For those who still want to pretend the Palestinian Authority doesn't fund terrorism

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-official-rejects-insane-us-demand-to-stop-paying-terrorists/

And the amount involved is about $300M/year

http://jcpa.org/paying-salaries-terrorists-contradicts-palestinian-vows-peaceful-intentions/

 

[Arctish]

The headline says:

PA official rejects ‘insane’ demand to stop paying terrorists

The sub-headline says:

Abbas aide says request to ‘resolve’ policy of issuing stipends to attackers’ families akin to ‘asking Israel to stop paying its soldiers’

And the first paragraph says:

A senior Palestinian Authority official has rejected the “insane” demand that it end its policy of providing social welfare payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists jailed for carrying out attacks against Israelis.

So which is it, payments to terrorists or welfare checks to their families?

Ah, I see my question has been answered in the next paragraph:

He told the radio station that the Palestinian prisoners were victims of Israel’s control over the West Bank.

“It’s absurd to request that we stop paying the families of prisoners,” he said. “That would be like asking Israel to stop paying its soldiers.”

And then later the article says this:

Some 6,500 Palestinians are currently detained by Israel for a range of terror offenses and crimes. Around 500 are being held under Israel’s system of administrative detention, which allows for imprisonment without charge.

I think someone is conflating 'prisoner' with 'terrorist', but I'm not sure who's doing it. If these are payments that enrich terrorists, then there's a good case to be made for stopping them. But if these are welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians including people who haven't even been charged with a crime, well then why shouldn't the families receive welfare checks?

Do the Israelis give money to the families of their captured soldiers? I'm pretty sure they do. Should that be stopped as a condition for peace negotiations?


ETA: Interesting tidbit at the end:

Also Wednesday, Ahmad Majdalan, a senior PLO official and adviser to Abbas, told Israel Radio that in May 2014, Netanyahu’s chief negotiator Yitzchak Molcho, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and US secretary of state John Kerry signed a document allowing the Palestinians to pay salaries to prisoners’ families from the Palestinian Liberation Organization fund instead of from the Palestinian Authority treasury.

The Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday rejected the claim, calling it “another Palestinian invention, which never happened, which was intended to distract from the discussion of the demand to stop the Palestinian Authority funding terrorists.”

I wonder who's telling the truth. It certainly sounds like the sort of deal Kerry would have negotiated.

 

[untermensche]

Israel has been engaged in massive oppression for decades. This includes things like kidnapping, murder, and torture. The murder of children.

For decades.

When you oppress other humans for decades there are consequences.

Which of course the oppressor never wants to pay.

And of course use as an excuse to increase the oppression.

Israel is a massive gaping and rotting wound on the planet. It's oppression is a primitive madness. Based on religious delusions.

And those that defend it are scum.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The religion factor turns this from a very difficult situation to an impossible one.

 

[Derec]

So which is it, payments to terrorists or welfare checks to their families?

Why can't it be both? PA rewards terrorism by giving extra money to families of terrorists, both dead and captured.

“It’s absurd to request that we stop paying the families of prisoners,” he said. “That would be like asking Israel to stop paying its soldiers.”

PA views these terrorists as "soldiers". That should tell you all you need to know about how committed to peace PA is.

I think someone is conflating 'prisoner' with 'terrorist', but I'm not sure who's doing it.

Certainly the security prisoners are terrorists. Palestinians who commit regular crimes in Palestinian areas would be jailed by the PA, not Israel. And Palestinians who commit not terrorism-related crimes in Israel proper are not going to be that common.

If these are payments that enrich terrorists, then there's a good case to be made for stopping them. But if these are welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians including people who haven't even been charged with a crime, well then why shouldn't the families receive welfare checks?

Because it encourages terrorism.

Do the Israelis give money to the families of their captured soldiers? I'm pretty sure they do. Should that be stopped as a condition for peace negotiations?

You can't compare soldiers to terrorists. Or, if you do, then you admit PA employs terrorists as "soldiers".

I wonder who's telling the truth. It certainly sounds like the sort of deal Kerry would have negotiated.

