News The price of democracy: The Palestinian 'diet' begins

[Bilal]

By an Israeli journalist:
Gideon Levy
Haartz

[[The team, headed by the prime minister’s advisor Dov Weissglas and including the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, the director of the Shin Bet and senior generals and officials, convened for a discussion with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on ways to respond to the Hamas election victory. Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die,” the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter. And, indeed, why not break into laughter and relax when hearing such a successful joke? If Weissglas tells the joke to his friend Condoleezza Rice, she would surely laugh too.]]

Since three months around 150000 Palestinian could not get their salaries because Hamas won the election!

I could understand why the American and EU people do not want their tax money to be sent to a ‘’unwanted government” (although the American are willing to pay hundreds of billions dollars to invade Iraq and to support the Israeli occupation)…. But:

- Why USA using all its power to prevent the rest of the Arab countries from supporting the Palestinian? Even they expressed their anger from Qatari leaders because they gave 50 M dollars to fund the salaries of 150000 Palestinian employees (teachers, engineers …etc)?

- The Palestinian government already had enough money to pay for the employees (thanks to Iran, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar , Norway ..), but the Palestinian Banks can not receive or give this money to employees because USA will consider that as support of terrorism, and then will take the money of these Banks!

Could anybody claim that letting 150000 Plaestianin families without salaries is justified because they want to force our elected government to change its strategy? Is it a terrorism to starve such a large number of people (around 30% of the people of WB and Gaza) for political purposes?

 

[Burnsys]

this made me remember when BILL O'REILLY called to starve the afghan civilians:

O'Reilly said, those populations will have two choices: starve, or overthrow their governments.

"Knock their food supply out and their water supply out and those people will have to overthrow the Taliban. It's either that or they die."

"The population must be made to endure another round of intense pain" O'Reilly said of Iraqi civilians.

Regarding Libya, Bill O'Reilly says, "Let them eat sand."

That is 100% terrorism

 

[Curious3141]

Yes, I agree that putting undue pressure on a duly elected government is uncalled for.

Just let them govern and if they step out of line and throw their weight around, attack them militarily. That's the tried and true way.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why USA ...

Surely you know why. Presumably, it would be for the very same reasons the USA will not fund Hamas, né?


Have you just suppressed the other side of the issue for the sake of discussion, or do you really not consider it at all? To cast it in a fairly negative tone:

Hamas is holding the Palestinian people hostage in an attempt to gain legitimacy for its organization without giving up the ideals that cause the world to reject it. And it would like the funding.



On another note, months ago, I read in the various newspapers that people had started investigating ways that the Western world could aid the Palestinian people directly, since it can't be done through Hamas. Are you aware of this?

(although the American are willing to pay hundreds of billions dollars to invade Iraq and to support the Israeli occupation)

I thought you wanted to talk about Palestine? Why start derailing your very own thread in the opening post? (Or are you simply standing on a soapbox?)

 

[Bilal]

Surely you know why. Presumably, it would be for the very same reasons the USA will not fund Hamas, né?

I said that they have the right not to support the elected Palestinian goverment, but they have no rights to force other governments to stop supporting the Palestinian!

[Have you just suppressed the other side of the issue for the sake of discussion, or do you really not consider it at all? To cast it in a fairly negative tone:

Hamas is holding the Palestinian people hostage in an attempt to gain legitimacy for its organization without giving up the ideals that cause the world to reject it. And it would like the funding.

I am affected directly by this problem … USA asked for democracy … people voted for change … and then the American impose sanction on the elected government and on the nation! They also put all their pressure on the rich-Arab countries to stop supporting the Palestinian people, and they warned the Banks from transferring any money belong to the governmental employees!

If we do not have a democracy, they want to bomb us to the stony ages to impose it by force! And if we have democracy they will impose global sanction against the entire nation!

On another note, months ago, I read in the various newspapers that people had started investigating ways that the Western world could aid the Palestinian people directly, since it can't be done through Hamas. Are you aware of this?

EU and the Arab rich countries wanted to transfer the money directly through the UN, but USA rejects that until ‘’our people pay for their wrong choice in the eyes of the Zionist-neoconservatives!"

 

[Burnsys]

This also remind me of kisinger quote on the overtrowing of the democraticaly elected presiden salvador allende:

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

-- Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, about Chile
prior to the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of
socialist President Salvadore Allende in 1973

 

[russ_watters]

Why USA using all its power to prevent the rest of the Arab countries from supporting the Palestinian? Even they expressed their anger from Qatari leaders because they gave 50 M dollars to fund the salaries of 150000 Palestinian employees (teachers, engineers …etc)?

The reason is contained in your previous paragraph and I too wonder if you don't already know the answers to your own questions. They are obvious.

If the US thinks that Hamas shouldn't be supported, then the US will endeavour to convince everyone - not just themselves - to stop supporting it.

Could anybody claim that letting 150000 Plaestianin families without salaries is justified because they want to force our elected government to change its strategy?

When a government relies soley on the support of others, then it should be nice to those who support it. If it doesn't want to be nice to those who support it, it should find another way to support itself. That's life.

Is it a terrorism to starve such a large number of people (around 30% of the people of WB and Gaza) for political purposes?

No. We've had that conversation before. It cannot be terrorism to deny a gift.

 

[russ_watters]

this made me remember when BILL O'REILLY called to starve the afghan civilians:

O'Reilly said, those populations will have two choices: starve, or overthrow their governments.

"Knock their food supply out and their water supply out and those people will have to overthrow the Taliban. It's either that or they die."

That is 100% terrorism

That has nothing at all to do with the situation in the occupied territories. No one is destroying food supplies, they are simply stopping the giving of gifts.

 

[russ_watters]

I said that they have the right not to support the elected Palestinian goverment, but they have no rights to force other governments to stop supporting the Palestinian!

I don't know about "force", but influence (or "pressure")... Why not? Flip it over: what gives you the right to say what we can and can't do with our money? That's what you are doing! This "pressure" we can wield on other arab countries is the same economic pressure we are putting on Hamas.

It is absurd to suggest that we should be forced to give money to our enemies and it is absurd to suggest that we shouldn't try to use our influence to get other people to stop giving money to our enemies.

I am affected directly by this problem … USA asked for democracy … people voted for change … and then the American impose sanction on the elected government and on the nation!

Like you said in your title: "the price of democracy." The price of democracy is responsibility. Now the people are responsible for the negative actions of their government and will be held accountable. It is time for the people to start acting responsibley.

The people who elected Hamas knew ahead of time that this would happen. Israel and the US (and others) were quite specific about it. They made the choice and now must accept and deal with the consequences of that choice.

