Article Link
 |
Thousands of Palestine refugees remain trapped in the Yarmouk neighbourhood of Damascus
|
President Donald Trump follows up on earlier claims saying that the US would cut aid if Palestinians rejected peace efforts with Israel. The State Department stated that the decision to withhold $65m from the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was because the department is making reforms and that other nations should step in to help the cause. Previously the US has funded almost 30% of UN's work, and last year gave a total of $370m to UNRWA. This is significantly less compared to the $3b that is given to Israel per year. This decision to suspend funds with greatly affect Palestinians refugees that are currently scattered throughout the Middle East. Palestinians are upset with the White House because of Trumps earlier decoration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This claim has since been declared "null and void" by the UN, and the territory dispute between Israel and Palestine continues.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is the US responsible for refugees affected by the suspended funds?
2. Should the US be funding this cause in the first place? And with this much money?
3. How much, if at all, should other countries be contributing?
While I do believe that the US should be funding this cause, I do not believe that 370 million USD to the UNRWA was completely necessary. However, at the same time, cutting more than half their budget to this agency seems rather dramatic, as it attracted international attention. If their goal was to call for other countries' increase in funding and effeciency regarding this crisis, more diplomatic negotiations and UN resolutions could be initiated. US policy is to remain in foreign affairs and secure its international presence, so by being just one of the top donating countries (compared to the top), the US can still assert that role.
ReplyDeleteIn a different vein, the US should understand that while the outcome will not be entirely their fault (other organizations and countries could donate more), the outcome is partially caused by their actions. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing and will continue to be (as peace seems out of the picture at the moment), and US actions are not favorable towards peace at all. True, Israel is in the top-30 of US largest goods trading partners, and US makes profit from military deals with Israel, but they should find a different way to maintain that relationship with Israel. On that basis, I personally do not think it is humane for the countries (with respect to the US and Russia) to preserve their presence in the Middle East and profit through Middle Eastern conflicts.
While I understand what the President is trying to do by cutting $65 million worth of funding to the UNRWA, I don’t think it is all that ethical. If the President is going to push for the solidification of Israel, he must keep in mind all the people Israel replaces. With the creation Israel there are Palestinian refugees, which is why the UNRWA was created in the first place. As said in the New York Time article talking about the UNRWA, the organization was created in the late 40s to provide aid to support of Palestinian refugees after the Arab-Israeli war. If the US is going to kick people off the land they were living on, it is our obligation to fund the well being of the people we are pushing to displace. That goes the same for any other countries that are pushing for the solidification of Israel.
ReplyDeleteI believe that President's Trump decision to cut funding for Palestine is a direct attack at them for rejecting peace efforts with Israel. As we saw from the last blog post written by Mr. Felder, President Trump is attempting to create peace plans between Israel and Palestine. By threatening to cut off aid to Palestine, he is forcing them to accept the peace terms in order to keep the aid that the US provides them with. This gives Trump the ability and ensures him that his plan works and gives him a solution to solve the problem with.
ReplyDeleteSince the US is still providing economical support to Israel, it will allow the country to be functional for an undefined amount of time. Due to the fact that the current Israeli land was part of Palestine there will obviously be Palestinians within the land. Because of the dramatic rift between these two ethnic groups they do not want to be in close contact with each other. Because the US is technically supporting the vitality of Israel they are indirectly making Palestinians refugees. So I believe that the US is responsible for these refugees because they are promoting the displacement of them in the first place. This means that the US should technically support these refugees because they caused them. After all it would be the ethical thing to clean up the mess that one started.
ReplyDeleteThe US is providing support and benefits for Israel. However due to the US actually being such a big economical support, removing the 50% of funds removes a lot of the money from donors to the refugees. Making it hard on the refugees who probably deserve the money. Based on the chart from the article we know that the US is the second biggest donor for the refugees. The list of donors looks very short and it is, totaling of five countries who donate, a lot of the other countries who are able to like Germany should donate a lot more. With the withdraw of the money, the best choice to me seems to lower the funds by only a mere 20%.
ReplyDeleteThe refugees being affected by the withholding of funds is the US's responsibility as we instated ourselves as top donor in previous years, and being a long standing contributor in the area makes it our responsibility.This is further proved by the fact that we are the leaders of the free world and we are the ones who provide for smaller 3rd world countries. Withholding now because Palestine won't negotiate peace is a rash move, that won't even affect the Palestinian government, but the endangered refugees scattered throughout the country. This is clearly a direct attack on Palestine, as shown by Trump's earlier tweet, and is an rash and falsely motivated one at that. Yes, it is true that other countries that are plenty wealthy should also contribute donations to the area, but we have a long history of doing so. If we want to have other countries increase funds their are plenty of other, less crazy ways of doing so that doesn't affect thousands of refugees.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest issue at hand is the idea that the US just doesn't have infinite amounts of money to distribute. As much as we (as a country) can support smaller countries the US also has significant economic problems at home that need to be addressed before money can be distributed. On the subject on who should receive funds, Trump has shown excessive support for Israel (in line with his party) and I don't think that his withdrawal of funds was surprising or unexpected.
ReplyDeleteI think that Trump's decision to suspend $65 million dollars from Palestine is a helpful way to work out the dispute between Israel and Palestine. It gives the Israelis and Palestinians chance to stop the fighting between the two nations. Even though in Trump's speech he stated that Jerusalem was Israel's capital, and it created a bigger argument between the two, he gives both nations a chance to figure it out their differences. If the two countries do find peace and negotiate better terms, they will given more funds from the US. However, the decision to cut of $65 million, will greatly impact the Palestinian refugees. It would be fair if the US would give more money to help out the refugees that remain in the Middle East, but that could disturb the making of peace between Palestine and Israel that has been occurring for years.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the US should be solely responsible for what happens to the refugees affected by the suspended funds. First, like Alex said, the US has a limited amount of money, and the government needs to be selective with which countries its distributing money to. With Israel being one of the US's allies, its not surprising that they receive more funding than Palestine. Also, according to the UNRWA's 2016 donor rankings, that year, the US donated about twice as much as all Arab donors combined, a few being Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Islamic Relief USA, Jordan, and Qatar. My question is: Why aren't Arab nations and organizations donating more if they support a Palestinian state?
ReplyDeleteIt is a big issue that the Palestinian refugees are being affected by US suspending 65 million dollars from them. Since Israel was part of Palestine, there are Palestinian refugees there. According to the chart, we the US are the second biggest donors to the UN agency for the Palestinian refugees. Therefore, withholding due to the Palestine unable to and cooperate with a peace negotiation is a hasty move. If the US do not fund the UN agency, the Palestinian government will not be affected by this issue, however the refugees across will greatly. Shown in Trump's tweet, this is obviously a direct attack on Palestine. It is true we are not the only ones funding for them, but we do hold a great amount of responsibility. I believe US should give money to help support the refugees, however this may occur disturbance of making the peace between Israel and Palestine.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe that withdrawing half of the funding of the refugees is not a good thing to do with the current situation as it is, the fact that a union of some of the most wealthy countries in the world are doing less to contribute to a region that is so much closer to them than it is for America, than America itself is slightly disappointing. This cut on funds will probably cause the aid towards Palestine refugees to grow stagnant and the pressure for the European countries to pick up the tab that was left by America will also grow. This should end in the EU contributing more and more.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that the US should fund the cause, they do not have to do so with this much money. However, as currently the US is donating far more money than any other nation, I think that the US, considering the situation, can only reduce the donation gradually over time, rather than dramatically as Trump did. By supporting Israel, and through the early statement of saying Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, the US has heightened the tension of the situation and, is indirectly apart of the cause of Palestinian refugees. Because of this, the US should take some responsibility and fund the cause. In the same vein, the US would be partly responsible for refugees affected by the suspended funds, but not completely as supporting refugees is a international effort. Countries should contribute as much as they could spare.
ReplyDeleteThe US has been seen to favor Israel more, as they declared Jerusalem their capital according to the article Mr. Felder had previously posted, but also because they are still economically supporting them. Trump's move to attempt to force peace between the two by setting the ultimatum came with side effects he probably did not foresee; by cutting off support of Palestine and not Israel, which was a part of Palestine, there are Palestinian refugees. This could emphasize tensions between Israel and Palestine and worsen the situation rather than fix it, so the US is technically at fault as we are a large donor to UNRWA. However, we do have limited funding, as Jossie and Alex pointed out; if other Arab nations support Palestine, they should also hold more responsibility to creating a peace between Israel and Palestine rather than putting all the weight on the US.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that other wealthy countries should pitch in and give funds to Palestine. Most of them are much closer by, like Saudi Arabia, and will face consequences if peace is not obtained. However, I don't think it's a smart idea to just pull the funding, as it is unexpected and other countries don't have time to start sending more funds. Also, the US did not take away funding from Israel, evidence they are favoring Israel, which could cause Palestinians to not want a peace treaty with the help of the US.
