Bush warns US may cut aid to Palestinians

[deminks]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States warned on Friday it may cut back its $234 million aid earmarked for Palestinians this year because the militant group Hamas was expected to form a new Palestinian government.

President George W. Bush ruled out out giving aid to a Hamas government after its surprise election win on Wednesday unless it renounced violence and reversed its stance on Israel.

The State Department went a step further on Friday, signaling that the United States would review all money given to Palestinians through the
United Nations or nongovernmental groups, in addition to direct aid to the
Palestinian Authority.

McCormack said everyone understood the Palestinians were poor and needed help. But he stressed U.S. financial assistance had to follow U.S. laws and policies which forbade giving money to "terrorist" groups.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060128/pl_nm/mideast_usa_aid_dc_4

[MisterP]

1. "democracy is when you elect who WE want, not who YOU want!"

[barb162]

5. Democracy is when people can elect who they want and face the

music about it. I bet every Palestinian knew before voting that foreign aid by the US and EU might be withheld. It is their democratic right to take the chance AND the consequences. They are grown-ups.

[Tom Joad]

7. Certainly was not the case when Israelis elected war criminal Sharon.

But then, for such things, there's AIPAC.

[barb162]

9. Sorry, he isn't on the list of terror groups like Hamas

But for the billions stolen by criminal Arafat and the other Fatah leaders, maybe they can reach down and pull some of that stolen money out of their gigantic pockets and bank accounts and give it back to the Palestinian people. Financial crisis solved!

[Tom Joad]

18. Human Rights Watch had another opinion.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/23/isrlpa97.htm
A criminal investigation into Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon´s role in the massacre of civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla should be launched, Human Rights Watch urged today. The Israeli leader will meet on Tuesday at the White House with President Bush.
" There is abundant evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed on a wide scale in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, but to date, not a single individual has been brought to justice. President Bush should urge Prime Minister Sharon to cooperate with any investigation. "
Hanny Megally, Executive Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch

The call by Human Rights Watch came as Prime Minister Sharon begins a visit to the United States. The Israeli leader´s visit here comes as controversy mounts in Europe over his responsibility for the 1982 killings.

“There is abundant evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed on a wide scale in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, but to date, not a single individual has been brought to justice,” said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. “President Bush should urge Prime Minister Sharon to cooperate with any investigation.”

As Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon had overall responsibility over the Israeli Defense Forces and allowed Phalangist militias to enter the camps where they terrorized the residents for three days.

Sabra and Shatila would have just been a part of any real court investigation into Sharon's crimes.

[barb162]

20. Oh we're bringing this up when the Christian Phalangists

killed the Palestinians. Not Sharon. Sharon didn't kill anyone there. THE CHRISTIAN PHALANGISTS did the killing. Also the CHRISTIAN PHALANGISTS were not part of IDF.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Sabra_&_Shatila.html

"The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps on September 16­17, 1982."



Too bad you don't seem to have too much concern for the billions of dollars stolen from the Palestinian people by their own criminal leaders. If it weren't for the same criminal Fatah leaders the Palestinian people wouldn't be having this financial crisis.

[Englander]

45. Nice strawman.

A self-defeating one, it appears. From the link you've provided;

'..Israel had allowed the Phalange to enter the camps as part of a plan to transfer authority to the Lebanese, and accepted responsibility for that decision. The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, formed by the Israeli government in response to public outrage and grief, found that Israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. Israel instituted the panel's recommendations, including the dismissal of Gen. Raful Eitan, the Army Chief of Staff. Defense Minister Ariel Sharon resigned.'

The phalangists were ordered to enter the camp by Sharon/idf, with the full knowledge
of what was very likely to be a result of that order, ie the massacre of hundreds of
civilians.

[barb162]

57. Since when does "allowed" mean "ordered"

What dictionary are you using? And the rest of your last sentence is equally incorrect in its synopsis of the article

[Englander]

71. Then read the actual commission report.

The conclusions are the same, Sharon/idf took the decision to send the
phalangists into the refugee camp with the full knowledge that there was
likely to be a massacre. Which is why he's indirectly responsible for the
massacre.