The Palestinian people are new to the concept of democracy. It is easy to blame others when you aren't in control. They will learn to be responsible for their decisions.

If we do not have a democracy, they want to bomb us to the stony ages to impose it by force! And if we have democracy they will impose global sanction against the entire nation!

Life's tough. Take responsibility for it.

 

[Bilal]

That has nothing at all to do with the situation in the occupied territories. No one is destroying food supplies, they are simply stopping the giving of gifts.

Gifts!

Israel is stealing our monthly tax (50 million Dollars). These tax are enough to support 70% of the annual budget. Also USA warned the Palestinian Banks from giving any money to the employees because they will consider it as supporting of a ''terrorist goverment". Accordingly, they can take their money under their legal system to compensate the Israeli families who lost their individuals during the conflict.

Israel should give back our monthly tax and USA should not “steal” the money of the Banks in Palestine if they give salaries for the employees.

 

[Bilal]

russ_watters

If you think that we will sell our lovely homeland “PALESTINE” for lifting this siege , you are completely wrong.

These inhuman decisions increases the popularity of the resistance and they just show the fake claims related to democracy and human rights. Is it justified to punish 3 millions civilians by stealing their tax money and preventing the Banks from giving them their salaries? Also the Zionist doing jokes about that? I did not vote , so why I have to be punsihed?

I do not know why your last reply reminded me by OBL and Alqaeda terrorists who justified their attacks against American civilians by claiming that they are responsible about voting for their leaders!

 

[russ_watters]

Gifts!

Israel is stealing our monthly tax (50 million Dollars).

Who'se monthly tax? I was under the impression that the money Israel is witholding was grant money. Do you have a source for that?

Also USA warned the Palestinian Banks from giving any money to the employees because they will consider it as supporting of a ''terrorist goverment". Accordingly, they can take their money under their legal system to compensate the Israeli families who lost their individuals during the conflict.

Yes, I know. That's economic pressure.

...and USA should not “steal” the money of the Banks in Palestine if they give salaries for the employees.

It is well established international policy that governments can force their banks to freeze the assets of criminals.

If you think that we will sell our lovely homeland “PALESTINE” for lifting this siege , you are completely wrong.

[shrug] Like you said, the price of democracy. Your choice, and up to you to live with the consequences of that choice. But may I point out that up until very recently, you didn't have a homeland, and your actions will determine if the consolidation of a Palestinian homeland continues.

These inhuman decisions increases the popularity of the resistance and they just show the fake claims related to democracy and human rights. [/qoute] Wow, I was thinking the exact same thing: about the election of Hamas.

I did not vote , so why I have to be punsihed?

Were you eligible to vote? If you weren't, then I do feel for you - you are punished for the mistakes of those who did vote.

I do not know why your last reply reminded me by OBL and Alqaeda terrorists who justified their attacks against American civilians by claiming that they are responsible about voting for their leaders!

That is a rational justification (it is actually about the only think Bin Laden ever says that's rational). Trouble is, Al Qaeda's response is not equivalent to the one in this issue. Bin Laden actively intends to kill civilians. Here, the choice is yours as to whether or not you will allow us to help save them.

 

[russ_watters]

Who'se monthly tax? I was under the impression that the money Israel is witholding was grant money. Do you have a source for that?

Ok, I checked into that. Most articles I read in the past were vague on it. That's tax money collected by Israel for the PA. What Israel is doing is freezing it - the same as what I said above about freezing assets of criminals in banks by the government. Hamas is a world-recognized criminal organization and as such, its assets are subject to freezing or siezure.

Most of the rest of the money is actual grants. And this isn't the first time they have been cut or witheld:

About $60 million in direct aid, two-thirds of it European, was frozen by donor countries last December in response to the Palestinian Authority's violation of a pledge of fiscal responsibility when it raised salaries by nearly 50 percent last summer. Even before the Hamas victory, that decision led to a projected Palestinian budget deficit for 2006 of $600 million to $700 million, with foreign aid expected to cover only about $320 million of the deficit.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/31/news/policy.php

 

[Manchot]

If you weren't, then I do feel for you - you are punished for the mistakes of those who did vote.

And what about the children of Palestine? They certainly didn't vote, and they are the most susceptible to starvation and disease.

 

[Amp1]

Russ, Hurkl,

Funny thing on the way to the forum today, I began reading Gore Vidal. "The American Presidents - The Real Story Series."(Odonian Press:Dist. Common Courage Press/LPC Group). Funny because so far in some of the replies I've read which somewhat disdainfully and callously expressed a policy which is likely repugnant to the global population with an interest, those replies demonstrated the coldhearted mindset of the policy makers in this countries admin, some what similar to some of the presidents examined in the book(bolded). From what I gathered reading the thread the US isn't just putting preasure on the giftgivers who aid Bilial's country, it is more properly coercion. The practices of Hamas isn't much different than the US as it provoked attacks and committed atrocities against the native americans of this country. Hamas did not arise out of a vacuum. It formed because the people started getting feed up with being terrorized (US definition) by Israel. MNJMO.

 

[Gokul43201]

That is a rational justification (it is actually about the only think Bin Laden ever says that's rational). Trouble is, Al Qaeda's response is not equivalent to the one in this issue. Bin Laden actively intends to kill civilians. Here, the choice is yours as to whether or not you will allow us to help save them.

Russ, this last bit doesn't sound like a strong argument. One could as well say that bin Laden gave America a choice too...but they refuse(d) to pull out of the middle east.

 

[Gokul43201]

EU and the Arab rich countries wanted to transfer the money directly through the UN, but USA rejects that until ‘’our people pay for their wrong choice in the eyes of the Zionist-neoconservatives!"

Who are you quoting in that last bit ? It sounds all too much like rhetoric to me.

 

[Hurkyl]

Have you just suppressed the other side of the issue for the sake of discussion, or do you really not consider it at all? ...

I am affected directly by this problem ... the American impose sanction on the elected government and on the nation! ... If we do not have a democracy, they want to bomb us to the stony ages to impose it by force! And if we have democracy they will impose global sanction against the entire nation!

So I should take that as a negative answer to my question? You, in fact, do not consider any other side of the issue?


Why should anyone listen to you when all you do is make over-the-top emotional appeals and steadfastly ignore issues that others find important?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, this last bit doesn't sound like a strong argument. One could as well say that bin Laden gave America a choice too...but they refuse(d) to pull out of the middle east.

