Palestine/Israel

**Rat Faced** · 02-27-2006, 12:53 AM

I havent been here for a while (much to the relief of kev probably

) and havent had a chance to catch up, so i may be wrong.. but...

How come no one appears to be debating the fact that something is only a "Democracy to be protected" in the Middle East... if its the result the US, Israel and Europe want?

To this end they are all willing to steal/withold the money from the legal administration that has already been:

a/ Earned and
b/ Committed

Note:

I do not say that people have to trade with anyone that they dont want to, thats up to them, although the word Hypocrisy does spring to mind.

However, money that already belongs to the Palestinians should be paid to them otherwise what message is being given to everyone else in the area regarding the Democratic process as a whole?

Remember, not thinking common sense questions through has already put Iraq firmly on the road to civil war..something i predicted prior to the invasion without "intelligence" and the intellectual "ologists" at call to the various governments.

Do we really want to escalate one of the biggest causes of world terrorism even more?

Watching the types of laws that are going through the various houses now and have been passed in the last few years, maybe the governments do... there is a Law in committee in the UK that will allow the government to stop having elections altogether if passed in its current form as an example...

However to me Democracy is currently in the Dock, and is losing its own case.

**Tempestv** · 02-27-2006, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Watching the types of laws that are going through the various houses now and have been passed in the last few years, maybe the governments do... there is a Law in committee in the UK that will allow the government to stop having elections altogether if passed in its current form as an example...

However to me Democracy is currently in the Dock, and is losing its own case.

Now that is scary. The Palestinian election really puts america in a quandry- we don't side with terrorists, yet at the same time, how can we promote democracy by not recignizing those elected by an overwealming majority?

**Rat Faced** · 02-27-2006, 10:22 PM

For Information, the "Law" I refer to above is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

This will give Ministers the power to change any and every Law at a whim, without debate within Parliament.

This includes the Parliament Act and any previous Bills that the Courts decided were illegal (and theres quite a few of them over the last 8 years)..

**JPaul** · 02-27-2006, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

For Information, the "Law" I refer to above is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

This will give Ministers the power to change any and every Law at a whim, without debate within Parliament.

This includes the Parliament Act and any previous Bills that the Courts decided were illegal (and theres quite a few of them over the last 8 years)..

If it's a bill it's not a law, it's something being debated. I note that you put "Law" in inverted commas, I just wanted to make sure others realized why.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...06111.1-4.html

**Rat Faced** · 02-27-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

For Information, the "Law" I refer to above is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

This will give Ministers the power to change any and every Law at a whim, without debate within Parliament.

This includes the Parliament Act and any previous Bills that the Courts decided were illegal (and theres quite a few of them over the last 8 years)..

If it's a bill it's not a law, it's something being debated. I note that you put "Law" in inverted commas, I just wanted to make sure others realized why.

I also said "Going before the house" which was a little bit of a clue...

The thing that worries me is that it is already in committee.. this means that it has already passed the second reading.

Its a Standing Committee and not a Committee of the Whole House (which usually deals with anything of Constitutional importance (this is, if anything)); and it only has until 9th March (a lot less time than is usual).

Further Standing Order 83B (Programming Committee) has been suspended, which means the Standing Committee has to be responsible for any programming.

This leaves virtually no time to examine the Bill itself prior to its 3rd Reading, therefore there'll be very few ammendments (if any).

There were only 333 MPs present to vote on the 2nd Reading btw... and there are no ammendments allowed to be tabled at the 3rd Reading.

This all adds up to... this is very nearly "Law" already.

Something this important and at this stage...i ask you... had you even heard of it JPaul?

**cpt_azad** · 02-27-2006, 11:39 PM

RF, you already know how these threads turn out. On one side you have those that will blindly support what Israel does which in turn is supported by the US (which in turn is supported by Conservatives and Liberals alike, they will never know just how much suffering the Palestinians have gone through and still have to endure). And on the other hand you have the extremists of extremists, those who think that the only way of gaining a free Palestine is by wiping Israel off the map and all the "infidels".

I support neither, but at the same time I know that there can really never be any middle ground (common sense).

**j2k4** · 02-28-2006, 12:17 AM

I don't believe any would admit to having been totally taken by surprise by the Palestinian election result (anent Hamas), but the question of monies owed obviously wasn't given much thought, was it?

At the same time, there are two parallel compulsions at work here-an urge to bring Hamas to heel on it's policy vis a vis Israel, and also to point out to the passive Palestinian population in the clearest sense what precisely is at stake, and to hold the whole thing up for the scrutiny of the International media.

Hamas can make all the noise it likes about the money being due, but to think Israel will capitulate without making every effort to wring an alteration of Hamas' policy is a bit naive, I think.

Never mind about promises and all that; Hamas' new status has changed the equation even more substantially than if Sharon hadn't been felled by a stroke, and they are bound to be even more obstinate given that circumstance.

Iran currently and coincidentally constitutes a concern of somewhat more than equal weight; their bluster requires not only a stance of resolve from Israel, but provides a convenient "distraction" for the interim Israeli PM.

Israel is content to sit tight for the moment on the Palestinian question while ostensibly focusing on Iran.

The Palestinians' path is not etched in stone; Hamas hasn't managed to kick Abbas to the curb yet either.

Welcome back, Brother Rat...we missed you.

**Rat Faced** · 02-28-2006, 05:00 PM

We know the politics of it all J2, however as i said... there is a big difference between refusing to Trade with someone and withholding money already "earned" as it were.

The difference is between being Legal and doing something blatently illegal.

As i said earlier.. the whole "Democracy" thing is on trial in the Middle East at the moment and keeping money from an "elected" leadership because you dont like the result is not exactly being "Pro-Democracy".

It is in fact playing right into Hamas' hands... remember they dont like Democracy, they'd rather have a Religion controlled country.