'From the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut
(The Kahan Commission)
(February 8, 1983)

' >snip

Personal Responsibility

The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ariel Sharon

>snip

Giving the Phalangists the possibility of entering the refugee camps without taking measures for continuous and concrete supervision of their actions there could have created a grave danger for the civilian population in the camps even if they had been given such a possibility before Bashir's assassination; thus this danger was certainly to have been anticipated - and it was imperative to have foreseen it - after Bashir's assassination. The fact that it was not clear which organization had caused Bashir's death was of no importance at all, given the known frame of mind among the combatant camps in Lebanon. In the circumstances that prevailed after Bashir's assassination, no prophetic powers were required to know that concrete danger of acts of slaughter existed when the Phalangists were moved into the camps without the I.D.F.'s being with them in that operation and without the I.D.F. being able to maintain effective and ongoing supervision of their actions there. The sense of such a danger should have been in the consciousness of every knowledgeable person who was close to this subject, and certainly in the consciousness of the Defense Minister, who took an active part in everything relating to the war. His involvement in the war was deep, and the connection with the Phalangists was under his constant care. If in fact the Defense Minister, when he decided that the Phalangists would enter the camps without the I.D.F. taking part in the operation, did not think that that decision could bring about the very disaster that in fact occurred, the only possible explanation for this is that he disregarded any apprehensions about what was to be expected because the advantages - which we have already noted - to be gained from the Phalangists' entry into the camps distracted him from the proper consideration in this instance.

As a politician responsible for Israel's security affairs, and as a Minister who took an active part in directing the political and military moves in the war in Lebanon, it was the duty of the Defense Minister to take into account all the reasonable considerations for and against having the Phalangists enter the camps, and not to disregard entirely the serious consideraton mitigating against such an action, namely that the Phalangists were liable to commit atrocities and that it was necessary to forestall this possibility as a humanitarian obligation and also to prevent the political damage it would entail. From the Defense Minister himself we know that this consideration did not concern him in the least, and that this matter, with all its ramifications, was neither discussed nor examined in the meetings and discussion held by the Defense Minister. In our view, the Minister of Defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps.'

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

[barb162]

59. Keep trying to deflect, facts defeat your straw man every time

[Englander]

46. Oh yeah, thanks for admitting that Sharon was responsible.

Thanks for admitting that Sharon was indirectly responsible for the
massacre.

[barb162]

58. Thanks for admitting Phalangists were responsible, not Sharon

My link has a declarative sentence stating the Lebanese Christian Phalangists were responsible

[Englander]

72. See post #71.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2070413&mesg_id=2071701

[manic expression]

105. You're wrong

and it is so obvious.

Israel (Sharon) let the militias into the camps, and watched on with approval as the slaughter occured. That's what Sharon wanted, a massacre, so he let them in.

I cannot believe people actually deny Israel had any responsibility.

[barb162]

21. Too bad Human Rights Watch isn't concerned about billions

stolen from th Palestinian people by its own Fatah/PA leaders. That money can feed and clothe a LOT of Palestinians.

[Tom Joad]

66. It could also build many homes. That Israel could then demolish.

[barb162]

67. how many houses are destroyed by Palestinian suicide bombers

[Tom Joad]

70. The Israeli army has destroyed the homes of tens of thousands.

The Silwan plan is just a small example.

"Close to 20,000 Palestinians have been made homeless and thousands of others have lost their livelihood as the Israeli army has destroyed some 3,000 homes, vast areas of agricultural land and hundreds of other properties in the past three and a half years alone."

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/isr-index-eng

The targeting of Israeli civilians by Palestinians is nothing i will attempt to justify.

The continuing demolitions is barbaric, barb. It is not the hallmark of a civilized society.

Does the much more limited, though horrific, violence of those resisting occupation, come even close to making 20,000 homeless, destroying farmland. It is insanity.

[wordpix2]

77. "limited, though horrific, violence" is only limited b/c Israel limits it

[Violet_Crumble]

113. None...

What did that have to do with the post you were replying to? Are you saying that because yr of the mistaken belief that suicide bombers blow up family homes that it justifies Israel demolishing the massive number of Palestinian homes it destroys? That argument doesn't hold any water for very obvious reasons...

Violet...

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

31. Right. Here we go again. SHARON DID NOT MURDER

THE PEOPLE IN THOSE CAMPS. Arabs murdered them. Syrians committed a similar crime. Why aren't we all worried about that?

And while we're on the subject, why aren't Palestinian attacks on Jordanians and Lebanese a matter of concern?

I guess they don't count?

This is just another attempt to sidetrack the conversation but I'll provide some information for people who are reading the thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_civil_war#Sectarian_violence_and_civilian_massacres

Check out the massacres. There were plenty.

What about Damour, the Palestinian massacre of Lebanese civilians?