You're right. Perhaps it could have been worded better - and everyone always has choices. The difference is in the nature of the choices. In the "or else" part: the "or else" here is not shooting people or crashing planes into buildings, it is stopping the flow of aid and siezing money of criminal organizations. Bin Laden's is a positive action intended to kill people, the other is a negative action (stopping something you were previously doing), leaving the consequences to the people left to fend for themselves.

In addition, the options given by the US to the PA lead to a Palestinian homeland and peace. The options given by Bin Laden lead to the destruction of the western world. For the US in dealing with Bin Laden, he gives us the choice of two VERY negatives. For the US in dealing with the PA, the choices are a positive (get a homeland and peace) and a zero (stop getting aid and maintaining the status quo).

In either case, that makes the giving of the choice morally right in one case and morally wrong in the other.

 

[Art]

So I should take that as a negative answer to my question? You, in fact, do not consider any other side of the issue?


Why should anyone listen to you when all you do is make over-the-top emotional appeals and steadfastly ignore issues that others find important?

I don't think it is incumbent on Bilal to offer counter arguments to his own supposition.

 

[Art]

You're right. Perhaps it could have been worded better - and everyone always has choices. The difference is in the nature of the choices. In the "or else" part: the "or else" here is not shooting people or crashing planes into buildings, it is stopping the flow of aid and siezing money of criminal organizations.

and if this leads to starvation?? What then??

Bin Laden's is a positive action intended to kill people, the other is a negative action (stopping something you were previously doing), leaving the consequences to the people left to fend for themselves.

If you follow this argument through to it's conclusion then you could argue that the denial of the 'gift' of food to concentration camp inmates was okay, which is patently nonsensical.

In addition, the options given by the US to the PA lead to a Palestinian homeland and peace.

And who will determine the borders of this homeland? Will Israel return all of the land it illegally stole? It seems strange to me that Hamas and the palestinian people are being punished for refusing to recognise Israel whilst nobody seems to have a problem with the fact Israel does not recognise Palestine. In fact you have the rather peculiar position were Israel is demanding recognition from a state they do not themselves recognise.

The options given by Bin Laden lead to the destruction of the western world. For the US in dealing with Bin Laden, he gives us the choice of two VERY negatives. For the US in dealing with the PA, the choices are a positive (get a homeland and peace) and a zero (stop getting aid and maintaining the status quo).

In either case, that makes the giving of the choice morally right in one case and morally wrong in the other.

Personally I find both sides actions in this scenario morally deficient.

 

[russ_watters]

and if this leads to starvation?? What then??

People starve to death every day in a hundred countries, and foreign aid could be saving them. Does the fact that we aren't giving them aid mean we are murdering them?

If you follow this argument through to it's conclusion then you could argue that the denial of the 'gift' of food to concentration camp inmates was okay, which is patently nonsensical.

Uh, no. Prisoners in a concentration camp are prisoners. They don't have a choice to leave and they have no means of even trying to feed themselves. That's why international law specifies that the captors are completely responsible for the condition of the captives.

That has nothing at all to do with the situation here.

And who will determine the borders of this homeland? Will Israel return all of the land it illegally stole?

Those are different issues and I won't be dragged into a random Israel-bashing argument.

It seems strange to me that Hamas and the palestinian people are being punished for refusing to recognise Israel whilst nobody seems to have a problem with the fact Israel does not recognise Palestine.

Until Israel started giving land to the PA last year, there was never a country called "Palestine". But Israel does recognize the right of the Palestinian people to have a country and is willing to negotiate to give them one (and even to give them parts of it unilaterally). So no, there is no double-standard there.

In fact you have the rather peculiar position were Israel is demanding recognition from a state they do not themselves recognise.

No, that simply isn't correct. Israel does recognize the right of Palestine to exist. Heck, Israel is trying to create it!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030729-2.html"

For contrast, http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/28/mideast.conflict/index.html" , here is a speech from 2 years ago by the leader of Hamas:

"America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon," Rantisi said. "The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas."

The difference could not be any clearer: one side is calling for peace, the other side is calling for war.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it is incumbent on Bilal to offer counter arguments to his own supposition.

No, but it is important that Bilal make it clear he understands what the opposite side is and form coherent arguments that directly address that opposite side.

It makes me wonder too: are you even trying to understand both sides of the issue? It is fine if you want to form a reasoned opinion that is different from mine, but the comparisons you are making make it seem like you don't have even the most basic understanding of the point you are trying to argue against. The differences between the situation here and the scenarios you are painting are huge and clear. When you draw comparisons that aren't even close to what is going on, it makes having a reasonable discussion pointless. It is a stretch to even call those analogies "strawmen", they are so far off.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, Hurkl...

Just so you know I'm not ignoring you...

I will not respond to your posts - both of them are off-topic, random USA-bashing thread hijack attempts. They don't have anything at all to do with this issue.

 

[Art]

No, but it is important that Bilal make it clear he understands what the opposite side is and form coherent arguments that directly address that opposite side.

It makes me wonder too: are you even trying to understand both sides of the issue? It is fine if you want to form a reasoned opinion that is different from mine, but the comparisons you are making make it seem like you don't have even the most basic understanding of the point you are trying to argue against. The differences between the situation here and the scenarios you are painting are huge and clear. When you draw comparisons that aren't even close to what is going on, it makes having a reasonable discussion pointless. It is a stretch to even call those analogies "strawmen", they are so far off.

Huh! I joined this discussion because Bilal was being beat up on by every other poster. None of which it seems made the slightest attempt to see his POV. I think it is fair to say that it is you Russ who fails utterly to see both points of view. Here's a few questions to test your knowledge and perhaps make you think a little deeper on the subject -

1) How many UN resoultions is Israel in breach of?
2) How many UN resolutions are the Palestinians in breach of.
3) How many Israeli civilians have been killed by palestinians and how many palestinian civilians have been killed by Israelis?
4) What sanctions were imposed on Israel when the rightwing lunatic Benjamin Netanyahu was elected prime minister of Israel?
5) How much Israeli land have the palestinians seized?
6) How do palestinians get in and out of the Gaza strip?
7) In what Israeli towns do the palestinians insist the residents carry permits to live there which can be revoked at any time such as the Israelis do to the palestinians in Jerusalem?
8) How many settlements have the palestinians built on Israeli land?

My approach is simple. I denounce acts of barbarity by both sides and I also denounce the duplicity of western countries lining up to condemn the elected government of Palestine whilst giving a free pass to Israel. Extremism breeds extremism and so if Israel were reined in a little by the world community perhaps there wouldn't be the popular support for groups such as Hamas that currently exists. In fact with sufficient pressure applied equally to both sides I'm sure the whole issue could be solved once and for all.

