Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The price of democracy: The Palestinian 'diet' begins

  1. May 4, 2006 #1
    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?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. May 4, 2006 #2
    this made me remember when BILL O'REILLY called to starve the afghan civilians:


    That is 100% terrorism
     
  4. May 4, 2006 #3

    Curious3141

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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. :rolleyes:
     
  5. May 4, 2006 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Surely you know why. :tongue: 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?


    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?)
     
  6. May 4, 2006 #5
    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 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!!

    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!"
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  7. May 4, 2006 #6
    This also remind me of kisinger quote on the overtrowing of the democraticaly elected presiden salvador allende:

    -- 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
     
  8. May 4, 2006 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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.
    No. We've had that conversation before. It cannot be terrorism to deny a gift.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  9. May 4, 2006 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  10. May 4, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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.
    Life's tough. Take responsibility for it.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  11. May 4, 2006 #10
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  12. May 4, 2006 #11
    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!! :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  13. May 4, 2006 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
    Yes, I know. That's economic pressure.
    It is well established international policy that governments can force their banks to freeze the assets of criminals.
    [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.
     
  14. May 4, 2006 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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:
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/31/news/policy.php
     
  15. May 4, 2006 #14
    And what about the children of Palestine? They certainly didn't vote, and they are the most susceptible to starvation and disease.
     
  16. May 4, 2006 #15
    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.
     
  17. May 4, 2006 #16

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  18. May 4, 2006 #17

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Who are you quoting in that last bit ? It sounds all too much like rhetoric to me.
     
  19. May 4, 2006 #18

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  20. May 4, 2006 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2006
  21. May 5, 2006 #20

    Art

    User Avatar

    I don't think it is incumbent on Bilal to offer counter arguments to his own supposition. :confused:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The price of democracy: The Palestinian 'diet' begins
  1. Democracy - always ? (Replies: 12)

  2. Democracy in trouble! (Replies: 53)

  3. Democracy gap (Replies: 20)

  4. Torturing Democracy (Replies: 52)

  5. The problem of Democracy (Replies: 70)

Loading...