Here's a link, so you can enjoy this story from the Lebanese perspective:

http://www.cedarland.org/damour.html

At about half-past eleven the telephone, water and electricity were all cut off. The first invasion of the town came in the hour after midnight, from the side where the priest had been shot at earlier in the day. The Sa’iqa men stormed into the houses. They massacred some fifty people in the one night. Father Labaky heard screaming and went out into the street. Women came running to him in their nightdresses, ‘tearing their hair, and shouting “They are slaughtering us!” The survivors, deserting that end of the town, moved into the area round the next church. The invaders then occupied the part of the town they had taken. Father Labaky describes the scene:

'In the morning I managed to get to the one house despite the shelling to bring out some of the corpses. And I remember something which still frightens me. An entire family had been killed, the Can’an family, four children all dead, and the mother, the father, and the grandfather. The mother was still hugging one of the children. And she was pregnant. The eyes of the children were gone and their limbs were cut off. No legs and no arms. It was awful. We took them away in a banana truck. And who carried the corpses with me? The only survivor, the brother ofthe man. His name is Samir Can’an. He carried with me the remains of his brother, his father, his sister-in-law and the poor children. We buried them in the cemetery, under the shells of the PLO. And while I was burying them, more corpses were found in the street.'

The town tried to defend itself. Two hundred and twenty-five young men, most of them about sixteen years old, armed with hunting guns and none with military training, held out for twelve days. The citizens huddled in basements, with sandbags piled in front of their doors and ground-floor windows. Father Labaky moved from shelter to shelter to visit the families and take them bread and milk. He went often ‘to encourage the young men defending the town’. The relentless pounding the town received resulted in massive damage. In the siege that had been established on 9 January the Palestinians cut off food and water supplies and refused to allow the Red Cross to take out the wounded. Infants and children died of dehydration. Only three more townspeople were killed as a result of PLO fire between the first night and the last day, 23 January. But on that day, when the final onslaught came, hundreds of the Christians were killed. Father Labaky goes on...

***

[Englander]

44. No-one claimed he did, & you know it.

If you talking about an instance where Sharon *did* actually, murder
civilians, you're talking about Qibya.

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

At some point, the *fact* that Sharon is both indirectly, & directly responsible
for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians needs to be addressed, & faced
up to, & admitted. If you cannot, or will not, accept that, then you're, imo, only
believing revisionist propaganda.

[barb162]

61. How about not more concern about Arafat killing of Palestinians

Maybe Human Rights Watch should check into that noise about Arafat delegating his gangs to brutally kill other Palestinians. Did these people have their day in court?


"PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat defended the killing of Arabs deemed to be "collaborating with Israel." He delegated the authority to carry out executions to the intifada leadership. After the murders, the local PLO death squad sent the file on the case to the PLO. "We have studied the files of those who were executed, and found that only two of the 118 who were executed were innocent," Arafat said. The innocent victims were declared "martyrs of the Palestinian revolution" by the PLO (Al­Mussawar, January 19, 1990).

Palestinians were stabbed, hacked with axes, shot, clubbed and burned with acid. The justifications offered for the killings varied. In some instances, being employed by Israel's Civil Administration in the West Bank and Gaza was reason enough; in others, contact with Jews warranted a death sentence. Accusations of "collaboration" with Israel were sometimes used as a pretext for acts of personal vengeance. Women deemed to have behaved "immorally" were also among the victims."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intifada.html

[barb162]

69. It's *fact* that Arafat was responsible for murdering Palestinians

At some point, the *fact* that ARAFAT is both indirectly, & directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, both PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELIS, needs to be addressed, & faced up to, & admitted. If you cannot, or will not, accept that, then you're, imo, only believing revisionist propaganda.

In your own words....

[Englander]

73. What an extraordinary response!

That really was kinda weird, & ever so slightly creepy, really. I suppose I should
feel honoured, that you place such importance on my post, but to just reverse the
intention of the post is to make the reversal illogical, & nonsensical. Yer post
doesn't make any sense, & doesn't make any point. Apart from being very, very *odd*.

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Mimicry is a form of flattery...

Though I'll agree and say that in the past when it's been done to me it's kinda creepy. I won't even get started on the detachment with reality that would lead to any claim like that ridiculous one made about Arafat. I'm still trying to work out why reading that post took me back in time to when my kidlet was eight and attempting to argue with me by reversing everything I said to her...

Violet...

[Name removed]

78. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

29. Good point. Whatever has happened to all the money?

With even a portion of it, and with some focus on creativity and building, instead of on war, the whole region could be living decently.