The current pressure being applied by the US is typical of the 'simple solution to complex problems' attitude (also known as 'the might is right' philosophy) that has been proven time and again not to work. Iraq being but the latest example in a long line of foreign misadventures.

Edit - Hmmm well what do you know - Seems the EU agrees with Bilal and me that ordinary palestinians should not be punished. But once again the Bush admin is out of step or marching to a different tune perhaps. BTW Just how much do israeli lobbyists spend in Washington??

US 'blocks' Palestinian aid plan

European diplomats say the US is blocking a plan to resume direct financial aid to the Palestinians.
The European Commission is considering plans to send funds to the office of the president, bypassing the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

Under the proposal, money for basic services such as health and education, could go to Mahmoud Abbas' office.

The commission's report said the plan might "avert or delay" a collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4976368.stm

A cynic might think the US and Israel are deliberately trying to goad the palestinian people into some form of mass violent protest to provide Israel with an excuse for a massive military action.

And in answer to my own question about Israeli lobbying I found this

AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It also maintains a network of wealthy and influential citizens around the country, whom it can regularly mobilize to support its main goal, which is making sure there is "no daylight" between the policies of Israel and of the United States.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020610/massing

 

[Art]

People starve to death every day in a hundred countries, and foreign aid could be saving them. Does the fact that we aren't giving them aid mean we are murdering them?

If we are giving them aid and then cut it off to punish them and they die as a result then yes we are murdering them. As for negative actions (per your definition) not being culpable, you'll find US precedents dispute this. Take Moussaoui for example who is starting a life sentence for the crime of not 'giving' information and so indirectly causing the deaths of thousands.

Uh, no. Prisoners in a concentration camp are prisoners. They don't have a choice to leave and they have no means of even trying to feed themselves. That's why international law specifies that the captors are completely responsible for the condition of the captives.

Palestinians are prisoners, the Gaza strip has been likened to the biggest prison in the world. Israel controls ALL access points - land, sea and air. It's as much of a prison as the Warsaw ghetto was.

Karni is the main cargo crossing into the Gaza Strip from Israel.
The Israeli authorities have closed the crossing for long periods this year because of what they say are security concerns.
The UN has said that this has resulted in widespread food shortages in Gaza.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4962200.stm
Using food as a 'weapon' is illegal under international law.

That has nothing at all to do with the situation here. Those are different issues and I won't be dragged into a random Israel-bashing argument.

How can this be a separate issue? This is the issue. How can there be a palestinian state without defined borders??

Until Israel started giving land to the PA last year, there was never a country called "Palestine. But Israel does recognize the right of the Palestinian people to have a country and is willing to negotiate to give them one (and even to give them parts of it unilaterally). So no, there is no double-standard there. No, that simply isn't correct. Israel does recognize the right of Palestine to exist. Heck, Israel is trying to create it!

Oh come on Russ call a spade a spade. Israel didn't give land to the palestinians, they returned a small percentage of the land they have illegally occupied whilst ignoring UN resolutions to vacate the rest. Also Sharon stated categorically he WOULD NOT negotiate borders with the palestinians - Israel would unilaterally decide where the borders would be. A little like your next door neighbour in that new house you've just bought deciding to redraw the boundaries between your properties without any input from you. To make the analogy more appropriate I should add that your neighbour originally built his house on your property.

For contrast, http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/28/mideast.conflict/index.html" , here is a speech from 2 years ago by the leader of Hamas: The difference could not be any clearer: one side is calling for peace, the other side is calling for war.

Hey you're preaching to the choir. I do not support Hamas in any shape or form. I just think evil deeds by both sides should be condemned equally.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't think it is incumbent on Bilal to offer counter arguments to his own supposition.

But it is incumbent on Bilal to address the other aspects of the issue;

"Wah, things are bad. Give us money!"
"Giving money to a government dedicated to the annihilation of our friends is a problem..."
"Wah, things are bad. Give us money!"

is not a very convincing argument.

 

[Art]

But it is incumbent on Bilal to address the other aspects of the issue;

"Wah, things are bad. Give us money!"
"Giving money to a government dedicated to the annihilation of our friends is a problem..."
"Wah, things are bad. Give us money!"

is not a very convincing argument.

Perhaps you misread the OP or are you deliberately misrepresenting what he said? Bilal asked why the US were preventing other countries from donating money. The EU countries are also asking the same question. Your post saying it was incumbent on Bilal to offer counter arguments to his own position came in post number 4, before anybody had responded to his question and so your paraphrasing above is a straight forward distortion of the facts.

I'm sure you will want to set a good example so I expect your next post to present the weaknesses in the US policy towards the palestinians.

 

[Hurkyl]

Perhaps you misread the OP or are you deliberately misrepresenting what he said?

I deliberately (over)simplified his argument. You can talk all you want about the nuances that get disregarded by the simplification, but you'd be missing the entire point of my post: Bilal is completely ignoring issues that matter to others.

 

[Anttech]

I don't know about "force", but influence (or "pressure")... Why not? Flip it over: what gives you the right to say what we can and can't do with our money? That's what you are doing! This "pressure" we can wield on other arab countries is the same economic pressure we are putting on Hamas.

Your money? Bilal clearly stated that government employees are not being paid (for the work they have done) because the American government has put pressure on the banks in Palestinian and under duress they won't allow these people to take what they have been credited, or should have been creditied...

IMO I find this totaly hypocritical on the part of the American government AND the people who support there government in these actions.

Rememeber who funded the IRA for all those years, and even sien fien now!

 

[Bilal]

But it is incumbent on Bilal to address the other aspects of the issue;

"Wah, things are bad. Give us money!"
"Giving money to a government dedicated to the annihilation of our friends is a problem..."
"Wah, things are bad. Give us money!"

is not a very convincing argument.

May be my English is not perfect, but I really surprise how you twist my words!

I do not talk about myself personally, but I referred to Palestinian workers who are working for months without salaries. Our government has already enough money to give to the employees, but the American government warned our banks from receiving any governmental money, which will be considered as supporting of”a terrorist government” under their laws. These banks will loose their money in USA and some European countries if they are considered as supporters of terrorism.

Actually a large part of American support to Palestinian is directed to the security forces to protect Israel and to fight the Palestinian resistance. Stopping their “gifts” is a great help to Palestinian people. But they have no rights to put such pressure on our banks and on our friends in Europe and Arab world.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's something here I don't understand.

I'd thought that it was only the banks based in the US or the EU that were being pressured not to transact with the PA. How is the US able to dictate terms to say, the Central Bank of Iran or the National Bank of Egypt ?

 

[Bilal]

There's something here I don't understand.

