U.S. Congress cuts off funding to Palestine
By Big Sexxxy Joe (Sat May 27, 2006 at 08:21:05 AM EST) (all tags)
Congress has voted to cut off aid to the Palestinian people.  There's many things wrong with this.  The humanitarian crisis is first among them.  However, this is what really bothers me, and it goes for both Democrats and Republicans.

By passing this legislation they are acting like they have some sort of moral high ground over Hamas.

I think that is what I find truly troubling.

U.S. Congress cuts off funding to Palestine | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
couldn't it be more simple than that by aphrael (4.00 / 3) #1 Sat May 27, 2006 at 01:45:11 PM EST
I mean, I can imagine a syllogism along the lines of:

(a) israel is our ally.
(b) hamas wants to destroy israel.
(c) no money for hamas.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

Congratulations. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 2) #2 Sat May 27, 2006 at 02:33:00 PM EST
I've nominated you to become the next Secretary of State.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
So, let's see if I've got this. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #3 Sat May 27, 2006 at 02:39:36 PM EST
1. Hamas runs people for government in Palestine.
2. U.S. and Isreal say "we will not work with Hamas - if Hamas takes over the government we will cut off funding."
3. Palestinians elect Hamas anyway - although many of them express buyer's remorse - literally that day. "We didn't think they'd actually get elected!", they say.
4. U.S. says "we do not negotiate with terrorists. We will not work with Hamas. However, if Hamas recognizes Isreal and agrees to accept the existing peace treaties we will will overlook their terrorist past."
5. Hamas says "go piss up a rope."
But you want the United States to still just actually give the money to a group that actually makes bombs to kill civilians, women, and children.

I see.

Do you have any clue? I mean, it's not like Hamas is going to spend the money on, I don't know, actually helping Palestinians or anything.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

And why did they vote in Hamas by cam (4.00 / 2) #4 Sat May 27, 2006 at 03:06:07 PM EST
because Fatah were corrupt and werent able to provide simple public services let alone establish an economy that could bring prosperity. Terrorist groups are political anyway, it is to be expected that they will eventually move into legitimate politics.
[ Parent ]
Right. But it is not expected by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #6 Sat May 27, 2006 at 03:20:43 PM EST
that I will pay for people to attack Israel and the U.S.

If the money was going to NGOs that were actually going to help the Palestinians it would be different.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
it's not up to you by martingale (2.00 / 0) #8 Sat May 27, 2006 at 03:47:25 PM EST
It's up to your president and congress to make those decisions. You will pay for what they say.

But _if_you_were_in_power_, then your choice could be anything you wanted to.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
Sorry, you'll have to post that in English by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #12 Sat May 27, 2006 at 05:38:18 PM EST
because it makes no sense.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
second try by martingale (2.00 / 0) #15 Sat May 27, 2006 at 07:20:22 PM EST
Right. But it is not expected that I will pay for people to attack Israel and the U.S.
You will pay for whatever you are told will be done with your money.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
I'd have some sympathy for that pose if by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #20 Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:21:55 AM EST
I didn't agree with the US policy towards the Palestinians.

All the Palestinians have to do to solve all their problems is stop killing Israelis. If they weren't so insistent on that Israel wouldn't be bulldozing houses, attacking refugee camps or building walls.

Sorry, but the idea that the Israelis are responsible for the situation in Palestine is so anti-reality as to defy description.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
poppycock by martingale (2.00 / 0) #24 Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:21:53 PM EST
I wasn't trying to make a sympathetic case, just pointing out you're not in charge :)

Sorry, but the idea that the Israelis are responsible for the situation in Palestine is so anti-reality as to defy description.
And that is why you don't understand an iota of what is happening in the middle east.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
ROTFL. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #25 Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:58:12 PM EST
Yeah, I don't understand what's happening in the middle east. I don't understand that a group of misogynistic fundamentalists have used pseudo-nationalism as a pretext for pushing themselves into power, that the "westernized" elites have abetted this process by throwing money at it, and that the poor, as always are pawns in a game, lied to by their own leaders, lied to by their own teachers, suffering for a cause they do not truly understand.

