The problem Mr. Clutch is the word "essentially". Basically the Palestinian state would have been a puppet government of Israel with no major control of the roadways and it would have settlements spread throughout the territories and that would have control of most of the water allocation. The 90% of the land figure is manipulative because the 10% included roads and the sort that cut off many Palestinian cities from each other. Johnheath, I agree with you very much that the Likud will be voted out and that that should be the final settlement. But the problem is that the PA has little to no control. The IDF destroyed their headquarters and and eliminated all of their funding. There is not centralized government that can control fringe extremists. By stating that we will not let the peace process move forward until a bombing stops then we are letting the extremists on both sides win. The extremist Jews in the Likud want to extend Israel much farther and the Palestinian extremists want Israel gone. We must not allow either of these sides to win. I feel that if we allow one attack by the IDF or one bomber to jepordize the process then we are letting these groups win.
So Israel is in violation. It is IDF policy to use Palestinian CIVILIANS as shields when approaching buildings that possibly house terrorists. The CIVILIANS are sent in to lead the way, and the military comes in after the innocent CIVILIANS are forced at gunpoint to lead.
If that were true, that would be a disgusting violation. I have not ever heard that though. Do you have an independent source reporting these actions?
Yes there was a thread from the BBC on this long ago. I'll see if I can find it on the BBC archives and try and post a link. Here's one link. There was another story on it too that involved a trial in Israel or some sort of govt. action. I can't find that one though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937599.stm
That could be true, or could be another in a LONG line of Arab disinformation. I tend to believe that it probably happened in isolated instances, but it certainly was not Israeli government policy. If Israeli troops get caught using Palestinians as human shields, they should be punished accordingly. I think all reasonable people would agree with that statement. Of course, the Palestinians use young people as human shields on a far more regular basis. The Islamist gunmen have routinely set up positions directly behind young Palestinian rock throwers to try to get them shot for propaganda purposes. Iraq and the PA even have offered rewards for wounds, and larger rewards for deaths. The Israelis will arrest their soldiers for these actions, the Palestinians reward their people for these actions. That is one the major differences between the two cultures.
Hamas Calls Bush 'Islam's Biggest Enemy' The Associated Press Saturday, August 23, 2003; 12:02 PM GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas on Saturday called President Bush an enemy of Islam because the U.S. government froze the assets of Hamas leaders in response to a suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem. Speaking to Dubai-based Al-Arabiya TV, Abdel Aziz Rantisi called the action "a theft of Muslim money by the Americans" and said the frozen money doesn't belong to Hamas. "Hamas does not have any money in the U.S., Europe or even in the Arab states. President Bush has become Islam's biggest enemy," Rantisi said in the interview. On Friday, the United States froze the assets of six Hamas leaders, including Rantisi, an aide to Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the group's spiritual leader. The United States also froze the assets of five European-based organizations that it said raise money for the radical Palestinian group. Bush said he ordered the assets frozen because Hamas claimed responsibility for Tuesday's suicide attack on a packed bus in Jerusalem that killed 20 people, including six children. Hamas has vowed revenge for an Israeli helicopter attack on Thursday that killed Ismail Abu Shanab, one of its most senior figures. Rantisi survived an Israeli rocket attack on his car in June. The Lebanese representative of the militant group on Saturday urged European nations to reject U.S. demands to freeze the funds of Hamas officials and pro-Palestinian charities. "We call on the countries that the Americans are trying to pressure not to respond to the pressure," Osama Hamdan said in a statement, adding that the "American decisions ... are based on Israel's interests." A similar call was issued by one of the charities named by the U.S. government, the Sanabel Endowment for Relief and Development, which denied having links to Hamas and expressed "astonishment at the unjustified" freeze. © 2003 The Associated Press
Right freezing the assests hamas and their backers is going to make a huge difference, they could probably literally "freeze" all their holdings in a dorm room mini-frig. This is yet another silly political move that attempts to cover the fact that the so-called "road map to peace" is an utter and complete failure.
That is simply not true. From the Jerusalem Post- Hamas enjoys strong financial backing from Iran, private benefactors and Muslim charities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Palestinian expatriates across the globe and American donors. Its budget has been estimated at between $40-70 million and 85 percent of it reportedly comes from abroad; the remaining 15 percent is raised among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. An Iranian-Palestinian Islamic alliance began to emerge during the intifada and gained momentum with the burgeoning Arab-Israeli peace process in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. United in their militant rejection of Israel and in pursuing the end of the peace process, Hamas and Iran strengthened ties. The bilateral relationship was cemented when a delegation of senior Hamas leaders visited Teheran in October 1992 and was reportedly promised $30 million annually, as well as training and logistical support in Iran, southern Lebanon and Sudan. According to U.S. law enforcement officials and Israeli security authorities, Hamas raises funds in the U.S. through mosques, Muslim organizations and legitimate charitable organizations and engages in various other activities here. The amount of money raised in the U.S. as well as the nature and scope of Hamas activities on our shores are difficult to document.
Right freezing the assests hamas and their backers is going to make a huge difference, they could probably literally "freeze" all their holdings in a dorm room mini-frig. This is yet another silly political move that attempts to cover the fact that the so-called "road map to peace" is an utter and complete failure. Why wouldn't cutting funding to terrorists help? It's bizarre that this took so long if we knew of Hamas assets in the US (this isn't directed at Bush - it should have happened during Clinton too).
Great move by Bush. I just wish that countries like France and Switzerland (and perhaps Germany, I don't know) could follow suit. Isolate these assholes as much as possible and cut their funds.
I think the reason this took so long is that Hamas spends a large percentage of its money on schools and hospitals. Politically, even though they are terrorists, it is hard to make the case that money that could go to build a school should be frozen in an account.
Exactly--- If cutting funding to Hamas is so critical to ending their ability to take part in terrorist activities why wasn't it done years ago? Why wasn't it immediately done when the "war on terror" began? This is a political move nothing more, this freeze will not slow the activities of Hamas one bit.
Exactly--- If cutting funding to Hamas is so critical to ending their ability to take part in terrorist activities why wasn't it done years ago? Why wasn't it immediately done when the "war on terror" began? This is a political move nothing more, this freeze will not slow the activities of Hamas one bit. This argument makes no sense. Because something wasn't done at one point means that there's no value to doing it? In other words, anything we add to the war on terrorism at this point is bogus because it wasn't done already? If you believe that cutting funding sources has no impact on Hamas, then I assume you believe that the organization has no need for money? If that's the case, why would they have funding sources in the first place?
You're being naive both in your reasoning that this move was not a political one and that we have actually frozen their major funding sources. We have frozen the assets of known members and supporters of Al Qaeda and it has done little if anything to slow their worldwide terror campaign. Russia has frozen the assets of Chechen terrorists and it has not stopped their operations. Hamas has been a major terrorist force for a long time if freezing their assets would have had any effect on their operations it would have been done along time ago. To say my argument make no sense is to not understand the situation being discussed.
We have frozen the assets of known members and supporters of Al Qaeda and it has done little if anything to slow their worldwide terror campaign. How do you know this? How do you know we wouldn't have had twice as many attacks since 9/11 if we hadn't frozen some assets? Hamas has been a major terrorist force for a long time if freezing their assets would have had any effect on their operations it would have been done along time ago. To say my argument make no sense is to not understand the situation being discussed. Then answer the question. Do you believe Hamas has no need for money?
I've answered the question and i'll answer it once more -- Hamas has funding sources that cannot be "frozen" as do Chechen rebels and Al Qaeda. If their funding sources were easily accessible it would be an easy task to end their violence, but they continue on with their terror campaigns. They have the common sense to place their assets where no one can simply freeze them like an overdrawn Bank of America account. Some questions for you Major-- Why hasn't freezing terrorist groups assets worked in the past? Only negotiations and compromise have ever ended a terrorist groups operations-- did the freezing of the IRA's assets do anything to stop them? ELF is becoming a problem domestically if we froze their assets would that stop their nonsense?
...therefore, if we can't stop ALL terrorist funding, we shouldn't stop any terrorist funding? You aren't making sense. Also, you have no way of knowing how effective we or the Russians have been by freezing the accounts of terrorists. For all you know, we have stopped 10 attacks like 9/11.
I've answered the question and i'll answer it once more -- Hamas has funding sources that cannot be "frozen" as do Chechen rebels and Al Qaeda. So is Hamas better off with $20 million or $15 million? If their funding sources were easily accessible it would be an easy task to end their violence, but they continue on with their terror campaigns. Well, of course! No one is arguing that locking up some of their funding shuts them completely down. Some questions for you Major-- Why hasn't freezing terrorist groups assets worked in the past? How do we know it hasn't? Unless you can predict an alternate future, there's no telling how having less money affects a terrorist group. All you can do is use logic. Does a terrorist group need money? If so, then taking away some of their money makes them less effective. That simple. You're essentially arguing that if freezing accounts isn't the be-all/end-all solution to terrorism, it has no effect.