I'd thought that it was only the banks based in the US or the EU that were being pressured not to transact with the PA. How is the US able to dictate terms to say, the Central Bank of Iran or the National Bank of Egypt ?

A Palestine/Jordan –based bank and one of the most successful banks in ME is called Arab bank .This bank invested billions of dollars in USA and Europe in the last several decades. All the PA employees had accounts in this bank, but now this bank is asked by the American government not to collaborate with PA (including payment of salaries) or they will loose hundreds of millions of dollars in USA under the laws of terrorism. It is the same problem with the other banks: Cairo-Amman Bank and the Arab Palestine Investment Bank.

Israel collect the tax from the Palestinian as ‘’occupation authority” but now they reject to give this money to PA.

(P.S: Concerning Iran,
After the revolution in 1979, the American government froze billions of dollars including those belong to the Iranian national banks)

 

[Tzemach]

There is a lot of argument about the rights and wrongs of economic sanctions, but it all boils down to one thing even a HAMAS led Govt will not be denied funds if they do one thing _renounce terrorism. It doesn't seem that difficult but the truth is they want this money so they can continue to slaughter civilians and refuse to negotiate.

 

[Bilal]

There is a lot of argument about the rights and wrongs of economic sanctions, but it all boils down to one thing even a HAMAS led Govt will not be denied funds if they do one thing _renounce terrorism. It doesn't seem that difficult but the truth is they want this money so they can continue to slaughter civilians and refuse to negotiate.

What about the Palestinian victims whom are slaughtered daily by the Israeli since several decades? Instead to get your information from CNN and FOX news, you can check at least the global human rights organizations:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=isrlpa

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/index.do

The occupied nations (including Palestine and Iraq) have the rights to resist the occupation under the international rules.

Israel should withdraw first, after that any attack against them is called ‘’terrorism’’.

 

[Hurkyl]

May be my English is not perfect, but I really surprise how you twist my words!

I deliberately (over)simplified your argument for the sake of brevity and clarity. You can talk all you want about the nuances that get disregarded by the simplification, but you'd be missing the entire point of my post: You are completely ignoring issues that matter to others.


Allow me to elaborate.

The government of Palestine is dedicated to the annihilation of one of our friends. Therefore, it would apparently be a terrible thing to allow it aid, so we do what we can to prevent it.

You go on and on about the consequences of that decision, but that's it.


For those who subscribe to a philosophy that acts are justified on their own merits, and not their consequences, your argument means absolutely nothing to them.

For those who subscribe to a philosophy where the ends justify the means, your argument is lacking an essential component: you never seem to even attempt to argue that the evils of denying aid to Hamas outweigh the evils of allowing aid to Hamas.

 

[Hurkyl]

Israel should withdraw first, after that any attack against them is called ‘’terrorism’’.

An act is (correctly) labelled "terrorism" when it satisfies the definition of the word. Whether the actors have a right to resistance is irrelevant.

(And, may I remind you, that Hamas is not dedicated to getting Israel to withdraw: it's dedicated to annihilating Israel)

 

[Bilal]

An act is (correctly) labelled "terrorism" when it satisfies the definition of the word. Whether the actors have a right to resistance is irrelevant.

(And, may I remind you, that Hamas is not dedicated to getting Israel to withdraw: it's dedicated to annihilating Israel)

But already Israel annihilated Palestine and wiped it from the map!

 

[Bilal]

I deliberately (over)simplified your argument for the sake of brevity and clarity. You can talk all you want about the nuances that get disregarded by the simplification, but you'd be missing the entire point of my post: You are completely ignoring issues that matter to others.


Allow me to elaborate.

The government of Palestine is dedicated to the annihilation of one of our friends. Therefore, it would apparently be a terrible thing to allow it aid, so we do what we can to prevent it.

You go on and on about the consequences of that decision, but that's it.


For those who subscribe to a philosophy that acts are justified on their own merits, and not their consequences, your argument means absolutely nothing to them.

For those who subscribe to a philosophy where the ends justify the means, your argument is lacking an essential component: you never seem to even attempt to argue that the evils of denying aid to Hamas outweigh the evils of allowing aid to Hamas.

Hamas declared recently that they will recognize Israel if Israel recognizes Palestine …. Also we are under occupation (not a real state). Around 60% of WB are directly living under Israeli occupation. They are also punished because they are Palestinian?

Actually as a Palestinian, I believe that there is no moral justification of kicking out 60% of Palestinian people to replace them by Jews immigrants in the sake of creation of Israel. However, we are very generous to recognize the right of Israel to exist on 78% of Palestine in 1988, but they did not do the next step by recognizing the right of Palestine to exist on the rest of Palestine (22% of historical Palestine).

 

[Art]

There is a lot of argument about the rights and wrongs of economic sanctions, but it all boils down to one thing even a HAMAS led Govt will not be denied funds if they do one thing _renounce terrorism. It doesn't seem that difficult but the truth is they want this money so they can continue to slaughter civilians and refuse to negotiate.

Hamas has been observing a ceasefire for over a year now whilst Israel has continued merrily with it's program of assassinations (illegal under international law). So who is terrorising who??

Only yesterday Sky News reported jewish settlers near Hebron attacked a group of children aged between 6 and 11 with rocks and concrete blocks injuring 4 of them as the kids were on their way home from school. Despite a large police and IDF presence being called to the scene there were no arrests but nine Israeli peace activists who tried to stop the attack were removed from the scene. If this were palestinians attacking israeli children it would be front page news, there would be worldwide outrage, denouncement of palestinian terrorism and no doubt 'punishment' revenge attacks by the IDF. It is this hypocrisy which irritates me.

Obviously peoples views are formed based on media coverage and ironically following numerous complaints from israeli groups about BBC coverage favouring palestinians the BBC launched an independent investigation which concluded just recently that the BBC was indeed biased but in favour of Israel.

BBC's coverage favours Israelis over Palestinians
Dan Sabbagh, London
May 04, 2006
THE BBC'S coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict implicitly favours the Israeli side, a study for the broadcaster's governors has concluded.
Deaths of Israelis received greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities, while Israelis received more air time on news and current affairs programs.
Only "a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by BBC News", the analysis noted, while "the killing of more than one Israeli by Palestinians either by gun or bomb was reported on nationally broadcast programs".

At the same time, there was found to be little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives and a "failure to convey adequately thedisparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other side lives under occupation".

Led by Quentin Thomas, the president of the British Board of Film Classification, the governors' study group analysed a period between August last year and last January, in which 98 Palestinians were killed and there were up to 23 Israeli fatalities.