The Israelis have done a lot of things wrong - settling the conquered lands not the least - but compared to men who convince others to slaughter people who have no more power or influence over the future of palestine than I do - compared to such men, Israel is a land of giants.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
indeed by martingale (2.00 / 0) #26 Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:18:38 PM EST
You parrot US propaganda like there's no tomorrow. Here's a question for you(*): if you're so smart, why haven't you fixed the middle east yet?

(*) you as in the US point of view you're pushing.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
Let's review. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #27 Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:10:11 PM EST
1. The problem with Palestine is that Palestinians keep killing Israelis in the mistaken idea that this will re-create a country that never existed.
2. You expect outsiders to solve this?
The only way for outsiders to impose a peace on the region would be to hunt down and kill every iman and political leader in the region, destroy every building and enslave and deport the entire population.

Eh. Nevermind. The romans tried that method and even that approach didn't bring permanent peace to the region.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
expectations by martingale (2.00 / 0) #28 Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:10:23 PM EST
1. The problem with Palestine is that Palestinians keep killing Israelis in the mistaken idea that this will re-create a country that never existed.
I disagree. Palestinians are a bunch of people living in an occupation zone, and making themselves heard about it. That's the problem. And it's not a problem for everyone, it's a problem mainly for their neighbours.

2. You expect outsiders to solve this?
No. Personally, I expect nothing so much as that it doesn't become a bigger problem which affects _me_. I realize it's a bit wishful.

The only way for outsiders to impose a peace on the region would be to hunt down and kill every iman and political leader in the region, destroy every building and enslave and deport the entire population.
Clearly that's coloured by your mistaken point of view 1. I could say the only way to impose peace is to deport Israelis. Or I could say disarm both the Israelis and the Palestinians and let them fight it out mano a mano in a coliseum. There are a lot of unrealistic ways of solving the problem besides your unrealistic one.

Do you want peace, or do you want to vindicate Israel? If you want to understand your own position, ask yourself what unstated aims you have. If you were a negotiator, what would be non-negotiable? Deporting Israelis: negotiable or not? Gagging extreme islamic speech: negotiable or not? Stationing UN troops in the trouble spots: negotiable or not? Clearing populated Palestinian land for protection: negotiable or not? Clearing populated Israeli land for protection: negotiable or not?

Really, would you support peace for its own sake (ie at any cost), or only peace on certain terms. And what terms are those? Who came up with those terms? Did you? If not, who else did? Newspaper commentators? Bureaucrats in Washington? Anonymous internet posters?

I know what I want (see 2 above), what do you want?

And once you know that, whose toes are you willing to see stepped on in pursuit of that goal?
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
I would not buy peace with the deaths of others by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #29 Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:06:42 PM EST
which is what you seem to want.

I will not prevent the Israelis from defending myself.

I find it interesting that you think suicide bombers are merely "making themselves heard".

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
that's good by martingale (2.00 / 0) #30 Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:30:32 PM EST
which is what you seem to want.
You'll have to point out where I said that.

I will not prevent the Israelis from defending myself.
I find it interesting that you only want to allow the Israelis to defend themselves. Subliminal choice of words?

I find it interesting that you think suicide bombers are merely "making themselves heard".
It's a euphemism. You know, like the Israelis only "defend themselves" inside Palestinian territory.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
Bah by Big Sexxxy Joe (4.00 / 1) #5 Sat May 27, 2006 at 03:19:46 PM EST
The Unitied States is a group that actually makes bombs to kill civilians, women, and children.  Furthermore, we fund Israel even though terrorists have been in power for years and we like it that way.

They not only teach people how to be terrorists but the war in Iraq literally is terrorism.

Hamas is willing to talk.  They'll recognize Israel's right to exist if Israel is willing to follow international law and give up territory gained through wars.