Unfortunately you are right about that.

 

[Derec]

Israel has been engaged in massive oppression for decades. This includes things like kidnapping, murder, and torture.

Bullshit!

The murder of children.

You mean like when they shoot 16 year olds who attack them with a knife?
Israeli police kill Palestinian girl who tried to attack them in Jerusalem: police

Israel is a massive gaping and rotting wound on the planet.

You would get along well with Hitler and his Grand Mufti buddy.

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit!

No it is true.

For decades Israel has engaged in brutal oppression of millions.

It has kidnapped. It has tortured. It has murdered. Many children. It has denied economic opportunity and forced millions to live in poverty.

Your defense merely shows your lack of any moral compass.

You are a defender of oppression.

The lowest scum there could be.

 

[fromderinside]

We're watching the slow elimination of two peoples who act like the insane German leadership and lazy insane German citizens in WWII. Neither population thinks their leaders are acting wrongly so both leaderships go on doing the same things. Unless citizens take off their "they're doing it to us blinders" and put on good world citizen armor both sides will soon be part of the extremist' dung heap. So I'm sending money to my friends in Southern Lebanon who are sending care packages to Gaza homed Palestinians in hopes that these good deeds ultimately have damping of hate effects. Not much, but better, I think, than funding guns for either side. Oh, I have some German heritage.

 

[zorq]

Quick question: When Sherman marched to the sea, was he a soldier or a terrorist?
(Isn't it possible to be both?)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The headline says:



The sub-headline says:

Abbas aide says request to ‘resolve’ policy of issuing stipends to attackers’ families akin to ‘asking Israel to stop paying its soldiers’

And the first paragraph says:

A senior Palestinian Authority official has rejected the “insane” demand that it end its policy of providing social welfare payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists jailed for carrying out attacks against Israelis.

So which is it, payments to terrorists or welfare checks to their families?

Ah, I see my question has been answered in the next paragraph:

He told the radio station that the Palestinian prisoners were victims of Israel’s control over the West Bank.

“It’s absurd to request that we stop paying the families of prisoners,” he said. “That would be like asking Israel to stop paying its soldiers.”

And then later the article says this:

Some 6,500 Palestinians are currently detained by Israel for a range of terror offenses and crimes. Around 500 are being held under Israel’s system of administrative detention, which allows for imprisonment without charge.

I think someone is conflating 'prisoner' with 'terrorist', but I'm not sure who's doing it. If these are payments that enrich terrorists, then there's a good case to be made for stopping them. But if these are welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians including people who haven't even been charged with a crime, well then why shouldn't the families receive welfare checks?

Do the Israelis give money to the families of their captured soldiers? I'm pretty sure they do. Should that be stopped as a condition for peace negotiations?


ETA: Interesting tidbit at the end:

Also Wednesday, Ahmad Majdalan, a senior PLO official and adviser to Abbas, told Israel Radio that in May 2014, Netanyahu’s chief negotiator Yitzchak Molcho, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat and US secretary of state John Kerry signed a document allowing the Palestinians to pay salaries to prisoners’ families from the Palestinian Liberation Organization fund instead of from the Palestinian Authority treasury.

The Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday rejected the claim, calling it “another Palestinian invention, which never happened, which was intended to distract from the discussion of the demand to stop the Palestinian Authority funding terrorists.”

I wonder who's telling the truth. It certainly sounds like the sort of deal Kerry would have negotiated.

Head, meet bullet. (You messed up much worse than just shooting yourself in the foot.)

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit!

No it is true.

For decades Israel has engaged in brutal oppression of millions.

It has kidnapped. It has tortured. It has murdered. Many children. It has denied economic opportunity and forced millions to live in poverty.

Your defense merely shows your lack of any moral compass.

You are a defender of oppression.

The lowest scum there could be.

So now you have two lowest scum. Make up your mind. Unfortunately your bible isn't going to resolve this for you.

Lets look at that economic opportunity. The Palestinians used to have about the best economy of a non-oil Arab nation. Then came the second intifada and their economy was cut to a third of what it was (Although this number is questionable as it excludes their terrorism-related expenses.) That's their choices, not Israel. The real oppressor of the Palestinians is their own government (which is actually just a puppet of the Arabs.)