ReplyDeleteAn article in the Times of Israel have stated that since 1994, Washington has provided the Palestinians with more than 5.2 billion through USAID. I think that the US is responsible for refugees affected by the suspended funds because we have been giving Palestine money for a little over two decades. For the twenty years that we have been providing them assistance, we have created an expectation for the Palestinians. Instead of abruptly dropping aid to Palestine, a better idea would have been to have the US agree to work with other countries to split the difference. The US needs allies in the Middle East to protect their national security and that is why they support aid to both countries. The US supports a two state solution to the Palestine and Israeli conflict. Outside influences, such as Iran could create more instability in the Middle East and this would not be in the US’s best interest. If the Middle East becomes unstable the US might have to go to war to protect their interests. This would be very costly for the US. For example, the Iraq war cost the US 2.4 trillion over 9 years. Instead of going to war, the US would financially be better off providing Palestine aid.
ReplyDeleteThe US is not directly responsible for the refugees caused by the suspended funds. This is partially because they have no real reason to be sending aid to Palestine, but also because the US should not be donating this high of a percentage of funds to countries in need as other countries should help pitch in. The US should not need to donate this much money just because the amount of aid from other countries is lacking.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting you believe that the US doesn't have a reason to be sending aid to Palestine because they were part of the decision that divided Palestine in the first place. We have learned that the US as well as the UK and France gave the Jews part of Palestine. The aid that we're providing is a direct response to that in order to make up for taking away land.
DeleteWhile I do believe in the pursuit of peace, the US should be contributing money, I also believe that the weight of funding should not be placed only on the back of the US. Countries that are considered wealthy, as the US is, should also be funding large quantities of the UN's work. I see what the government is trying to achieve by withholding part of the funding, but that doesn't mean I agree with a. what they are trying to do, or (especially) b. how they going about trying to achieve their goal. Every action has a consequence; the withholding of the funding will have drastic effects on the innocent and vulnerable Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. So yes, I believe the US needs to do its part in funding, I also believe its time other considerably wealthy nations step in and do their part too.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. is responsible for the cause of refugees that are affected by the suspended fund because they have been funding 30% of the UN relief and working agency. The U.S.have been one of the countries that have been funding a lot of money and are helping the Palestine but, cutting the funds so that there would be peace between Palestine and Israel is just forcing people to be friends. This is not going to help but it is going to cause more problems. Palestine and Israel have been having a bad history between each other because of religion and war and President Trump is trying to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel will cause Palestine to unhappy and angry about that decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the decision to suspend 65 million dollars from Palestine will affect the refugees greatly and is unexpected. It says in an article on the Haaretz website: "The aid cuts will only serve to deprive Palestinian refugees of the right to education, health, shelter, and a dignified life." I get that, however, I don't think that the US is the only one responsible for the refugees. Israel is an ally of the US and it makes sense that they are getting a lot more money; in order to maintain their relationship by helping one another. However, US isn't the only country with a lot of money. The US is one of the top donors and I think that, just like Josie said, other countries, like the Arab nations who seem to support Palestine, should also help in funding Palestine.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is fine to cut some funding considering that the US is aiding Palestine with a very large amount of money, however they need to be careful because if the US completely cut out the money that is used to help aid Palestine because that would most likely cause bad relations not only between the US and Palestine, but also other countries like the UN
ReplyDeleteI believe that the US should be funding this cause. However, I do not believe that it should be contributing this much money. Since it is not really a US problem, other countries should also be contributing, and should be contributing a higher amount, closer to what the US contributes. Also, I believe that the decision to withhold $65 million dollars is reasonable because the US is already contributing a significant amount of money. The amount being withheld can be contributed by other countries not giving as much.
ReplyDeleteThe US should be funding this cause but the amount of money being given to Palestine by the US is too much. While Palestine is in need of this money, I believe other countries should contribute money in addition to the US. Although the US does necessarily need to aid Palestine with this much money, the suspension of this large amount of money will affect refugees. But, the US is not fully responsible. If other countries contribute money, along with the US, it will reduce the risk of a negative outcome for refugees in the Middle East.
ReplyDelete