[barb162]

63. My guess: Swiss bank accounts, bank accounts in other countries

at the expense of the Palestinian people

[President Kerry]

89. So let's see now.

Arafat and Fatah, were pretty corrupt and pocketed all international aid, the Palestinians got sick of it and elected another party possibly in protest. And the international aid is now gone. hmm. I guess democracy is only good when it's by our rules.

[wordpix2]

79. wasn't Arafat one of the richest men in the world by the time of he died?

If not one of the richest, he was very rich

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

41. The poster never said Israel shouldn't exist.

And if those who merely order murder to be committed, without killing anyone themselves, are not culpable, then b*s* is not a war criminal.

Nor would Hitler have been, going by the 'logic' of that argument!

[Zhade]

48. Mods, thank you for not allowing that comment to stand.

No one here should be accused of supporting terrorists, no matter how violently we might disagree.

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Exactly right.

They will either decide to join the world, recognize Israel's right to exist, and renounce terrorism, or they'll need to find support elsewhere.

Perhaps there's just a tiny glimmer of hope that they'll use this opportunity to seek peace and prosperity for their people instead of furthering the violence. I'm not holding my breath, but we can hope.

[barb162]

14. You and me both are hoping. Hamas is now at a crossroads

:hi:

[Colorado Blue]

32. Amen to that. Right now, hope is about all we've got, hope

and the prayer that people will, in spite of everything, reach out to one another and try to create instead of destroy.

[Yupster]

85. Saudi Arabia and Iran

can pick up the funding. That's my guess.

[JerseygirlCT]

95. I know. And I fear that, honestly.

I wonder whether we'd finally start behaving differently toward the Saudis in that case. Probably not.

I think, though, that it may come down to put up or shut up time for Hamas. Hard to care for a people and be reactionary terrorists at the same time, you know? Which do you focus on, hospitals or guns? They're no longer the firebrand outsiders, they are the man, so to speak. I guess we'll see what they choose to do with that.

May they see the light and choose good for their own people and the entire world.

[Yupster]

102. My guess is this will lead o simmering confrontation with Israel

that Israel will win, Hamas will be seen as a paper tiger and will lose the support of the Palestinian people. It may take 2-3 years of pain though, and then what?

[JerseygirlCT]

103. I don't suppose there is any way out of that situation

without years of pain. It's all so sad.

[truth2power]

64. You're correct. It's their democratic right to vote for who they want..

Maybe they feel Hamas will protect them, I don't know.

I saw a picture of the wall (again) the other day. Then I heard some pundit on TV describing it as a "fence". When someone resorts to euphemisms, it reduces their credibility, IMO.

I have a "fence". It's 4 feet tall and you can see through it. This isn't a fence.

[cantstandbush]

83. Well, I guess the US and Israel have infiltrated Fatah so that turmoil

will be kept alive and the killings can be blamed on Hamas. The one thing neither the US or Israel wants is a strong, peaceful alliance of Hamas and Fatah.

[LetsGoMurphys]

101. Seems like the only move to make..n/t

[HuffleClaw]

2. what happened to all that talk of DEMOCRACY in action?

i guess its only good when those bush personally approves of wins? this is highly offensive and exactly the wrong sort of message to be sending while at the same time demanding hamas change. i'd call it extortion, to say the least.

[hack89]

3. I don't see what the issue is..

Hamas merely needs to recognize Israel's right to exist and the issue should resolve itself.

[barb162]

6. You saw democracy in action on 1/25...it worked

If they decided to vote the KKK in, would you withhold US tax dollars?

[Burning Water]

8. Why is it extortion?

Seems more like capitalism in action to me.

[barb162]

10. It isn't extortion. It's common sense.

[saigon68]

54. YIKES

LOOKS LIKE TH GUY IN THE CHAIR IS STILL ALIVE

[bluestateguy]

4. What a little crybaby

where are all of the celebrations from neo-con America about democracy flourishing in the Middle East? Where are the purple fingers? The Palestinians had a legitimate election, and we shouldn't cut aid to them before the new party has had a chance to govern just because we don't like the results. That's like a little boy on t he playground picking up his marbles and walking away because the game isn't going his way anymore.

[Bush_MUST_Go]

11. It's ridiculous to think Bush would support Hamas ....

If Osama won an election by democratic election, would we expect Bush to suddenly stop calling him a terrorist?

Bush is now in a no win situation.

And worse for America, this corrupt bush administration can't negotiate worth a damn.

First Iran & now Hamas.

How long before the whole region is beyond the breaking point?

Has bush touched anything that didn't blow up in his face?

