Originally posted by: bamacre
Just another example of our interventionist foreign policy that leads to more resentment towards the USA.
Check -- to further explain ... they couldn't be pissed at the US if we didn't pump money and soldiers into their country and if we adopted a policy of letting every nation act in her own best interest. It would make any sense to expect us to be able to do something, even if we are the ones that granted the scholarships (aside from maybe extending the timeframe to be considerate of a special circumstance) if we were not involved.
That's not to say that Americans who supported other countries cultures or groups couldn't send money or physically go and get involved ... in fact, those methods of support are more effective in bringing about a desired result anyway.
It's just that government involvement implies consent and support of the entirety of the American people (both as an elected body and because of the Logan Act), doesn't often accomplish the goals it sets out to accomplish, and is giving away our tax dollars to both sides of many conflicts helping to escalate aggression rather than forcing nations to focus on their own well being by removing the crutch of foreign aid.
This is as true of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict as any other: we pump money into Israel and into other nations that support militant Palestinian organizations (thus indirectly funding them).
...
...
To take a step back, Israel should have every right to do what Israel thinks is necessary to defend itself -- of course it should be encouraged to act in a reasonable and humane fashion at the same time.
It is a crappy situation, but we shouldn't get involved. And it's good that we aren't in this situation. But the tension that is revealed when Palestinians call for US intervention comes from the fact that we often take the opportunity to involve ourselves in the business of other nations.
Our refusal to get involved is not a matter of policy -- it is a simple choice not to help these people when we are able to exert influence over Israel, have done so in the past, and do not now. This should /not/ be how it is. We should not have the discretion to get involved or not as we see fit -- we should leave internal affairs of other nations to those other nations.
As pertains to the OP, I'm not a fan of oppression either. But Israel and Palestinians are a tough group to arbitrate, and Israel can choose to do what it likes -- even if you disagree I would disagree with anyone who says America needs to get involved.
As I said, what America can (and probably should) do is extend some consideration to the students and not let this situation cause them to lose their Fulbright scholarships.
As for others going back and forth with bamacre on this ... I don't think he's saying that the situation in the Gaza strip has been caused by American interventionism. I think what he is saying is that the quote demonstrating Palestinian disappointment with the US not getting involved can only be justified because the US maintains a policy of interventionism, and further that this is a bad thing because it pisses people off when we don't use our discretion to get involved in their local crisis. This DOES relate to the OP (despite bamacre himself incorrectly stating that his original point was off base) because the OP contains a quote showing how upset the inhabitants of the Gaza strip can get at America because of our foreign policy in spite of the fact that Israel can and should be ultimately and exclusively responsible for its internal affairs.
A policy of non-intervention would make this not a choice on America's part not to get involved (as we are choosing currently), but a matter of policy. Making it a matter of administrative discretion is dangerous because whether or not we show favoritism to one country or another we open ourselves to appear to favor one country or another. This degrades our national security by pissing off everyone (everyone always feels like they are getting the short end of the stick) and can serve well to inspire the cause of depraved individuals who support the use of terrorism.
the comment on how this demonstrates the lack in our foreign policy is valid wrt the OP not because our foreign policy caused the problem but because it is very clear in the quote just how our foreign policy makes other's expect us to behave (that we should intervene and if we do not it is only choice and acquiescence), and that because of that expectation, when we choose not to intervene in a particular situation, we deeply hurt and anger people.
Except they expected the US to intervene because the US gave them the scholarships...
Actually, I doubt that is true ... As I mentioned above, the US could easily extend some consideration in this case by not allowing the scholarships to be revoked until the situation is resolved and the students can make it back. Why did the Palestinians not go here first? Because our interventionist policies encourage people to think that we can and should get involved in these situations.
If the concern was really for the students and we hadn't encourage people to rely on our interventionism, then the call would be on America to treat the students with consideration not to change Israel's policies no matter how good or bad they may be.