jihad in the so-called "war on terror"? There is a strategic and moral senselessness to the administration's willful disconnect. After all, the U.S. and the EU cut off aid to the PA two months ago in order to extract concessions — like, for instance, on Israel's right to exist. Hamas' response? No concessions. The U.S. and EU are now cranking aid back up, in humanitarian dribs and drabs, but this is probably just the beginning and still no concessions. This doesn't sound like successful statecraft.

On the other hand, it seems that statecraft is no longer the craft of our state. After predictions of cash and gas shortages, and a couple of stories about sick Palestinian babies made the papers — youngsters languishing "because funds have been withheld from the West" (oil-rich Islam is never to blame) — the U.S. blinked. Or, rather, we teared up. Acting like an emotional individual rather than the leader of the Free World, the U.S. traded its goals and principles (pressuring Hamas, not supporting terrorists) for a big wet hanky. But notice Hamas didn't get weepy over its own young and decide to "save the children" by simply recognizing Israel's right to exist. Nor did any of Hamas' oil-rich Muslim brethren feel moved to come to the rescue, either. No. Hamas remained true to its creed (Kill the Jews), the Arab-Muslim world sat tight, and the U.S. gave in on its anti-terrorist stance and agreed to airlift necessities, which is a disgrace.
Read the whole thing.


Post a Comment

<< Home