The findings were seized on by pro-Palestinian groups. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said: "When research consistently shows that fatalities from one side of a conflict - the party that has by far the least number - are more frequently covered, then this must raise alarm bells."

Only one criticism familiar to right-wing observers was made by the inquiry, arguing that the BBC should be less cautious over its use of the word "terrorism" because "that is the most accurate expression for actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians".

The report also reaffirms my view that ANY group who targets civilians should be classified as terrorists.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19015659-7582,00.html

 

[fargoth]

Israel should withdraw first, after that any attack against them is called ‘’terrorism’’.

heh, withdraw where? hamas doesn't even recognize the lines of 67!
withdraw to the 47 lines perhapes? maybe to germany?
when "freedom fighters" bomb themselves in a crouded mall or a dance-club, its an act of terror, even if you don't agree with the boarders of the country you attack.
its not even like most of these attacks are aimed at the people at the "illegaly occupied land", most of the attacks are aimed at citizens inside the internationally accepted territory of israel.

im sorry if this is a little off-topic, i just hate it when these acts are justified.

hamas supports these acts of terror, and the palestinian government supports it, I am not sure holding the money back is the right way... it only made the hamas rely on a crime syndicate for support.

you can't make peace with people that hate you, and if you boycott them they would... then again, they already do... i don't think that resuming the money flow would make any difference in that matter when the government - chosen democratically to reflect the voice of its people, thinks that the right way to deal with the israeli problem is to drive them off of the land to germany by terror.

if only the hamas would aknowledge the right of israel to exist, the money would flow again, the palestinians would be able to get to work in israel, or travel to the west bank... it looks as if the hamas government doesn't care that 30% of their population would starve...

do you think they ask too much of the hamas?
it seems hate and pride are a giant factor in the decision making mechanism of the hamas government.

 

[fargoth]

Hamas declared recently that they will recognize Israel if Israel recognizes Palestine …. Also we are under occupation (not a real state). Around 60% of WB are directly living under Israeli occupation. They are also punished because they are Palestinian?

Actually as a Palestinian, I believe that there is no moral justification of kicking out 60% of Palestinian people to replace them by Jews immigrants in the sake of creation of Israel. However, we are very generous to recognize the right of Israel to exist on 78% of Palestine in 1988, but they did not do the next step by recognizing the right of Palestine to exist on the rest of Palestine (22% of historical Palestine).

well, i think in camp david israel did recognize palestine.
and before you talk about being completely independant, look at the ways things are in those 40%...
the government is building a new army supported by a crime sydicate to overthrow the PA.
governing a small country is easier, first handle that, try building farms instead of burning them... there, i even gave you a hint so you can start.

 

[Art]

its not even like most of these attacks are aimed at the people at the "illegaly occupied land", most of the attacks are aimed at citizens inside the internationally accepted territory of israel.

im sorry if this is a little off-topic, i just hate it when these acts are justified.

Please advise the reference for this remark. I have not seen a single post justifying acts of terrorism by Hamas; In fact the opposite. So now that is cleared up let's see you denounce the acts of terrorism performed by the Israelis. Also do you think Israel should have it's international aid frozen until it cleans up it's act?

An example from today -

Mourning a West Bank wife
By Matthew Price
BBC News, Tulkarm


In a small room on the edge of Tulkarm, they are wailing for 44-year-old Eitas Zalat.

There are tears, screams, and whimpers. Women turn to me in sorrow, and in anger.

Eitas Zalat was a mother of five. She was killed at dawn by an Israeli army bullet while sitting in her living room.

Now she lies on a stretcher on the floor. Women kiss her face, and then collapse.

The same article goes on to say that an Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem. said

The circumstances under which Eitas Zalat was killed, the group says, "raise the grave suspicion that Israeli security forces acted as if they were conducting an assassination rather than an arrest operation".

B'Tselem says that between January 2004 and 1 May 2006, 157 Palestinians were killed in what Israeli forces term arrest operations in the West Bank.

Of these, at least 35 were civilians, whom the military admits were mere bystanders to the operation.

B'Tselem accuses the Israeli army of "demonstrating a pattern of indifference to the safety of Palestinian civilians".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4963598.stm

Here is a good article which provides a good overview of the issue raised in the OP

Abbas urges end to freeze on aid

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has urged Middle East mediators to rethink an international freeze on aid to the Hamas-led administration.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4752777.stm

And this one

Mid-East quartet faces changed times
By Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East Editor

The big powers that have taken a strong interest in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians have a problem. Fixed points in the political landscape have changed, and their policies are not keeping up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4971936.stm

 

[fargoth]

i did quote bilal say that any attack againt israeli citizens is terrorism only after israel withdraw... which means he justifies the attacks...
but maybe i got him wrong?

as for israel's army killing bystanders, its very hard to arrest armed people with no one ending up dead, its not a new thing in the world... i can assure you first hand that there are VERY strict restrictions on firing.
i don't think youd find more then 80% success in the US army in iraq, or any other army who has to deal with such situations.

instead of smuggling weapons and things like the half-ton explosives they got from egypt, they could have smuggled food and medical supplies, though it would have been much easier just to say they don't want israel destroyed... is it too much to ask not to send missiles on towns in israel (within the 67 lines), and not to send terrorists to kill civillians whi hang out in the center of israel?

you make it sound like its impossible for them to agree to these terms, so we should just continue to support them while they try to destroy israel and kill random civillians.

oh, and remember you said gaza is the biggest prison in the world? you do know it borders with egypt too right?
they can get out whenever they want.. returning back might be a problem though, and you can't blame israel for not wanting them to come back with all the weapon smuggling that's going on through this border.
anyway, there arent any israeli troops there, its under egyptian control, i think they could even supply them with food and water if they wanted to...
israel has the right to deny potential terrorists to enter its terrirory, with that siad some people are allowed to get in or out from the gaza strip through israel's borders, so its not a giant prison any way you look at it.

 

[Art]

I think you've missed my point so I'll spell it out - again.

Hamas = bad. Israeli gov't = as bad or worse.
Targetting civilians is terrorism. No matter WHO does it.

Ignoring attrocities committed by one side whilst severely punishing the other is NOT a viable policy to bring peace to the ME. Most of us would like to see an end to ALL terrorist actions and a negotiated peace settlement. To achieve this the world community must be seen to be fair in it's dealings with both sides and in so doing isolate and then eliminate the extremists, both israeli and palestinian.

As for my likening the Gaza Strip to a prison here is what an Israeli human rights group says;

29 March 05: One Big Prison: New Report Warns Against Continued Strangulation of Gaza Strip after Disengagement

Israel has cut off the Gaza Strip from the rest of the world to such an extent that it is easier for Palestinians in Israel or the West Bank to visit relatives in prison than visit a relative in Gaza. This is one conclusion of the 100-page report that B’Tselem and HaMoked publish today. One Big Prison documents the ongoing violations of human rights and international law resulting from Israel’s restrictions on the movement of people and goods between Gaza and the West Bank, Israel, and the rest of the world. The report also warns against Israel’s attempt to avoid its responsibility toward residents of the Gaza Strip following disengagement.

Despite the easing of restrictions that Israel declared following the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February 2005, there has been almost no improvement in the movement of Palestinians to and from Gaza, nor in the movement of goods. The report illustrates the extent to which Israel treats many fundamental human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – as “humanitarian gestures” that it grants or denies at will.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20050329.asp

and here's what the int'l aid agency Trocaire says

» Gaza strip: An open air prison?

by Justin Kilcullen, Trócaire Director - 16 August 2005

Read more about human rights in the Middle East

Last December I turned up at a border crossing
leading from Israel to the infamous Gaza strip as
part of a delegation of Catholic development
agencies. I was looking forward to the visit, to seeing
first-hand the situation in which thousands of
Palestinians were living. But four hours later I walked
away, together with half the group, refused entry by
Israeli security because our papers for entry did
not have the required approvals. While the
Palestinians living within this small piece of land
could not get out, I could not get in.

The other three members of the delegation did,
however, and their subsequent reports of the poverty
and deprivation suffered by the Palestinians were bleak and harrowing. The UN has established that 68% of the residents of the Gaza strip live on less then US$1 per day. These are poverty levels akin to the poorest African states. It was hard to believe driving through Israel to reach the frontier that people were living in such appalling circumstances beyond the barbed wire fence. They were effectively prisoners.

http://www.trocaire.org/newsandinformation/news/gaza.htm

and for an overview on the Gaza Strip which although it pre-dates the disengagement is useful to highlight just how the palestinians are treated by the israeli gov't

The World’s Largest Prison

ANDREW KENNIS

Naema says that her people live in a big, crowded prison. Israeli General Doron Almog concurs, saying that Naema and her people are imprisoned. A little boy draws pictures not of flowers or the nearby beach, but of tanks, fighter jets and bulldozers. These are scenes from the most densely populated territory in the world: the Gaza strip.

The Gaza strip is one of the two occupied Palestinian territories that has been under Israeli military occupation for thirty-six years. A closer look at the history and conditions in the Gaza Strip takes us much closer to an understanding of the conditions described above.

What is the Gaza Strip and Who Lives There?

The Gaza strip is a small piece of land, 360 square kilometers long and no longer than 70 kilometers wide at anyone point (its coastline is only 40 kilometers long). The strip is located in the southwest of Israel and has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.

Some 1.2 million Palestinians live in the Gaza strip, of which three-fourths are refugees from the war of 1948 that led to Israeli control over most of the territory that the UN had intended to split between Jews and Palestinians. Despite the overwhelming majority of Gaza’s residents being Palestinian, 42% of the strip is under the control of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and is reserved for 6,000 Israeli settlers. Settlers and Israeli soldiers, however, only account for 0.5% of the population and are thus at the center of the conflict in the Gaza strip, with their disproportionate land holdings and occupational military tactics.

In addition to disproportionate land holdings, Israeli soldiers and settlers enjoy a number of economic advantages and freedoms that Palestinians are not entitled to. For example, 88% of water, a precious resource in the largely desert climate of the region, is diverted from Palestinian territories by Israel for its own use. Digging wells is illegal for Palestinians, but not for Israeli settlers. As a result, settlers consume 1,000 times more water than do Palestinians in Gaza, while they pay one-fourth the price that Palestinians do.

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/advocate/DEC03ISSUE/dec03 articles web format/Dec03Gaza.htm

Here is a report from british MPs -

Palestinian malnutrition at African levels under Israeli curbs, say MPs
By Ben Russell
Political Correspondent From the UK Independent
February 5, 2004

Malnutrition rates in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank are as bad as those in sub-Saharan Africa, MPs said yesterday. They warned that the Israeli security fence around the occupied territories was “destroying the Palestinian economy and creating widespread poverty”.

The all-party Commons International Development Committee called for European Union trade sanctions to be imposed on Israel until it allowed the free export of goods from the West Bank and Gaza.

The committee’s report also condemned suicide bombings as “morally abhorrent” and “a catastrophic tactic that has done great harm to the Palestinian cause”.

MPs called on the Palestinian Authority to be more vocal in its condemnation of attacks. “Israel’s security measures are preventing Palestinians from accessing services as well as inhibiting humanitarian and development work,” the MPs said. “They are destroying the Palestinian economy and creating widespread poverty.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/malnutrition.html

It is difficult to distinguish between the israelis' treatment of the palestinians today and the nazi party's treatment of the jews in pre-war Germany and behaviour that was vile and abhorrent then is just as vile and abhorrent today..

 

[fargoth]

first of all, your quotes are outdated, israel evacuated the settlements in gaza strip, and handed over the control to the PA, israel no longer occupies gaza strip.

as for traveling between gaza strip and WB, its that hard only because israel has to monitor for smuggles who want to get weapon in\out of the strip and terrorists who wish to bomb themeselves in israel.

its hardly the same reason the natzis had.
when the palestinian police try to control the terror organizations in gaza there were much less restrictions, but now they do nothing to prevent terrorism, they even encourage it.
i don't see how you can blame israel for restricting access to and from the gaza strip in this situation, what would your country do? welcome terrorists into its territory or let them exchange weapons, money and drugs?.
i don't think so.

why is the israeli government worse then hamas? israel agreed to return almost completely to the pre 67 lines, they recognize palestines right to exist as an indepensant state, before the violence began this was the situation... in camp david the PA made it clear that pre-67 lines are not enough, they want pre 47 lines, the call it the refugees right to return to their land.
israel has shown more then once it wants peace.

if israel was as bad as the nazis, believe me, there would have been no palestinians to talk to... the nazis exterminated in their deathcamps more then half million jews per year.
how many palestinans died in two years? 160? and 130 of them had israeli blood on their hands, whiche leaves 15 civilans killed per year, and even if you do count them all... hmm... 500000 deaths vs. 65 deaths...
and they didnt die in death camps, they died because they resisted arrest.

I think youre comparing a fly to something much much bigger then an elephant, try to be more careful with you comparisons.

 

[Art]

first of all, your quotes are outdated, israel evacuated the settlements in gaza strip, and handed over the control to the PA, israel no longer occupies gaza strip.

