BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aid can ensure better treatment of migrants

Providing money to developing countries to provide for the migrants they take in does not ensure that the money will be spent on those who it is meant to be spent on. In some developing countries aid is badly spent or is badly affected by corruption; in 2012 the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.”[1] Moreover even if the aid is spent on those it is earmarked for there are problems. Many developing countries are affected by poverty, poor housing, and few government services. Aid being provided to pay for such services for migrants is likely to cause resentment among a population that does not have the same access as the newcomers. [1] Ki-moon, Ban, ‘Secretary-General's closing remarks at High-Level Panel on Accountability, Transparency and Sustainable Development’, un.org, 9 July 2012, http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6185
Migrants can benefit developing countries

Migrants also benefit developed countries albeit in a slightly different way. Migrants, often even those who are highly educated, provide a cheap workforce doing the jobs that native workers don't want to do. This is particularly the case in agriculture in developed countries where anything that is labour intensive relies upon cheap migrant, often illegal, labour. In the US somewhere between a quarter and a half of the farm workers are illegal immigrants.[1] This results in goods and services being cheaper in the developed country than they otherwise would be benefiting the whole country. [1] Baragona, Steve, ‘US Farmers Depend on Illegal Immigrants’, Voice of America, 11 August 2010, http://www.voanews.com/content/us-farmers-depend-on-illegal-immigrants-100541644/162082.html
Developed countries have a greater responsibility to take in migrants

An argument based upon ‘historical responsibility’ and capacity to absorb migrants runs into several problems. First not all developed nations bear historical responsibility for colonialism; should Switzerland and Denmark bear the same historical responsibility as the UK and France? What about countries that were themselves essentially colonies; Finland and Czech Republic? Identifying what counts towards this responsibility is tricky and very open to argument, and even more so working out how many migrants a certain responsibility should result in taking in. Capacity to absorb migrants is also difficult to judge. A country may have a lot of migrants already showing tolerance but it could also mean that country is already at the point where it can take no more with racism and discrimination rising as a result.
Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries

Whether a country is developed or not is not necessarily a good indicator of if a country is prepared for a large number of migrants. Nor is whether a country has large numbers of immigrants already; Israel is a country made by immigration yet has still seen anti immigrant riots.[1] In order to prevent social conflict it would be far better to have migrants in countries with a similar culture to their own thus migrants from an Arabic nation would be repatriated to an Arabic country that is participating in the aid scheme. Of course no two countries culture is the same but it should be possible to find cultures with more similarity than the developed country. [1] Greenwood, Phoebe, ‘Israeli anti-immigration riots hit African neighbourhood of Tel Aviv’, The Telegraph, 24 May 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9287715/Israeli-anti-immigration-riots-hit-African-neighbourhood-of-Tel-Aviv.html
It is just to redistribute migrants

It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon[1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost. [1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122, accessed 19th August 2015
Aid can ensure better treatment of migrants

Migrants in developed countries are often not very well treated, for example the Traiskirchen migrant camp in Austria, one of the richest countries in the EU was condemned for its inhumane conditions by Amnesty in August 2015.[1] The aid provided can be earmarked to ensure that migrants being well treated and provided for through safe transportation and access to essential government services such as healthcare and welfare. The advantage of this provision in developing rather than developed countries is cost. The same amount of money goes a lot further in a developing country. This provision therefore makes sense in a time were many developed countries are both struggling with greater numbers of migrants and with austerity. Greece, which has had 124,000 migrants arrive in the first seven months of 2015, a 750% rise over the same period in 2014, is a notable case.[2] [1] ‘'No respect' for human rights at Traiskirchen camp’, The Local at, 14 August 2015, http://www.thelocal.at/20150814/no-respect-for-human-rights-at-traiskirchen-refugee-camp [2] Spindler, William, ‘Number of refugees and migrants arriving in Greece soars 750 per cent over 2014’, UNHCR, 7 August 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/55c4d1fc2.html
Migrants can benefit developing countries

Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population.[1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’. [1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198 http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1093/wber/lhm008
Developed countries have a greater responsibility to take in migrants

Developed countries have a responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants. There are several reasons for this. First they have a historical responsibility resulting from a legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and industrialisation that benefited the developed world at the expense of the developing world. This helped create the inequalities in the world that drive migration so developed countries should accept that a greater responsibility for migrants is the price. Second developed countries have a much greater capacity to absorb migrants than developing countries. Developed countries have more jobs, and the ability to create more through using the state’s financial resources to increase investment. They already have the legal framework for large numbers of migrants; laws that ensure equality and fair treatment regardless of religion or ethnicity. And in many cases they already have sizeable migrant communities (with some exceptions such as Japan) that help create a culture of tolerance that embraces the diversity migrants bring.
Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries

It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants. This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence. Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%.[1] [1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015, http://nbiconflict.web.unc.edu/conflicts/immigration-conflicts/causes-of-conflict/
Migrants will simply return to the countries they have been sent from

Moving migrants to developing countries in return for quantities of aid is simply not a sustainable policy. Migrants fleeing conflict looking for safety may accept any safe country but the migrant problems affecting rich countries are in large part economic migration. These people are looking to get to a developed country to earn more and have better prospects than they could at home so are unlikely to accept a country at a similar (or potentially lower) level of development as a good alternative. They are therefore likely to simply tray again to make their way to a developed country when they can. There have been examples of migrants such as Rachid from Algeria who has tried to get into Europe three times already and is waiting for a ship to try again,[1] it is unclear how this proposal would alter this problem. [1] Ash, Lucy, ‘Risking death at sea to escape boredom’, BBC News, 20 August 2015, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33986899
Engaging with Hamas is the best way to secure a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.

There is a clear precedent for engaging with terrorist groups moving towards a political track. Like Hamas in recent years, at the end of the 1970s, the IRA was a terrorist organisation which rejected the political process. In the early 1980s, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, decided to stand for elections. As elected representatives grappled with local issues and had to work with others on councils and committees, the movement changed and, in 1994, the IRA declared a ceasefire.[1] More recently, Sinn Fein leaders have held ministerial positions in Northern Ireland and the IRA has ended the armed struggle. This was a long process but it shows clearly how, if we respect any elected terrorist group’s popular mandate and are prepared to engage with them, they may be encouraged to give up terrorism and make concessions for peace. Indeed some hard liners in Hamas controlled Gaza worry that exactly such a scenario may happen.[2] [1] Schmidt, William E. “Cease-Fire in Northern Ireland.” New York Times. 01/09/1994. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/01/world/cease-fire-northern-ireland-overview-ira-declares-cease-fire-seeing-new.html?pagewanted=all [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/24/don_t_forget_gaza?page=0,1
Western donors should support fair government

The west should support democratically elected, just, uncorrupted government no matter who provides it. Hamas could make a much better government than Fatah, it is a religious movement dedicated to political and social action. For many years it has run the most effective welfare programmes in the Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, including orphanages, schools, clinics and help for the needy.[1] The honesty and discipline of its leaders and followers provide a stark contrast with the corruption and chaos of the Fatah-run administration of Yasser Arafat and Mahmood Abbas. They paid lip service to the peace process but either could not, or would not control their followers so as to make a clear commitment to peace. At least with Hamas in power, the Palestinians would be better and more honestly governed, and billions of dollars in aid money will no longer be stolen by a corrupt elite. Hamas in Gaza by comparison has established an efficient public administration and has an ambitious infrastructure program.[2] In addition, militias and security forces are likely to be under much more effective control, making genuine negotiations about a long-term ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians much more plausible. After all, a deal which excludes Hamas has no chance at all of holding. [1] Putz, Ulrike. “Uncle Hamas Cares for Palestinians.” Spiegel. 12/20/2006. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,455632,00.html [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/24/don_t_forget_gaza
The law prevents US and EU governments from funding terrorist groups.

It is these western governments themselves who define what groups are terrorist groups. They both make the definitions of terrorism and decide what groups fall into these definitions. For example the United Kingdom regarded the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as being a terrorist group while the United States did not consider them a terrorist organisation.[1] Therefore if these countries wished to deal with and provide financial aid to a new Palestinian government, even if it was the political arm of a terrorist organisation they could simply redefine it, as would almost certainly be the case if the terrorist organisation was perceived as doing something that is in the interests of these western nations. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations
Withholding funds will prevent PNA terrorism and anti-Semitism.

If the terrorist organisation was elected as Hamas was it is likely that as in 2006/7 when much of the power in the PA remained with the Fatah President, Mahmood Abbas, one or other of the presidency or the parliament would remain in non-terrorist hands so funding should be continued in order to strengthen that party. In any case, any party that is willing to stand and contest relatively free and fair elections, is in the long term likely to want to bring peace. Working with such a government would encourage the moderates within that organisation, and allow them to understand that helping the Palestinian people to a better future requires compromise and negotiation. This move from terrorism to a political process will take time in order for attitudes to change and trust to build. It can only be achieved by western commitment to work with the new government rather than to cut it off entirely.
The outcome of the Palestinian elections should not be rewarded with aid.

It would be anti-democratic to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. Their vote may not be a vote for terrorism or against the peace process, but rather a response to the corruption and anarchy of the ruling party, currently Fatah, and its mismanagement of the Palestinian National Authority. Withdrawing funding is not just a signal of disapproval for the party which is elected, but a clear attempt to bring down the PNA government and overturn the election result. After all the years of western criticism of corrupt dictatorial regimes, what message does it send to Arab governments and people if the west refuses to respect the result of an election and imposes a collective punishment?
Withholding funds will cause Palestine to rely on anti-Israeli regimes.

