The New York Times reported Feb. 14 what is plan to bring down democratically elected gooverment of Palestine:
" The United States and Israel are working on ways to destabilize the Hamas-led Palestinian government, the New York Times reported Feb. 14 (2006). The Plan is said to center largely on money and Mahmoud Abba playing his part.
The Palestinian Authority payroll amouts to $100 mil per month. Israel will withhold its regular $50 -55 mil a month in collected revenues and place the money in escrow, creating a large cash deficit. The US gov and Europe will follow suit... This strategy is intende to starve the new democratically PA gov of money for basics, such as food and medicines, andy deny it international connections. Mahmoud Abbas will be compelled by the Palestinian people, who will be unhappy and dissaponted in its expectation of a better life, to dissolve the new legislature and call a new election. The electorate will then return his Fatah to power"
Israel is supplying ammunition to the Force 17 guards charged with protecting Abbas. An Israeli gov official justified supply to an anti-Israel group ( Israel labeled a terrorist group), because they want to strengten head of Fattah. Israel Prime Minister said it was meant to " bolster security forces loyal to Abbas"
Firstly the EU and European countries are not repeat NOT denying Palestine medicine and food thats a damn lie and you know it Malcolm, the EU and Euro countries is giving the Hama led government food, medicine, water purification gear general humanitarian goods they just are not giving them money. So they still get aid it's just not in cash form Hamas wants the money it knows exactly what it has to do.
As for Abbas well look at the facts Palestine is in a worse state than it was pre Hamas so you could consider Abbas a patriot in the sense that he knows what needs done for the benefit of Palestine and it's people.
Also ask yourse;f why would Abbas needs guards is it because he is becoming a thorn in the side of Hamas and people are starting to come round to his point of view, Hamas don't like people like that assanations in Lebanon have proven that.
lodgebo said this in post #2 : Firstly the EU and European countries are not repeat NOT denying Palestine medicine and food thats a damn lie and you know it Malcolm, the EU and Euro countries is giving the Hama led government food, medicine, water purification gear general humanitarian goods they just are not giving them money. So they still get aid it's just not in cash form Hamas wants the money it knows exactly what it has to do.
As for Abbas well look at the facts Palestine is in a worse state than it was pre Hamas so you could consider Abbas a patriot in the sense that he knows what needs done for the benefit of Palestine and it's people.
Also ask yourse;f why would Abbas needs guards is it because he is becoming a thorn in the side of Hamas and people are starting to come round to his point of view, Hamas don't like people like that assanations in Lebanon have proven that.
I only know what I am allowed to read. Are you saying the NY Times made up this information?
Hamas was elected by people in a democratic election that involved Abbas. Only until Isreal/US wouldn''t would't accep the Palestinian people's choice is when the chaos begin.
Well the the NY times made up this info, look up the middle east on the EU, UK, US or UN website and you will see that while funding has stopped the aid has not.
The peroblem here is that Hamas will not publicly come out and say it accepts Israel as a state if it does that then the problems will start to ease because the first major hurdle will be overcome obviulst the next big one is the leagit Hamas pulling in the miltant factor. The thing is Hamas will do neither so water purifications is not up to standard people have no power the sick only get basic medicine because the hospitals have to ask for specofoc aid to be delivred and Hamas just does nothing. It reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
What should cath your eye in the whole situatin is that the UK and EU are being tough on Hamas and that is a telling sign because traditionally we are more sympathetic to the Palestine cause ( sadly we cant afford to arm them or give them preferentially trade right and guarnteed immunity from international law like a certain country gives to Israel) and the fact athat we are getting tough tells us that we belive that ceratin poitions that Hamas takes are unacceptable in civlised societies.
lodgebo said this in post #4 : the fact athat we are getting tough tells us that we belive that ceratin poitions that Hamas takes are unacceptable in civlised societies.
My problem with this way of doing things is that we hope it will somehow turn the majority of Palestinians against Hamas and therefore they will get voted out. But chances are it won't work. Also a lot of people in the Middle East have listened to Western politicians like Bush and Blair extol the virtues of democracy - so much so apparently that they must start wars to achieve such lofty goals - and how democracy is the way to a better future, and then they see what happens to a democracy we don't care for and what we do to demcracies we don't like - destroy them. What other lessons can the Palestinians and people in the region take from how we're dealing with Hamas?
Well nobody is trying to destroy the Hamas government except for Hamas themselves. The Palestinians are not being denied anything that is deemed essential.