And stop all this Hamas, Hamas, Hamas.  It is the Palestinian authority with Hamas members in office.  Their prime minister isn't even Hamas.  It is not funding terrorism, it is funding basic services and needs.

I'm like Jesus, only better.

[ Parent ]
La, la, la. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #7 Sat May 27, 2006 at 03:26:09 PM EST
Even if I agreed with you about the US role in the world, why does the US committing terrorist acts mean it's okay for the US to fund further terrorism?

Oh, and your claim that Hamas is "willing to talk" is complete bullshit.

I don't consider telling someone you'll talk if they first surrender is "talking".

Sorry, buddy, but Israel didn't conquer the west bank and gaza because it wanted to oppress Palestinians it did it because the existing governments of those lands were using them to launch wars on Israel. I find it interesting to note that Jordon and Syria don't actually want those lands, or the people on them, back anymore.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
heh by martingale (4.00 / 1) #9 Sat May 27, 2006 at 03:50:49 PM EST
I don't consider telling someone you'll talk if they first surrender is "talking".
"We will only talk to you if you surrender your Hamas government".

The place is currently in deadlock, and playing a game of attrition. We'll see who can outlast the others before something comes to a head.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
In what way by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #11 Sat May 27, 2006 at 05:37:28 PM EST
is a promise to honor existing treaties a "surrender" of the Hamas government?

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
that is not what the question by martingale (2.00 / 0) #16 Sat May 27, 2006 at 07:22:41 PM EST
In what way is blowing up and/or imprisoning members of government not a demand for surrender of that government?
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
I have nothing to add to this debate by yankeehack (2.00 / 0) #10 Sat May 27, 2006 at 05:01:35 PM EST
except to note that I've actually walked past the SOA buildings on Ft. Benning. They're right by the Officer's Club.
"...she dares to indulge in the secret sport. You can't be a MILF with the F, at least in part because the M is predicated upon it."-CBB
[ Parent ]
Palestinian authority with Hamas members in office by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #14 Sat May 27, 2006 at 06:30:43 PM EST
I'm touch typing this right now. Can I get a community member over here to help me roll my eyes bcak into placxe?

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
step 3 by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #13 Sat May 27, 2006 at 06:23:08 PM EST
is really no different than Americans voting for the other party for a "change" because it's the only other option despite everyone knowing it won't be any different. The difference is we can be smug about not "killing babies" because we don't have to live in 3rd world "survival of the fittest" hell holes.
[ Parent ]
arafat was a former terrorist. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #18 Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:44:49 AM EST
what did he do that made it ok to deal with him?

[ Parent ]
Last time I checked by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #19 Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:14:23 AM EST
it became okay when he signed the Camp David accords and renounced terrorism.

While the Israelis never believed he really abandoned terrorism, his political organization at least kept the bombers at one level of remove.

In any case, you're assuming I approved of give money to Arafat and his crew - I did not because, as others have mentioned, all they did with that money was line their own pockets.

Arafat is hardly a compelling argument for resuming aid now.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
you're assuming by garlic (2.00 / 0) #21 Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:02:31 AM EST
all i did was ask a question, no assumptions inherent.

[ Parent ]
that last part isn't clear. by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #22 Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:50:18 AM EST
Hamas has a fairly good record of doing things like running community hospitals, and abolishing the corruption of fatah was one of their main campaign points; they might well be more likely to spend money on improving the lives of palestinians than their predecessors were.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
I don't notice that they've had problems by Rogerborg (4.00 / 3) #17 Sat May 27, 2006 at 10:12:44 PM EST
affording AKs or Semtextm up to now.

If they really want money, they can mow some lawns like regular hard working brown folks.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

Is 'Semtex' really trademarked? by chuckles (4.00 / 1) #23 Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:53:43 AM EST
As the product of a commie nation, I figured it would be all "open sores" and whatnot.

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
[ Parent ]
Open sores? by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #31 Mon May 29, 2006 at 01:58:09 AM EST
Sounds more like white phosphorous, the choice of Freedom Loving Nations.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
U.S. Congress cuts off funding to Palestine | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback