Posted on 09/18/2003 10:45:38 AM PDT by knighthawk
Since 9/11, dozens of Muslim charities in the United States, Canada, Asia and Europe have come under fire for allegedly channelling the funds they collect to terrorist groups. According to the usual pattern, the accused group will foreswear support for terrorists -- and deny up and down that one cent of its revenues goes to suicide bombers or masked gunmen.
But in the Palestinian Authority, several charities are breaking with this pattern -- most notably, the Red Crescent, the Palestinian equivalent of the Red Cross. At a meeting with the National Post editorial board on Monday, Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch, a press watchdog group, presented us with information that shows Red Crescent is refusing to reject support for terrorism as a point of principle.
Before disbursing funds to charitable groups, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) requires recipient institutions to promise they "will not provide material support or resources" to an individual or entity "that advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity." Seems pretty reasonable. But the head of the Red Crescent, Chaider Abd Al-Shaffi, recently stated publicly that his organization is refusing to sign the pledge because the Red Crescent is "not political."
That's the opposite of the truth, of course. The real reason is that the Red Crescent is a political pawn of the Palestinian Authority, which keeps Palestinian NGOs firmly under its thumb, and refuses to admit that the wanton murder of Israeli citizens is a form of terrorism. The blowing up of buses and cafés, rather, is seen as a species of "national resistance."
Red Crescent is not alone. A recent article in the Palestinian media, translated by Mr. Marcus's organization, reports that "Many experts and representatives of private institutions are warning against signing the [USAID] document ... They also emphasized it is important to stand with the Network of Private Organizations ... and to take disciplinary steps against members of the [network] who violate the accepted policy [by signing]."
According to USAID, the agency will distribute more than US$124-million in aid in the West Bank and Gaza for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 -- presumably to those few organizations (if any) that bite the bullet and sign its anti-terror declaration, and to foreign organizations operating in the area. Of that total, US$20-million goes directly to the Palestinian Authority itself, money committed by President George W. Bush in July.
Giving the Palestinians aid, so long as it goes to worthy recipients, is fine by us. Ideally the money would be used for the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights, and the Red Crescent is exactly the sort of NGO that one expects would lead the charge for this kind of reform. The fact that such a group has itself become a creature of Palestinian Authority propaganda suggests it is unlikely that foreign aid will bring about meaningful change under the current circumstances.
Indeed, it is hard to find a better symbol of the pathological depths to which Palestinian political culture and civil society has sunk than that an organization that purports to help sick and injured people would give up substantial funding so that it might express solidarity with murderers.
Middle East list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
...and how about sanitation? Most definitely.
Is a man a traitor to his country simply because he speaks against the policies of its leaders? Does he deserve to be vilified and persecuted because he parts ways with the majority? Should he be sent to prison or, Allah forbid, be put to death simply for refusing to follow the dictates of a fascist government?
Clearly the answer is: Yes, if we are talking about a Muslim country. But if we are talking about your Jew-run American republic then the answer is NO, kufr, a thousand times no.
What does your First Amendment stand for if not for the proposition that dissent is patriotic? And if dissent is patriotic, then rooting for America to fail at every turn in the war on terror so that the Democrats can get back into power must be, like, patriotism squared.
Is a man a traitor to his country simply because he speaks against the policies of its leaders? Does he deserve to be vilified and persecuted because he parts ways with the majority? Should he be sent to prison or, Allah forbid, be put to death simply for refusing to follow the dictates of a fascist government?
Clearly the answer is: Yes, if we are talking about a Muslim country. But if we are talking about your Jew-run American republic then the answer is NO, kufr, a thousand times no.
What does your First Amendment stand for if not for the proposition that dissent is patriotic? And if dissent is patriotic, then rooting for America to fail at every turn in the war on terror so that the Democrats can get back into power must be, like, patriotism squared.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.