Palestine/Israel

I havent been here for a while (much to the relief of kev probably :P ) 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.

Quote:

---

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?

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)..

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

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?

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).

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. :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

... they'd rather have a Religion controlled country.

---

Yeah they're a good idea, just the ticket for equal treatment for everyone regardless of religion, gender, sexual orientation or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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

---

Hadn't even heard of it 'til now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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.

---

All true, but "politics as usual" encompasses an especially broad range in the mideast, as I'm sure you also know.

We could debate legalities and illegalities no end, but if you are pointing this up as an exceptional circumstance to be stacked atop what you see as a history of unilateral Israeli actions conducted in defiance of the international community, you are not breaking new ground.

This doesn't even qualify as "desperate" by traditional standards, and the U.N. is feckless as ever.

As an American, I do not see this as anything other than a typical tactic brought about by an eternally intractible situation.

Let Palestine/Hamas clarify a few things if they want to be paid; if I'm Olmert, that's fine with me.

Actually, if Arafat were still around, he'd have just pocketed the money anyway, the people be damned...

Actually, despite the title of the thread, im talking about the west in general..

Everyone could have predicted Israel's response.. the rest of the west have made more trouble for themselves by actually supporting their move by and large.

If everyone had objected and done nothing about it (as usual) then the western nations would be in a better position politically with the Muslim Nations regarding the subject of Democracy...especially if they'd continued their aid to the Palestinian Authority.

And Israel would have crowed about anti-semetism and done what they wanted to anyway..(as usual)

I told you years ago that we should have been more forthright in our support of the Palestinian Authority to keep Hamas etc OUT of the governing power there.

It was plain to see that they were gaining support fast, and also why they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Actually, despite the title of the thread, im talking about the west in general..

Everyone could have predicted Israel's response.. the rest of the west have made more trouble for themselves by actually supporting their move by and large.

If everyone had objected and done nothing about it (as usual) then the western nations would be in a better position politically with the Muslim Nations regarding the subject of Democracy...especially if they'd continued their aid to the Palestinian Authority.

And Israel would have crowed about anti-semetism and done what they wanted to anyway..(as usual)

I told you years ago that we should have been more forthright in our support of the Palestinian Authority to keep Hamas etc OUT of the governing power there.

It was plain to see that they were gaining support fast, and also why they were.

---

1. I see this latest strictly as an opportunistic reaction to Hamas, nothing more.

You see, as a matter of foreign policy, it is not even necessary that Israel be considered in order to conclude Hamas is morally corrupt and objectionable.

2. The Palestinians' situation is actually better now; before, the money went directly into Arafat's accounts, never to be seen by his people.

As things stand currently, there still exists the possiblity it might get where it was intended.

3. I don't see any Muslim nations being impressed with democracy no matter what we do; theocracies are inherently undemocratic, as well you know.

My take is rather simplistic:

Democracy is favored by those who believe that people, within a political jurisdiction, should have a voice in the laws and policies which govern their land. The acts of this elected government may not reflect the desires of each individual citizen, but are supported by the population as a whole.

If, in a democratic society, the elected officials voice a philosophy which is repugnant (drive Isreal into the sea) to other countries, then these countries may take whatever action they deem necessary to deal with this country.

The philospophy of the government far trumps the means in which they came to power.

To me, a very delicate situation is evolving. Before, the Palestinean Authority could publically denounced the activities of Hamasand beg for financial assitance, but in truth support Hamas and pocket the money.

Before, the actions of Hamas were portrayed as extremist actions and not approved by the "average" Palestinean.

The truth is now in, the "average" Palestinean agrees with suicide bombers and supports Hamas. All nut bag fucktards.

If Hamas continues suicide bombings and also wants to be considered the legimate representative of the Palestinean people, then those acts are not those of some fringe group, but an act of the Palestinean Authority and therefore acts of war.

Democracy is a great idea. But if the Klu Klux Klan decides that their new country hates black and wants them dead, should I continue to send them money because they were democratically elected,or should I object to what they represent and do everything in my power to bring them down.

I would do the latter.

Sometimes popular opinion, is an oppressive and unsatisfactory one.

In the US, we could easily pass a law that forbids white women from marrying black men. It would pass via the democratic process, but would fail big time if we looked at an indiviuals right to live as he desires.

The point is that the philosophy of a government is the most important, and not the manner in which they were elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

My take is rather simplistic:

Democracy is favored by those who believe that people, within a political jurisdiction, should have a voice in the laws and policies which govern their land. The acts of this elected government may not reflect the desires of each individual citizen, but are supported by the population as a whole.

If, in a democratic society, the elected officials voice a philosophy which is repugnant (drive Isreal into the sea) to other countries, then these countries may take whatever action they deem necessary to deal with this country.

The philospophy of the government far trumps the means in which they came to power.

To me, a very delicate situation is evolving. Before, the Palestinean Authority could publically denounced the activities of Hamasand beg for financial assitance, but in truth support Hamas and pocket the money.

Before, the actions of Hamas were portrayed as extremist actions and not approved by the "average" Palestinean.

The truth is now in, the "average" Palestinean agrees with suicide bombers and supports Hamas. All nut bag fucktards.

If Hamas continues suicide bombings and also wants to be considered the legimate representative of the Palestinean people, then those acts are not those of some fringe group, but an act of the Palestinean Authority and therefore acts of war.

Democracy is a great idea. But if the Klu Klux Klan decides that their new country hates black and wants them dead, should I continue to send them money because they were democratically elected,or should I object to what they represent and do everything in my power to bring them down.

I would do the latter.

Sometimes popular opinion, is an oppressive and unsatisfactory one.

In the US, we could easily pass a law that forbids white women from marrying black men. It would pass via the democratic process, but would fail big time if we looked at an indiviuals right to live as he desires.

The point is that the philosophy of a government is the most important, and not the manner in which they were elected.

---

You are wrong, Hobbes; your take isn't "simplistic"-it is simple, and has the added feature of being correct, as well. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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

---

I am afraid the alternative is appeasement ... and the terror will continue anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewizeard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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

---

I am afraid the alternative is appeasement ... and the terror will continue anyway.

---

Just so-

To escalate Jihad gives us....what?

Jihad squared?

They will do what they will do; they do not allude to negotiated de-escalation, and, if past events are an indicator, truces soon become one-way, and the soup boils over once again...