[barb162]

13. I hate to do this, I really do, but here goes

Think back all the way to Reagan and the Lebanese US marine barracks that were blown up, killing about 200 marines. USS Cole attack. The Nigerian US embassy bombing. First World Trade Center attacks in the early 90s. Bush inherited something that really blew up in his face and until it blew up in his face he wasn't paying any attention to it.

Bush can in fact play his cards right here. If Hamas renounces terrorism and recognizes Isreal, they get their money from EU and the US to operate their government and pay their 135,000 civil servants. Abbas was running around the last few weeks going to Turkey and other countries looking for handouts. He didn't come up with what he needed. If they can't or won't renounce terror, then we don't want to give them a red cent. We should not be financing terrorism.

[StrafingMoose]

26. That's not gonna happen unfortunately...

"If Hamas renounces terrorism and recognizes Isreal"

Hamas being a creation of Israel, it was meant to hate Israel. It won't recognize Israel IMO. No matter how corrupted the PLO or Fatah are, a more nationalistic and secular cause is better than an extremist religious cause, which will only isolate Palestinians further. Hmm, I wonder who benefits from a total failure of an eventual Palestinian state... :eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

27. "Hamas being a creation of Israel"

Sorry, but that is not correct.

[StrafingMoose]

56. Then you must be right I guess.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. I am.

Hamas was a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was funded early on by Israel because it was a charity and was seen as a foil to the PLO. Then, again, you can believe what ever you like, but you are not entitled to your own facts. BTW, see post #51.

[Scurrilous]

51. Israel gave major to aid to Hamas - UPI

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/2002-May/003363.html

<snip>

"Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to
several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the
late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a
period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a
counterbalance to the PLO," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the
Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute
support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious
alternative," said a former senior CIA official."

[High Plains]

86. Har-de-har-har

That sure came back and bit 'em in the ass. Good thing our government has been too smart to fund Islamic religious fanatics for short-term gain--oh, never mind.

[DemonFighterLives]

118. I just picked up on that too

It is the meddling in other countries affairs that always comes back to bite in the ass.

My first post in I/P - forbidden zone. This thread was banished from GD.
:9

[Violet_Crumble]

119. Why not?

We should not be financing terrorism.

The US has a long track record of financing terrorism when it's right-wing regimes intent on wiping out democracy. Why change now?

Violet...

[JCMach1]

15. And Fateh was NEVER involved in terrorist activities then?

hmmmmmmm

[barb162]

16. Sure , Al Aksa MB arm of Fatah. But the leadership always said

they condemned the criminal acts, blah, blah, blah and then never did a damn thing about it, except maybe locking them up for a half hour until the cameramen left. But Abbas didn't openly on the world stage call for the destruction of another country, which is a big diff from Hamas.

[Colorado Blue]

33. Yes, they were the political arm of the PLO. BUT - they had

recognized Israel and were theoretically at least, working to create a state to coexist with Israel, not to destroy her.

The problem is twofold with Fatah: they apparently were very corrupt, and were unable or unwilling to control the other militants.

Now Abbas might try to bring Hamas into the PLO fold, so they can talk to Israel that way. But I don't know if that will work. At least, he could be a moderating influence.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

22. maybe use a [sub] with brackets before the pResident's name-then a [/sub]

or something-
_shrub is a good one or idiot_son
but that awful name _bushlooks much better as a _sub when you use it more than a few times in one post.
that family "name" doesn't deserve such publicity of repitition!!

[Colorado Blue]

37. This started long before Bush. Just in the '70's and '80's,

before the invasion of Kuwait and the two Gulf Wars, we had:

The Yom Kippur War (sneak attack on Israel)

Lebanese Civil War

Black September in Lebanon (PLO tries to kill King Hussein)

Iran/Iraq war, kills 1,000,000 people

Soviet/Afghan war - resulting in the empowerment of the mujeheddin, including Bin Ladin; ultimately the Soviet Union falls and Afghanistan is virtually destroyed

This isn't including all the internecine warfare, attacks on the Kurds, assassinations, terrorism, etc etc and so forth.

This doesn't mean Bush has exactly helped the situation (understatement department.)

[wordpix2]

80. the point isn't cutting aid to Hamas b/c they're not our type. The point:

if they want to destroy Israel, as they've said in the past and it's in their charter, U.S. will not support this group.

Doesn't that make sense?

(God, I can't believe I'm agreeing with * on something)

[bemildred]

17. You have to wonder what part of "F**K You" Bush doesn't get.

Because the Palestinians just told him in the clearest possible way to shove his "aid" up his ass.