Arab and Muslim states won’t necessarily make up any budget shortfall if the EU and USA stop funding the PNA. Many Arab governments would be deeply unhappy at seeing Islamists in government and even though they do not like Israel, they have no wish to inflame the situation further. More moderate countries in the region recognise Israel and want the peace process to move forward so would be just as likely to demand that a terrorist group gives up terror and disarms as the west. Iran may be more sympathetic, but almost all Palestinians are Sunni rather than Shia Muslims, and Iran has its own international problems such as sanctions that are making an economic impact so it may not be in a position to subsidize other governments. There is also no evidence that the Palestinians would turn to such states. In December 2007, 87 countries and international organisations, including Serbia and Nicaragua, pledged to donate $7.4 billion to the PNA over three years.[1] This amount is far more than previous US and EU funding and there is no evidence that its acceptance has led to Palestine depending on anti-Israel regimes. [1]Stotsky, Steven. “Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?” Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2008. http://www.meforum.org/1926/does-foreign-aid-fuel-palestinian-violence
The loss of funding would destabilise and radicalise Palestine.

Cutting off aid to the PNA need not result in mass suffering among the Palestinian people. Humanitarian aid would certainly continue, although this could no longer be channelled through the PNA but rather to individual schemes run by non-governmental organisations. In any case, the greatest suffering is caused by a lack of a peace process with Israel. A commitment to peace talks shown by a terrorist group pledging to end terrorism would help allow the economic development needed to create jobs and relieve poverty in the Palestinian territories.
Engaging with Hamas is the best way to secure a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.

The history of the IRA does not provide a useful precedent for dealing with Hamas. Leaving aside questions of how genuine the IRA’s conversion to peace and democracy really is, parallels with Hamas and the Palestinian conflict are misleading. Compared to the religious fundamentalism of Hamas, Irish republicans were pretty secular and focused on gaining and using power in this world. They wanted to force Britain out of Northern Ireland, but not to wipe Britain itself off the map. There has never been an IRA suicide bomber and, faced with a failing armed struggle, the movement’s leaders chose to compromise. Hamas is entirely different in its beliefs and attitudes, and there is no reason to suppose that funding it in power will encourage it to change its strategy or aims.
Western donors should support fair government

This assumes that it is Hamas that is elected or another group that has been involved in running welfare programmes. It should however be noted that while Hamas has effectively provided welfare programmes it has at the same time used those same civilians as human shields. During its time in power in Gaza Hamas has had little impact except for starting a conflict with Israel, as a result Gaza is in a worse position than the West Bank with 80% of the population dependent on international aid, 61% are food insecure and 90% of water supplied is not suitable for drinking.[1] [1] Hasan, Mehdi, ‘No end to the strangulation of Gaza’, New Statesman, 6 January 2011, http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2011/01/gaza-israeli-documents-s...
The law prevents US and EU governments from funding terrorist groups.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation, responsible for killing hundreds of civilians, often by sending suicide bombers into Israel. Both the European Union and the US State Department have recognised this by listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Their governments are barred by law from providing any funding to such groups.[1] It is extremely worrying that such a violent organisation managed to win power in the most recent Palestinian election, and that committed terrorists are in government in Gaza and in control of the Palestinian budget and security forces. In 2007 both Western law, and the moral disgust at the thought that aid funding could be used to fund terror attacks, required the EU and US to stop funding the Palestinian Authority while under a Hamas government, the same would almost certainly be the case again if Hamas were to regain power. [1] Schulenburg, John. “Fatah Reconciles With Hamas.” Gateway Pundit. 27/04/2011. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/fatah-reconciles-with-hamas-us-now-officially-funding-islamic-terrorism-how-will-obama-proceed/
Withholding funds will prevent PNA terrorism and anti-Semitism.

It is clear what Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, has to do in order to convince western governments to continue funding the Palestinian National Authority with it in charge. It must formally give up terror, accept the existence of the state of Israel and drop any anti-Semitic ideology. Yasser Arafat’s PLO and Fatah Party made these commitments in the early 1990s, and this allowed them to become negotiating partners in the Oslo Peace process.[1] Hamas has to take the same steps if it wants to enjoy the same level of support from western donors which the previous Fatah government had. Until it makes these public changes, there would not be any funding. [1] Schlaim, Avi. “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process.” International Relations of the Middle East. 2005. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Oslo%20Peace%20Process.html
The outcome of the Palestinian elections should not be rewarded with aid.

A terrorist organisation such as Hamas may be democratically elected, but that does not mean we have to fund its government. Respecting the decision of the Palestinian people is not the same thing as liking their choice or rewarding it with aid. The Palestinian people should realise that a vote for Hamas or any other terrorist organisation is a vote for international isolation. Showing our clear disapproval of terrorists in government sends a clear message for future elections both in Palestine and in other countries.
Withholding funds will cause Palestine to rely on anti-Israeli regimes.

Cutting off aid to the Palestinian National Authority would be counter-productive no matter who is elected in. The PNA would have to replace funding from somewhere, this would inevitably mean turning for aid to Muslim and Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as Hamas did.[1] The west may therefore simply force the Palestinians in to the arms of countries that are much more hostile to Israel resulting in the Palestinians simply being more hard-line to please their new paymasters. Allowing the Palestinians to become dependent upon such anti-Israel regimes will end any influence the west has had with the PNA and push it in a more extremist direction. Potentially, such alliances could make a regional conflict more likely. [1] Watt, Nicholas. “US urges Arab states to fund Palestinians after Hamas victory.” The Guardian. 31/01/2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/31/israel/print