Maybe Africans should kill more people so that we start giving THEM some money?

Maybe they should start terrorizing us here. Or start working on enriching uranium.

We are not exactly sending a strong message by giving money to thugs while letting innocents die.

Edit: Well, we ARE sending a strong message, but is it a good message?

And you actually think that money will find it's way into Gaza? Much aid is always promised whenever an area of the globe is decimated in one form or another, but as soon as the cameras turn off it seems to peter out mighty quick. After the tsunami that killed a couple hundred thousand in Asia billions in aid was promised, but it was just that, promises. It didn't actually materialize.

Don't worry Leauki, the U.S has provided more than 100 billion dollars in aid to Israel over the years (in addition to all kinds of creative arms deals) so to say that Obama thinks that killing Jews is important is a lie, plain and simple.

Now, if Obama were to suddenly cut off all aid, both military and economic to Israel, THEN you might be able to use that as justification for your statement!

Rather what I see him doing is trying to keep a dialogue with both sides.

The U.S is currently in the position of having to choose between Saudi or Israel as an ally. There was a very interesting speech from a Saudi Prince not that long ago that basically laid it out; if the U.S continues to give a carte blanche to every single Israeli military operation, Saudi will have no choice but to cut it's ties with the U.S. Now, from the U.S perspective they're heavily invested in both nations, on several levels.

Obama doesn't want to lose either side, so he's trying to court both. Personally, I don't know how well that's going to turn out but it's a hell of a pickle no matter which way you cut it!

I am actually convinced that either the PLO or Hamas will keep the money. If it arrives in Gaza at all, it will just make it possible for Hamas to spend more of their own money on weapons since they don't have a need to spend it on "their" people.

I'm not saying he finds it important, I am saying that it seems more important to him then saving hungry Africans.

I agree.

The Saudis don't have an alternative. They don't make their own weapons and are heavily invested in equipment they have no control over. There is no way the US could lose Saudi Arabia as an ally. Saudi Arabia will fall without US help.

The Saudis could simply support Israel openly and take the heat. If more Arab countries would join in, the conflict would be over soon.

I think the more important issue here is what this just announced to the world at large.

We are now doing business with terrorists instead of killing them.

Obama sucks.

This is the first I'm hearing about it. I'd have thought the MSM would be all over something like this. But it falls in line with what is going on in the US (throwing good money after bad). anything that is rebuilt in Gaza will be destroyed again when Hamas resumes firing rockets. Makes more sense to put the money in a barrel, set it on fire, and let the Palestinians huddle around it to keep warm.

Hmm.

First formal interview - Al Arabiya.

$1Bil to - Hamas.

And who, again, elected this guy?

Of which country is it, again, that he is Presdent?

Bush and Rice have funneled money into the region as well, but never in such a large amount. The ironic part is that 75% of the American Jewish community voted for Obama.

Seems they are not happy unless they are suffering. Well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

As far as I know he's not reducing aid to Israel which has added up to far more over the years. By your argument we should take the aid we give Israel and give it to Africa. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

My point is not that we should stop aid to Israel. My point is that to complain of spending a relative pittance for the humanitarian purpose of aiding in the rebuilding of a war torn area compared to the aid we give Israel each and every year is disingenuous.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_aid_to_Israel.gif.

By my argument, really?

I don't think you understood the point.

The terrorists use the money to keep a war going. If THAT money was given to Africa instead, the war would end.

Israel uses the money to keep another Shoah from happening (and if you think that that is not the terrorists' goal you should read their charter and read more about where the PLO come from, ideologically).

I admire your trust that the terrorists will use the money to rebuild a war-torn area. They never did that in the past. I expect them to use the money (or any monies freed by it) to buy weapons to keep the war going.

That's probably fine for you, since you haven't lived in a bunker for seven years. That little detail that is usually forgotten when people think "humanitarian aid". There is nothing, but absolutely nothing, "humanitarian" about giving money to people who openly say that they will use it to fight the Jews AND do exactly that.

My point is not about who gets how much, but about what the money is spent on. If Israel were to use US aid to fire rockets at, say, Jordanian hospitals for no apparent reason (for example, if those hospitals represented no danger to anyone), I would be opposed to that aid too.

Your point about the US giving more to Israel than to Hamas and the PLO is about as useful as the fact that the US spend more on hospitals than on a mafiosi weapons fund to murder people in Chiacago.

Yes.

The next time Hamas attack a wedding celebration because it plays music and kill the groom, the bullets will likely have been paid for by the US. Good work.

And the statement that it is for rebuilding is bogus. Hamas have never rebuilt anything. It was Israel and the PLO who built up Gaza, Hamas merely destroyed infrastructure.

It's not like the world is running out of places that have to be rebuild and the US are thefore forced to "rebuild" the people who want to continue attacking others.

Jews are stubborn. It takes them generations to change. Three generations ago, the Democrats were the party of immigrants (in the north) and the Republicans were the party of WASPs.

It's the social climate over in the evil capitalist US. American Jews are not Jews in the sense in which European or middle-eastern Jews are Jews. American Jews are not constantly under attack and don't have to hide. And in America, I am sure, a Jew can open a Jewish deli, be visibly Jewish, and not have his shop burned down over night.

If in the US the police had to guard every single synagogue like in Germany, you bet American Jews would vote more right-wing!

I say a pox on both your houses, I'd just as soon nuke the entire region, Israel included and let god sort out precisely who is a "terrorist" and who isn't. Why the hell should the US continually be dragged into Israel's pissant problems. I'm tired of listening to all the complaining. I think Israel should either strap on a pair of balls and take care of their own problems for a change or STFU. Israel has nukes, let them use them.

Stop making up what my argument is.

Spending money on humanitarian things in Israel makes sense only when Israel and the Jews survive for another few years.

I have never ever argued that Israel shouldn't defend herself. I do, however, believe that it would be cheaper for everyone if people stopped giving money to the terrorists so that the war would end.

Nice one, Mumble. A new take at the "final solution", I see. An interesting take, replacing a conflict that has caused just a few thousand victims over 60 years with a solution that will kill 10 million people, Jews and Arabs.

I guess that's a third take next to "live in peace together" and "kill all the Jews". Personally, I much prefer the first two. Really.

(May I read the word "terrorist" in quotes as if you are implying that a Jew is the same as a terrorist and that it is really just a matter of semantics?)

Because, my friend, if you don't stop these things when they happen to the Jews, they will start happening to other people.