 

[Arctish]

Head, meet bullet. (You messed up much worse than just shooting yourself in the foot.)

Please stop making terroristic threats.

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

There's nothing controversial about the Palestinians calling their fighters soldiers, and continuing to pay them if/when they become prisoners of war.

Anyway, the issue here is money. The PLO is handing out welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians, many of whom are PLO fighters and some of whom are probably terrorists, and you don't like it. I suppose you want their children to starve.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please stop making terroristic threats.

Threat?!

Are you not familiar with the expression "foot, meet bullet"--indicating that you shot yourself in the foot with your argument.

I substituted "head" because of how totally you did it.

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

There's nothing controversial about the Palestinians calling their fighters soldiers, and continuing to pay them if/when they become prisoners of war.

Anyway, the issue here is money. The PLO is handing out welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians, many of whom are PLO fighters and some of whom are probably terrorists, and you don't like it. I suppose you want their children to starve.

So you're fine with terrorism so long as you don't like the victims.

 

[laughing dog]

So you're fine with terrorism so long as you don't like the victims.

That is your criteria.

 

[Jayjay]

Bullshit!

The murder of children.

You mean like when they shoot 16 year olds who attack them with a knife?
Israeli police kill Palestinian girl who tried to attack them in Jerusalem: police

The Old City of Jerusalem is on Arab side of the 1948 armistice line, so the target was justified (although an argument could be made that the Old City is kind of special as it has bunch of religious sites). If not for the moral ambiguity of using minors to carry out the attack, this would be an act of legitimate resistance.

That's not to say the police should've just let her stab them, either. But this type of attacks are to be expected within occupied territories.

 

[Arctish]

Threat?!

Are you not familiar with the expression "foot, meet bullet"--indicating that you shot yourself in the foot with your argument.

I substituted "head" because of how totally you did it.

I am familiar with the expression "shot him/her/yourself in the foot".

"Head, meet bullet" is miles beyond that. I know of no expression regarding a bullet impacting a head except references to suicide and death threats.

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists. They're seen as government forces and thus such attacks are acts of war.

There's nothing controversial about the Palestinians calling their fighters soldiers, and continuing to pay them if/when they become prisoners of war.

Anyway, the issue here is money. The PLO is handing out welfare payments to the families of imprisoned Palestinians, many of whom are PLO fighters and some of whom are probably terrorists, and you don't like it. I suppose you want their children to starve.

So you're fine with terrorism so long as you don't like the victims.

Non-sequitur. Also bullshit.

You complained that the Palestinians regard the prisoners as soldiers. I agree with you that they do, but I don't think there's anything remarkable about it.

I think you're employing your usual double standard. If it was an Israeli family getting welfare checks from the government after Dad was captured fighting in the Occupied Territories, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But if it's a Palestinian fighting at the same time in the same place, well that's different, right?

Anyway, your own source points out that some of the Palestinians are imprisoned for crimes, not terrorism, and approx. 500 of them haven't been charged with any wrongdoing. Why are you so aggrieved that their families are on the welfare rolls? Do you think their children should starve?

 

[untermensche]

No it is true.

For decades Israel has engaged in brutal oppression of millions.

It has kidnapped. It has tortured. It has murdered. Many children. It has denied economic opportunity and forced millions to live in poverty.

Your defense merely shows your lack of any moral compass.

You are a defender of oppression.

The lowest scum there could be.

So now you have two lowest scum. Make up your mind. Unfortunately your bible isn't going to resolve this for you.

Lets look at that economic opportunity. The Palestinians used to have about the best economy of a non-oil Arab nation. Then came the second intifada and their economy was cut to a third of what it was (Although this number is questionable as it excludes their terrorism-related expenses.) That's their choices, not Israel. The real oppressor of the Palestinians is their own government (which is actually just a puppet of the Arabs.)

The economic oppressor is clearly Israel.