Try to read what I wrote!

and for an overview on the Gaza Strip which although it pre-dates the disengagement is useful to highlight just how the palestinians are treated by the israeli gov't

I believe the situation has deteriorated further for the palestinians since then.

as for traveling between gaza strip and WB, its that hard only because israel has to monitor for smuggles who want to get weapon in\out of the strip and terrorists who wish to bomb themeselves in israel.

its hardly the same reason the natzis had.

International monitors including jewish human rights groups say the restrictions are far more about punushment than security

when the palestinian police try to control the terror organizations in gaza there were much less restrictions, but now they do nothing to prevent terrorism, they even encourage it.

Source please.

i don't see how you can blame israel for restricting access to and from the gaza strip in this situation, what would your country do? welcome terrorists into its territory or let them exchange weapons, money and drugs?.

As said the restrictions are about punishment not security and could you explain how preventing palestinians from drilling wells for water has anything to do with security.

i don't think so.

why is the israeli government worse then hamas?

Mainly because they have better, more deadly weapons.

israel agreed to return almost completely to the pre 67 lines, they recognize palestines right to exist as an indepensant state, before the violence began this was the situation... in camp david the PA made it clear that pre-67 lines are not enough, they want pre 47 lines, the call it the refugees right to return to their land.
israel has shown more then once it wants peace.

Total bunk! The Camp David Accords resulted in a) a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and b) only a framework for how negotiations would be conducted with the palestinians. Even this the Egyptians, Israel and the USA shortly after disagreed on what had been agreed on.

if israel was as bad as the nazis, believe me, there would have been no palestinians to talk to... the nazis exterminated in their deathcamps more then half million jews per year.
how many palestinans died in two years? 160? and 130 of them had israeli blood on their hands, whiche leaves 15 civilans killed per year, and even if you do count them all... hmm... 500000 deaths vs. 65 deaths...
and they didnt die in death camps, they died because they resisted arrest.

I think youre comparing a fly to something much much bigger then an elephant, try to be more careful with you comparisons.

Again, try to read what I wrote!

It is difficult to distinguish between the israelis' treatment of the palestinians today and the nazi party's treatment of the jews in pre-war Germany and behaviour that was vile and abhorrent then is just as vile and abhorrent today..

And really inventing make believe statistics adds nothing to the discussion. In 2004 alone there were 818 palestinan civilians killed. Perhaps you're confused because a survey of the New York Times for this period found Israeli deaths were reported at a rate of 149% whilst only 41% of palestinaian deaths were reported.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html

 

[fargoth]

again, the reasons for what the nazis did in pre-war germany are MUCH different then those of israel, there were no jew terrorists in pre-war germany.

where did they say the restrictions are more of a punishment then a security measure?
if you were a russian in the US back in the cold war, you couldn't visit you relatives and exchange goods either.
israeli planes arent allowed to fly above syria, does that mean they violet human right?
its israel's right to deny access of an enemy to its territory.
and you ignore the fact egypt do the same.

as for camp david, get your facts right:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

* Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
* The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
* The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
* Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
* Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
* "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader's style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

after camp david, barak offered even a better deal at taba:
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

 

[Art]

I think you are confusing the Camp David Accords with the Oslo Accords. Arafat wasn't even at the Camp David negotiations.

Terms of the agreements
There were two 1978 Camp David agreements A Framework for Peace in the Middle East and A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel, the second leading towards the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in March, 1979. The agreements and the peace treaty were both accompanied by "side-letters" of understanding between Egypt and the US and Israel and the US.[1]

The first agreement had three parts. The first part was a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip and to fully implement SC 242. It was less clear than the agreements concerning the Sinai, and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US.

The second part dealt with Egyptian-Israeli relations, the real content being in the second agreement. The third part "Associated Principles" declared principles that should apply to relations between Israel and all of its Arab neighbors.

The second agreement outlined a basis for the peace treaty 6 months later, in particular deciding the future of the Sinai peninsula. Israel agreed to withdraw its armed forces from the Sinai and restore it to Egypt in return for normal diplomatic relations with Egypt, guarantees of freedom of passage through the Suez Canal and other nearby waterways (such as the Straits of Tiran), and a restriction on the forces Egypt could place on the Sinai peninsula, especially within 20-40km from Israel. Israel also agreed to limit its forces a smaller distance (3 km) from the Egyptian border, and to guarantee free passage between Egypt and Jordan.

The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

And I think Yitzhak Rabin's “break the bones” policy was an idea any nazi would have been proud of.

people who had been throwing stones – often youths – were held down and their arms broken. On the first day of this policy alone, one hospital in Gaza treated 200 People for fractures

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/

BTW I am still waiting for you to denounce Israeli gov't terrorism or do you have no problem holding double standards.

 

[fargoth]

you keep on giving very outdated links...

youre talking about the year 1978 while i talk about 2000, you should read my links before you reply:

The timeline of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum called for final status negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. Talks during late 1999 and the first half of 2000 led to President Clinton's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat for a summit at Camp David, Maryland to be convened July 11, 2000.

its the first paragraph in the page i posted...

stones thrown at you with a slingshot can do more then break your arms, they don't throw tiny stones... its pretty big and if they hit you it could crush your bones at more vital areas then arms... and i think the parrents of the children are more then partly responsible for sending them there to throw rocks, its not as if they haven't warned them first and suddenly started breaking arms (though it still sounds pretty weird to me, i don't recall this policy, have you seen it mantioned in any other place?).

breaking arms is too much, so there, i condamn this act - and i think the courthouse did this too because you don't see it happening now... but there must be some kind of retaliation, right now the most extreme retaliation on rock throwers is smoke granades.and you keep doing irrelevant comparrisons, the nazis hang for no reason people, they let their dogs eat them alive, they experimented on pregnant women, they enslaved their prisoners to work all day with only one bowl of soup per day, nothing israel does can be compared to the horrors of the nazis, so please stop doing these comparisons!

i think youre the opne holding double standards, put your country in the place of israel and think what it would have done.
would your country let its soldiers and civilians get hurt by rocks and do nothing about it?
would your country allow terrorists to conduct weapon smuggling and bomb themeselves in its land?
would your country do nothing to stop terrorists?

all these "terror" acts you mantion israel do are its right to defend itself.

atleast israel has shown unlike the PA its willing to live alongside with palestinian state.

instead of pointing your finger, try to think what would you do if you faced the same situation and you had the command.
its much easier to show what's wrong then to think what's right.

please tell me in you next post what you think israel should do right now to be moral in your eyes, and try to answer yourself with the reaction of the palestinians to these acts.