How do you propose we deal with Hamas when the leadership in Palestine continaully refuse to recognise Israel, refuse to reel in the militant Hamas factions and refuse to deal with other militant factions in the Palestine areas. If Hamas act like a responsibile civlised government then maybe just maybe the West and it is the western world ( try and see past Bush and Blair for one post) might treat them with a little more respect.
lodgebo said this in post #6 :
Well nobody is trying to destroy the Hamas government except for Hamas themselves. The Palestinians are not being denied anything that is deemed essential.
Much of the problems in the Palestinian territories is to do with poverty, which pushes young men into the arms of militants. Withholding funds is not helping the situation, and will just add to the problems. I see no other reason for doing it other than to punish the Palestinian people and teach them a lesson - don't vote Hamas, and therefore our aim is to politically destroy Hamas by withholding funds. An added bonus, for Israel and the US, of withholding funds is the infighting it was bound to cause between groups, but how this solves anything is anyone's guess and could eventually lead to a worse situation in the occupied territories, and a worse groups than Hamas rising to the top.
quote:
How do you propose we deal with Hamas when the leadership in Palestine continaully refuse to recognise Israel, refuse to reel in the militant Hamas factions and refuse to deal with other militant factions in the Palestine areas. If Hamas act like a responsibile civlised government then maybe just maybe the West and it is the western world ( try and see past Bush and Blair for one post) might treat them with a little more respect.
Hamas offered a 10 year ceasefire just a few months ago. Iran offered to recognise Israel and stop support for militant groups a couple of years ago. Both offers were ignored by Israel and the US. So this policy of ignoring the other side is a two way street. Someone must take another step in the right direction and the other side must listen.
h@ts wrote
Much of the problems in the Palestinian territories is to do with poverty, which pushes young men into the arms of militants. Withholding funds is not helping the situation, and will just add to the problems.
For once I think we agree on something but for two different reasons. First, poverty is a great apparatus to recruit people to do despicable things that those who aren’t poor and well educated would never do.
That being said, this is exactly why those who will never accept Israel will keep Palestinians in such dire straights to keep them at the forefront while simultaneously blaming Israel for it. Palestinians aren’t treated with respect in their neighboring communities then they point the finger at Israel for mistreatment. Funding supplied from the very states making the most noise go to fund militancy not relief efforts because their true goal is to never accept any solution but obliteration.
quote:
I see no other reason for doing it other than to punish the Palestinian people and teach them a lesson - don't vote Hamas, and therefore our aim is to politically destroy Hamas by withholding funds. An added bonus, for Israel and the US, of withholding funds is the infighting
Since you see no other reason maybe I can shed some light. The US, Israel and the EU didn’t automatically withhold funding to Hamas, they were offered a choice to recognize Israel and honor the agreements made by their predecessors. The progress made before their incumbency was historic. Hamas in turn rejected it and set that progress back light years. How anyone can expect the West to support them in any form?
Furthermore, history has shown that Palestinian militants would rather fight amongst themselves than to recognize Israel. This has nothing to do with withholding funds and more to do with refusal of any efforts toward lasting peace.
quote:
Hamas offered a 10 year ceasefire just a few months ago. Iran offered to recognise Israel and stop support for militant groups a couple of years ago. Both offers were ignored by Israel and the US. So this policy of ignoring the other side is a two way street.
No one but those who blindly support Palestinians believe that this was viable to “accept a 10 year truce” over the progress already set forth by the Palestinian’s previous administration. Since you believe Hamas didn’t have to honor it because they didn’t make the agreement, then likewise, Israel doesn’t have to honor any agreements to pay collected revenues to Hamas. Similarly, the US and EU can follow suit.
The withholding of funds wasn’t done to subvert the Palestinian choice it was done to force Hamas to accept preceding negotiated agreements made by the Palestinian government. It was Hamas’ refusal to accept Israel and these agreements that triggered the withholding of funds, not the election of Hamas to government. This is something that seems to conveniently get lost in the fray from those seeking to blame yet again the West for the chaos in Palestine.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
oneofpeace said this in post #8 Since you see no other reason maybe I can shed some light. The US, Israel and the EU didn’t automatically withhold funding to Hamas, they were offered a choice to recognize Israel and honor the agreements made by their predecessors. The progress made before their incumbency was historic. Hamas in turn rejected it and set that progress back light years. How anyone can expect the West to support them in any form?
Both the Hamas government and the Israeli government were offered choices, a 10 year truce, and recognition of statehood (something the Palestinians have never had). Both sides choose to ignore or refuse to accept these offers/demands. Stalemate. The US did not stop its billion dollar funding of Israel when it refused Hamas' offer.
Hamas is urging Britain to back its proposal for a ceasefire of up to 10 years as a way of breaking the impasse over its refusal to recognise the state of Israel.
"We hope the Europeans will become aware of the concept of hudna [truce] and that it can become a substitute for recognition of Israel," said Mr Yousef.
"Debate about a political nation's right to exist seems infantile. Israel is a state now, it is part of the UN, it is de facto there, and we deal with it every day."
quote:
No one but those who blindly support Palestinians believe that this was viable to “accept a 10 year truce” over the progress already set forth by the Palestinian’s previous administration.
If this is true then so is the truth that it is not viable to expect Hamas to come out and proclaim they recognise the state of Israel. There is no support for the policy amongst a majority of Palestinians so unless someone can think of a way round this empasse we have stalemate.
quote:
Since you believe Hamas didn’t have to honor it because they didn’t make the agreement, then likewise, Israel doesn’t have to honor any agreements to pay collected revenues to Hamas. Similarly, the US and EU can follow suit.
It's clear from this statement who is bargaining from a position of strength and power, another stumbling block which always leads to stalemate.
quote:
The withholding of funds wasn’t done to subvert the Palestinian choice it was done to force Hamas to accept preceding negotiated agreements made by the Palestinian government.
And it didn't work. Not surprisingly what it caused is the in-fighting and violence we see today in the Palestinian territores. This policy of squeezing an already oppressed people was the very same policy that several years ago brought Hamas to power and popularity.
quote:
It was Hamas’ refusal to accept Israel and these agreements that triggered the withholding of funds, not the election of Hamas to government. This is something that seems to conveniently get lost in the fray from those seeking to blame yet again the West for the chaos in Palestine.
The demand to recognise the state of Israel was NEVER going to be accepted by Hamas. Is the same true of Israel adn the US's refusal to accept the truce that Hamas offered? Of course it was - stalemate.
h@ts wrote
Both the Hamas government and the Israeli government were offered choice….
…). Both sides choose to ignore or refuse to accept these offers/demands. Stalemate..
This is not the case. The agreements were predicated on the “Roadmap To Peace” plan initiated by the Bush Administration. Abbas already made concessions as well as Israel. Once Hamas was elected, they decided not to honor any of it. This is the reason why funding stopped.
The question you should ask yourself is this. What was the denominator that had changed to derail the progress? If you’re honest, you will see it is Hamas in this case, not Israel. Palestine has descended into chaos since their election and it is no one’s fault but their own (Hamas).
quote:
Stalemate. The US did not stop its billion dollar funding of Israel when it refused Hamas' offer.
How many times have the Palestinians refuse to recognized Israel and we kept funding them?
Again, you fail to acknowledge that there was an agreement in place which both sides accepted. Hamas was elected and reneged on those agreements made by their predecessors. If Omert decided not to honor agreements Sharon made with the Palestinians and renewed violence, Arabs everywhere would be pointing the finger at Israel for the breakdown.
quote:
If this is true then so is the truth that it is not viable to expect Hamas to come out and proclaim they recognise the state of Israel. There is no support for the policy amongst a majority of Palestinians so unless someone can think of a way round this empasse we have stalemate.
Then if this is the case, why get angry when the West stops funding them?
Facts are these. Abass was making headway with what has been seen as an impass for decades. Hamas came along and with them comes confusion. Now if the Palestinians believe that we should fund Hamas while they send in suicide bombers into Israel, then they are living in a fantasy.
quote:
And it didn't work. Not surprisingly what it caused is the in-fighting and violence we see today in the Palestinian territores,
This is untrue. Abass said it as well as Arafat many times that if they cracked down on militants like Hamas in their territories, it will result in civil war. Why? Because they would rather kill each other than to stop killing Israelis or recognize Israel. To blame the US and Israel for this is disingenuous.
As far as it not working, the deal was to recognize Israel or stop receiving aid from the West. This is what Hamas chose so funding stopped. Quite frankly, they are too stubborn and would rather watch their people suffer than to simply move forward in progress.
quote:
The demand to recognise the state of Israel was NEVER going to be accepted by Hamas. Is the same true of Israel adn the US's refusal to accept the truce that Hamas offered?
What’s funny here is how you insist that the US deal with Hamas when they won’t even recognize their neighboring state. It’s time to move forward. If the Palestinians wanted to recognize Israel and Israel didn’t want to recognize Palestinians but wanted a truce after they negotiated a deal to recognize Palestine, then Israel would be at fault.
Quite frankly I think it takes gull to think that everyone is suppose to regress on years of hammered out progress because the other side decides to change the rules. It’s indicative of the chaos that resides within Palestine today.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
oneofpeace said this in post #10 : Quite frankly, they are too stubborn and would rather watch their people suffer than to simply move forward in progress.