[Colorado Blue]

36. Fine, then we should listen to them.

Except for one thing: people really are poor, thanks to all this B.S. violence; their economy sucks, and much as I really detest the results of this election I am not ready to give up on the people or their dreams - as long as they don't involve the destruction of their neighbor.

But, if they don't want our money that's ok too. We can help the other poor people of the region. Surely there are people there who would rather create than destroy and who would reach out for an olive branch.

[bemildred]

55. The money hasn't done a thing for them, so far.

All that corruption has just fed on the bribes aid.
They are not giving up anything.

One of Hamas' stated goals is economic autonomy, so there is
no reason in the first place to think that Hamas will want
money from the US.

[rfkrfk]

19. this bribe money is not helpful to the ordinary person in the street

and should be stopped.

the Palis' need to run their own affairs

[barb162]

23. I agree

[leesa]

24. I want aid cut to Israel until it renounces violence. It's MY damned money

[Colorado Blue]

38. I think the Israelis would love to renounce violence. Maybe

when people stop trying to wipe them off the map, they'll be able to relax.

Meanwhile, they continue to confront existential threats.

Even as it is, an Israeli newspaper poll taken just today, indicated a majority would be willing to talk even with Hamas, which has vowed to destroy them.

Why don't you look a little more closely at the Israeli people, you might see human beings who've wanted nothing but peace for 2,000 years.

[Zhade]

49. What the hell is an "existential threat"?

Are you condoning the concept of preventative warfare here?

[manic expression]

106. Please

Israel has been wiping Palestine off the map for 50+ years. People fighting against Israel's oppression and injustice do so because that is what anyone faced with such wrongdoing and atrocity would do.

Face it: Israel IS the threat. Israel has been acting with aggression in the region. Israel has wanted nothing but more land and domination, at the expense of human beings, that is.

[ckramer]

25. "If I don't like you, democracy can go to hell!"

"You know ***** about democracy! It's not what you think!"

"Democracy means D - depends who you are!"

"I hate people take advantage of democracy!"

"Democracy should elect the right leader!"

"Democracy stinks!"



And what is democracy?????

[ConcernedCanuk]

30. "And what is democracy?????" - interesting question

.
.
.

Democracy simply puts means that the majority (voters mostly) rule

So if the majority is stupid and warlike . . . .

[High Plains]

87. You get a country like the US?

[ConcernedCanuk]

90. 'Zactly my point - thank you

.
.
.

[truthInCO]

34. I know what it isn't.

That doesn't fly, even democratically elected terrorists are still terrorists. You forget that the nazi party came to power by popular election and had strikingly similar goals. Hamas must renounce terrorism and recognize Israels right to exist or they will be starved and isolated by the rest of the world as they should be.

[Zhade]

50. The Palestinians didn't vote for Hamas to support violence.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/01/27/hamas/

Frustrated, the Palestinian public predictably swung to the far right. Their embrace of Hamas does not indicate that most Palestinians are dedicated to destroying Israel; polls show that most support a two-state solution and are weary of the endless violence. Rather, they are sick of the Palestinian Authority and believe that Hamas will be more effective negotiating partners with the Israelis. As a Saudi political talk show host told the Associated Press, "They will be the Arab Sharon. They will be tough, but only a tough group can snatch concessions from Israel."

Juan Cole (Professor of History, University of Michigan, has testified before the Senate) is very, very good on this kind of analysis. I encourage you to check out his blog.

[Colorado Blue]

35. All democracy means is "rule of the people". It doesn't mean

good government.

Theoretically, if there are opposing points of view, they moderate each other.

However, Hitler was democratically elected.

That doesn't mean we have to enjoy seeing Hitler elected and nor do we have to support him.

[Art_from_Ark]

91. Hitler was not democratically elected

In fact, in 1932 he lost two presidential elections to Paul von Hindenberg (the second one was a run-off election). Hitler never got more than 37% of the vote as a candidate. And the Nazi party never won more than 37% of the vote in parliamentary elections that same year. But it was still more than any other party, so Hitler demanded that Hindenberg appoint him as chancellor. At first, Hindenberg rejected Hitler's demand, but the Nazis ratcheted up the pressure so that eventually Hindenberg gave in and appointed Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

[Spinoza]

100. Hitler got into power

through the legally constituted DEMOCRATIC election process as it existed at the time in Weimar Germany.

[Art_from_Ark]

107. That does not mean he was democratically elected

He was *appointed* chancellor by President Hindenberg, after his Nazi Party wreaked havoc in the country because they couldn't get their way through the democratic process. He was never elected by the German people to be their chancellor.

[Yupster]

108. Germany had a parliamentary system

befre World War II and Hitler was selected just like every other German leader of the time.

In England the Queen asks a leader of a party to attempt to form a government. In Germany it was the president who did the asking.

President Hindenburg had little choie in the matter.

Once the NSDAP and the Communists together controlled over half the seats in the Reichstag, a government could not be formed without including one or the other.

Hindenburg decided the Nazis were less of a threat than the communists, so he asked Hitler to attempt to form a government which he did by including members of smaller center parties in his cabinet.

That's how parliamentary systems work. You often have minority parties forming coalitions to get a government formed. Hitler's party was actually very large for that period of German history. There had been Chancellors before him who formed a government though their parties had 10 % or fewer of the Reichstag seats.

This was because Hindenburg tried his very best to not ask the Nazis or Communists. Even if it meant aksing a party with 8 % to form a government with ten other small parties to reach 51 % of the seats. But once Hitler and the communists got over 51 % of the seats between them that game was up and Hindenburg had to make his choice.

[Art_from_Ark]

117. Even in Parliamentary democracies, the leader is at least elected

from a riding, or district, and s/he is a member of the Parliament. Hitler was not a member of Parliament. He ran against Paul von Hindenberg for the position of President, and he lost-- twice. The German people never elected him to be their leader. He was appointed.

[varkam]

39. Bush says no aid for Palestinians if next govt keeps its no-Israel policy

AP
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/January/middleeast_January772.xml§ion=middleeast&col=
4 Hours ago

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush says the United States would cut off aid to the next Palestinian government unless election winner Hamas abolishes the militant arm of its party and stops demanding the destruction of Israel.


“And if they don’t, we won’t deal with them,” Bush said in an interview aired Friday on “The CBS Evening News.”

“The aid packages won’t go forward,” the president said. “That’s their decision to make, but we won’t be providing help to a government that wants to destroy our ally and friend.”

The United States views Hamas as a terrorist organization, and if it takes control of the Palestinian government, as appears likely, all US aid to the Palestinian people will be put under review, the Bush administration said.


/Wait, we gave aid to Palestine?

[Zhade]

40. Quite reasonable.

After all, Palestinian children deserve to suffer for how thier parents might have voted.

:sarcasm:

[Behind the Aegis]

42. Not an accurate assessment.

[Zhade]

47. Explain to me the difference, then.

I'm all ears.

[Behind the Aegis]

75. Cutting funding

Cutting funding to a known terrorist group is US law. However, there is nothing stopping the US from sending money to charities that will care for the children. Considering that the PA is broke and can't pay their people, do you honestly think that any money we sent them would actually reach the people in need? I doubt it. Look at all the money Arafat had, that Shua now enjoys at the expense of the Palestinian children.

[Zhade]

81. Wait a minute.

How is this cutting funding to a terrorist group?

The Palestinian people are not a terrorist group, and as far as I know we've never given funds to Hamas.

[Behind the Aegis]

82. Simply

US money goes to the PA, not the Palestinian people directly. Hamas, a terrorist organization, is now part of the PA, or will soon be. The US will not give them funds, unless the recognize Israel and are willing to stop terrorist actions.

So, I did not say the Palestinian people were terrorists, did I?

[Yupster]

109. Now wait a minute

You make it sound like if we don't give them our money then their children starve.

I don't get that connection at all. How did we become responsible for Palestine's children?

There are much closer countries with much more money than we have and much closer relations to the Palestinian people than we have.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are more than capable of replacing any money we stop. They will be happy to give generously to Hamas.

Hopefully the Palestinian children will benefit from all the oil money the Saudis have.

[Violet_Crumble]

115. Since when has the US been responsible for Israel's children?

All this caterwauling about US aid to Palestinians overlooks the fact that the US pumps shitloads of money into Israel, a lot of which is used to purchase weapons to oppress the Palestinians and to build settlements in the occupied territory. btw, just love the Arabs should give financial aid to other Arabs argument. We should try that one on Caucasians, maybe?

Violet...

[EFerrari]

43. If the idiot in the WH or his flunky at the State Department

had any intention of supporting peace in that region, they wouldn't be posturing in this stupidly hostile manner.

What a daily embarrassment they are.

[janx]

62. Well said.

There is a possibility for some change at this point. What a grossly hostile and stupid thing to do!

[DemonFighterLives]

52. I think it is the wrong time to pull the aid while

aid to Israel and Pakistan etc, etc goes on continuously.
Bush has done nothing to stop the endless violence there and in fact has done much to keep it rolling. Cutting aid now just shows whose side he will be standing firm on.

I can't believe people that give Israel and the US a free hand to kill as considered necessary, but when the others kill it is terrorism.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[ihelpu2see]

53. How to win friends and influence in the Middle East by

George "the Bomb" W. Bush. How is it that the republicants can frame foreign policy debate as if you don't attack, if you support diplomacy you are weak on defense, you shame our soldiers and yet their way (the PNAC way) has created more terrorists??? and more disdain of the US!!

[flyarm]

60. oh yeah..we're supporting democracy!! strike 2 *hy boy...

now the real question is..when is * bombing palestine?? you know democracy has to march on!!

fly

[barb162]

68. Looks like Fatah. Hamas may be bombing "Palestine" themselves

fairly soon, what with some of the skirmishes in the streets they have been doing

[Malikshah]

65. And that will be *such* a savings for us...

Geez...please chimpy, get over your damn parsimonious self.

[enigma000]

76. Why wouldn't he?

I'm sure the US and the Europeans won't fund a government that explicitly promotes the destruction of Israel. Is this where you want your tax dollars to go?

[Scurrilous]

84. Hamas suggests it could look for alternative sources of funding

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/675781.html

<snip>

"Hamas rejected international calls to disarm or put vital aid for the Palestinian Authority at risk on Saturday, suggesting that it could look for alternative sources of funding in the Arab world and beyond.

"This aid can not be a sword over the heads of the Palestinian people and will not be material to blackmail our people, to blackmail Hamas and the resistance," senior Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh said.

He added that Hamas was committed to keeping its arms and fighting Israel."

<snip>

"Hamas has many alternatives , there is much good within our people and we have the Arab world and we also have all those who love the oppressed peoples in the world and who stand beside us," Haniyeh said.

He made no specific suggestion as to other countries that could provide aid."

[Yupster]

88. If I were planning for Israel, this would really be pretty simple.

Squeeze the Palestinians and hope Hamas takes arms against Israel.

As soon as the first suicide bomber strikes, have an overwhelming military response ready. Knock out the power, the communications, the railroads, and bridges and bus stations and roads.

Each time a missile hits Israel, another service is knocked out of the PA.

Then see how long the Palestinian people stick with a paper tiger Hamas government that can't effectively strike Israel, can't even put up a rudimentary defense of its own land or people, and can't provide basic services.

It's cruel, but that would be my plan were I Israel's PM.

[saigon68]

93. Its definitely cruel, no doubt about it.

There are a lot of other things you could do.

Maybe you could cut off the food too.

[Yupster]

110. The purpose would not be to starve anyone

The purpose would be to show the Palestinian people that a Hamas government would be just as powerless fighting Israel as Fatah was, and whatever feeble strikes they made at Israel would cause much more misery to Palestine.

Once Hamas is shown to be a paper tiger, its support would dissappear hopefully.

I just don't see this election as bad for Israel. I think Israel's leaders are probably happy as can be.

I expect to see Israel jerk the Palestinian government around and humiliate them in front of the Palestinian people, and if they lash out at Israel, they will get hit hard enough that the Palestinian people will see their government is all talk but defenseless.

[gtar100]

104. You forgot men, women and children in your tactical strike list

Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence begets violence begets violence begets violence ...

Israel and Palestine are beyond 50 years proving this point. The answer surely isn't more of the same.

[Violet_Crumble]

116. I see. So it's acceptable and admirable to murder Palestinian civilians...

Gotcha...

[DemonFighterLives]

120. That is real helpful advice

Sure glad you won't be PM anytime soon.
Has anyone actually considered diplomacy in some fashion instead of saber rattling?

Both sides kill and have killed plenty, the world should force them to the table. IMHO.
:nuke:

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[High Plains]

98. Are you advocating genocide?

Enjoy your brief visit.

[saigon68]

112. adios

[PuraVidaDreamin]

94. It's also time to cut the TEN Million $$$$$ a day we send Isreal

Lets take care of our people and our soldiers first!

[Miss Chybil]

96. So I guess a democratically elected government doesn't really count,

again.

[Yupster]

111. They can elect anybody they want

But we don't have to give them money.

We're broke anyway.

[K-W]

99. It isnt aid money as much as it is control money.

That aid money exists partially for this very purpose. If Palestinians are dependent on US aid, they can be punished for disobeying us.

[Spinoza]

121. Good point.

The U.S. should stop giving all that "control" money to Hamas at once. So should the EU.