News:
Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060831/D8JRML500.html
Views:
I think this move will turn out a good one for the West. Although it won’t repair the damage done by our necessary support of Israel in the recent conflict, it should send a message to the people of Lebanon that we truly do care about them and that what Israel did was solely to rid the country of Hezbollah.
At the same time, I feel that these promises may be coming a bit late. There were reports even in the first days of the cease fire that Hezbollah was providing aid to Lebanese civilians. As a result, I would not be surprised if civilian support increased following the cease fire. It’s the right move, but will it have the right effect? Perhaps only time can tell.
At the same time, with the United States pegging $125 million, I want to know how we can be guaranteed that this money will go only into the rebuilding of civilian infrastructure and to feed or clothe civilians. If Hezbollah gets their dirty little hands on this I can only imagine the problems. The last thing the world needs is further instability in the Middle East, and if Israel has to go back into Lebanon on a major offensive, I?d be very worried.
Common Sense:
After a conflict or disaster, in fact any time that aid is needed, countries sending aid need to get it out as quickly as they possibly can and they need to keep promises and pledges. The pledges will start to gather some support among the citizens, but it’s not until the real money flows that true civilian support of the giving nation will begin. At the same time, one would have to imagine that reverting on a promise for funds or simply taking too long will diminish the effect of support that the aid would otherwise garner.
To sum it up, get the aid fast and don’t make empty promises. It?s for your own good, I?m afraid.