And you don't justify further oppression because people resisted your initial oppression.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The whole point is that the Palestinians view them as their soldiers. The terrorists.

Well, no, the whole point is that the Palestinians view them as prisoners and have a moral obligation to help take care of those families whose main providers -- fathers, brothers, uncles, etc -- can no longer provide income for them. This is a separate consideration from what those prisoners were originally arrested for.

You're partially right in that it IS a question of whether or not the Palestinian people have a right to resist Israeli occupation and whether or not Israel actually has a right to continue to occupy them. Israel may cite its REASONS for the continued occupation, but reason and right are two very different things.

 

[Derec]

The Old City of Jerusalem is on Arab side of the 1948 armistice line, so the target was justified

The 1948 armistice line is just that, an armistice line. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. The Arabs violated that armistice in 1967 anyway, resulting in the 6 day war and Israel capturing East Jerusalem, West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza Strip. Not from any Palestinian State btw, but from Egypt and Jordan. That's right, Arabs had almost 20 years to give Palestinians their own state while they controlled these areas, but didn't.

So, back to Jerusalem. It is not technically occupied territory, as Israel is claiming it as part of its territory. Also, Israel has historical connection to Jerusalem that Arabs lack. Jerusalem was capital of a Jewish state going back to Iron Age II. It was never a capital of any Arab state to my knowledge.

If not for the moral ambiguity of using minors to carry out the attack, this would be an act of legitimate resistance.

The big problem with any violent "resistance" is that it sets back the peace process. Israel is interested in peace and negotiations. Palestinians like to murder people when they don't get 100% of what they demand. See Arafat ordering the second Initfada when he wasn't given everything at Camp David.

That's not to say the police should've just let her stab them, either. But this type of attacks are to be expected within occupied territories.

Use of deadly force against attackers is justified even if you want to claim they are "legitimate resistance".

 

[Jayjay]

The 1948 armistice line is just that, an armistice line. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. The Arabs violated that armistice in 1967 anyway, resulting in the 6 day war and Israel capturing East Jerusalem, West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza Strip. Not from any Palestinian State btw, but from Egypt and Jordan. That's right, Arabs had almost 20 years to give Palestinians their own state while they controlled these areas, but didn't.

So, back to Jerusalem. It is not technically occupied territory, as Israel is claiming it as part of its territory. Also, Israel has historical connection to Jerusalem that Arabs lack. Jerusalem was capital of a Jewish state going back to Iron Age II. It was never a capital of any Arab state to my knowledge.

These are usual zionist garbage explanations. The fact is that there is no international recognition of anything but 1948 armistice line (i.e. the 1967 border), and that includes East Jerusalem. "Historical connection" is no justification for reclaiming land by force, and clearly both sides have more recent historical roots in the area as it's also home to the Al-Aqsa mosque. As for moral rights, if Israel were to annex the land and give its residents full citizenship rights (like it did in Golan), that would be fine too in my book. But until then, I'm not going to be outraged by any stabbings (or other attacks) that Israel could prevent simply by abiding to international law.

If not for the moral ambiguity of using minors to carry out the attack, this would be an act of legitimate resistance.

The big problem with any violent "resistance" is that it sets back the peace process. Israel is interested in peace and negotiations. Palestinians like to murder people when they don't get 100% of what they demand. See Arafat ordering the second Initfada when he wasn't given everything at Camp David.

That's not to say the police should've just let her stab them, either. But this type of attacks are to be expected within occupied territories.

Use of deadly force against attackers is justified even if you want to claim they are "legitimate resistance".

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. Freedom isn't free. But what is not justified is Israel's improper conduct as an occupier in general. If Palestinians were to send people to Israel through tunnels, and Israeli forces attacked them, would they be justified in defending themselves? Or should they just keel over and die? Or maybe they shouldn't have invaded Israel in the first place?

Violent resistance is a right, not an obligation. Only the people who are being impacted have a right to decide whether they want to use violent or diplomatic means. Using violence may be a stupid choice, but it's their choice nonetheless. And in this case it is clear that Israel will not withdraw nor negotiate unless Palestinians amp up the pressure in the occupied territories.