Israel and the US ignored the 10 year truce Hamas offered (read the Guardain article and what the truce meant in relation to the stateless Palestinians and the state of Israel) and then come back and keep on telling me there is only one side in this conflict who is stubborn.
h@ts wrote
Israel and the US ignored the 10 year truce Hamas offered (read the Guardain article and what the truce meant in relation to the stateless Palestinians and the state of Israel) and then come back and keep on telling me there is only one side in this conflict who is stubborn.
The problem is Hamas period. I don’t know how else to explain it. You seem to believe that because Hamas offered a “truce” in place of years of hammered out progress that the US and Israel should have simply accepted it.
The Hamas website says it all. Given their stance a truce is completely unacceptable and is a step backward in the process. What they need to do is recognize their neighbor and vice versa. However if Hamas only wants a truce, then that could have been arranged. All you get is a cease fire and there’s your truce. You don’t however get to operate “business as usual” and you don’t get to use West funds to support your suicide bombing campaigns. Since Hamas changed the rules, the rules changes. They can’t have their cake and eat it.
I also asked you a question h@ts. If Sharon negotiated the return of the WB and Gaza, then Omert was elected, threw that out and wanted to negotiate a “truce” instead, what do you think the Palestinians and their supports would be saying, that the Palestinians are stubborn for not accepting the truce?
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
oneofpeace said this in post #12 :The problem is Hamas period.
Nonsense. To you and Israel the only problem is Hamas. Obviously millions of Palestinians who democratically elected Hamas disagree. Period.
quote:
I don’t know how else to explain it. You seem to believe that because Hamas offered a “truce” in place of years of hammered out progress that the US and Israel should have simply accepted it.
Not only do the US and Israel not have to accept it, they did not accept it. Stalemate.
quote:
Given their stance a truce is completely unacceptable and is a step backward in the process.
Likewise Israel's insistence that Hamas officially recognise the state of Israel is unacceptable. Both sides should stop asking for things they know are unacceptable. Who's going to budge?
quote:
What they need to do is recognize their neighbor and vice versa.
What the Palestinians need is a free state they control, not a ghetto prison, which has done nothing but produce generations of young militant Palestinians.
quote:
However if Hamas only wants a truce, then that could have been arranged.
Israel will not accept a truce, because accepting anything from Hamas would mean recognising them as the democratically elected party of the Palestinian people. Does this refusal to recognise the other side ring any bells?
quote:
I also asked you a question h@ts. If Sharon negotiated the return of the WB and Gaza, then Omert was elected, threw that out and wanted to negotiate a “truce” instead, what do you think the Palestinians and their supports would be saying, that the Palestinians are stubborn for not accepting the truce?
Since when did elected parties not have there own manifesto and ways of governing?
Since Hamas was elected things have changed on both sides. Two things: the US is funding and arming forces of the Fatah party, which has obviously worsened the infighting in the occupied territories, and there is a crisis over funds, again worsening the infighting. So things have changed.
The problem is Hamas period. I don’t know how else to explain it. You seem to believe that because Hamas offered a “truce” in place of years of hammered out progress that the US and Israel should have simply accepted it.
The Hamas website says it all. Given their stance a truce is completely unacceptable and is a step backward in the process. What they need to do is recognize their neighbor and vice versa. However if Hamas only wants a truce, then that could have been arranged. All you get is a cease fire and there’s your truce. You don’t however get to operate “business as usual” and you don’t get to use West funds to support your suicide bombing campaigns. Since Hamas changed the rules, the rules changes. They can’t have their cake and eat it.
Or maybe its something Isreal has done that prevents Palestinians from recognizing them
I also asked you a question h@ts. If Sharon negotiated the return of the WB and Gaza, then Omert was elected, threw that out and wanted to negotiate a “truce” instead, what do you think the Palestinians and their supports would be saying, that the Palestinians are stubborn for not accepting the truce?
Israel and the US ignored the 10 year truce Hamas offered (read the Guardain article and what the truce meant in relation to the stateless Palestinians and the state of Israel) and then come back and keep on telling me there is only one side in this conflict who is stubborn.
It has become impossible to be sympathetic to Palestinians without being critcize or called an anti-semite. This is point President Carter is trying to make.
" The things a Palestinian has to endure, simply coming to work in the morning, is a long continuous nightmare that includes humiliation bordering on despair" - Ami Ayalon, former head of an Isreali intelligence agency
01-13-2007 10:30 PM
