Just for the sake of order… I believe the debating parties in the hijack are 2/3 European and we have taken it to a more civilized level in a separate thread…
I’ll stop now.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=12404
Looks like this lawsuit is encouraging the EU to investigate reality.
Rather than the lawsuit per se; could it be a move pending unbiased investigation of the evidence presented by the Israeli administration, or could it be a part of various other more or less complex diplomatic efforts underway?
Even this poster would stay clear of suggesting that the suspension of donations is an all out bad idea, but I’d opine that pretending that this frivolous lawsuit here is the base of the same suspension is contentious at best, to not say on the verge of overtly simplistic demagogy.
Sparc
Yah, december, I agree with Sparc that the lawsuit has nothing to do with the investigation. A lawsuit that has zero chance of success would not induce a party to change its behavior.
And before you say, “yeah, but maybe the prospects of the legal bills induced this,” two points
(1) even if legal bills had to be paid, countries print the currency. The EU would much rather defeat this then settle and implicitly acknowledge fault;
(2) OTOH, if money were really a problem for the EU, they could simply ignore the lawsuit. The plaintiffs would get a default judgment - and not be able to collect a dime, due to diplomatic and sovereign immunity.
Sua
…was Will Rogers’s tag line.
In this case, all I know is what the cite said.
Sparc and Sua, your thought may be correct. I know nothing about the cited source. Furthermore, it says “in the wake of,” leaving motivation conjectural. It doesn not quote anyone from the EU confirming the reason for temporarily suspending the funding.
This comment being based on what evidence?
Your guess is as good as mine. It’s just a part of the article.
It seems reasonable, though. Euorpean states have no need to donate separately to the PA, since the UN is already donating on behalf of the world’s nations. I have seen suggestions that the donations were established by particular individuals at the EU who were strongly proPalestinian and anti-Israel. The explanation above seems more neutral.
Yeah december, I’m sure “you’ve seen suggestions”.
It’s about trying to establish some non-US political leverage in the region. You’ll remember we’ve had threads before about that. Damned if you do , damned if you don’t.
**London_Calling, your explanation was the one in the cited article, which clairobscur was questioning. I was pointing out that alternative explanations might be less flattering to the EU.
BTW do you think that the EU has succeeded in getting their desired leverage in the region? I’d sure like it if they could use their leverage to stop Arabs from blowing up bus-loads of children. http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1023716454784
Actually, there’s another possible reason for the EU to have temporaily suspended their contributions while they investigate whether any of their money is going to support terror. They may have simply realized that it’s the moral thing to do.
I don’t think anyone’s going to exercise too much leverage over either Arafat or Sharon. I’m reminded of the observation Clinton once made while trying to bring the factions together in Northern Ireland: “They’re like two drunks brawling in a bar”.
But that has little to do with a long-term pragmatic strategy that may, or may not, bring rewards in, say, five years. And that’s been the EU’s ie probably post-Sharon, possibly post-Bush and who the hell knows about Arafat.
Correction: “And that’s been the EU’s strategy”
december: Actually, there’s another possible reason for the EU to have temporaily suspended their contributions while they investigate whether any of their money is going to support terror. They may have simply realized that it’s the moral thing to do.
Hmmm. So where are your threads demanding the suspension of US contributions to various countries while we figure out whether any of that money is going to support terror?
I have more than once questioned US support for the United Nations, which provides much financial and moral support to terrorism.
However, this case is not really parallel with your hypothetical case. At present Israel asserts that they have documents confirming that some of the donated money goes to support terrorism. Presumably the EU is studying those documents right now.
december your argument is too black and white as regards the EU, US and the UN positions. What everyone is objecting to here is that your cite stands in the deep end of one of those two shades. Reality on this matter is gray, dull gray, kind of milky and opaque. Not any of the three national/international bodies implicitly accused of supporting terrorism desire to do so. In the same breath they do not want to be party to being pawns in the games of economic warfare between parties in conflict. These are playing cards they hold on to, because they know very well that both sides need the financial support they are getting to survive, and no one involved is foolish enough to think that not one cent of the money goes into financing the conflict at hand, on both the Israeli and Palestinian side. The PA has been pressuring that the trade subsidies and favored position of Israel on the EU market be revoked and Israel has been pressuring that the financial aid to the PA be revoked. EU showed that card and used some of the power behind it against Israel after Jennin. Right now they’re playing it on the PA. As always part of the game is to keep face and not openly support the worst tendencies to violence while accepting that reality isn’t that simple. It’s all part of the diplomatic mish-mash that is supposed to bring peace at some point.
Sparc
This news may change some minds as to whether Arafat is a terrorist. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_4.html
ehem!
december, you’re turning this into a newscast thread now?
Sparc
december, you are more intelligent than that (I think). The World Tribune article (who the hell are they anyway? And where do you find these people?) states as follows:
When? How? Who? Who told the World Tribune? The article (which, I note, was “special to the World Tribune”) doesn’t identify the source of this rather shocking and immensely important (if true) story.
I also note that neither msnbc.com nor cnn.com is carrying this story.
Sua
Right, Sua and Sparc, I have not confirmed this story from any source other than the World Tribune. Their web site says they are an internet newspaper focusing on international news. Still, it may well be correct.
OTOH, why are you two so calm? Here’s why, IMHO
There’s a contridiction. On the one hand, Arafat is not a terrorist. He’s the elected leader of the Palestinian people, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, trusted recipient of enormous donations from the UN and the EU. He promised at Oslo to provide security to Israel against terrorists. Formally, the world has never taken a stand that he isn’t in compliance with the Oslo Accords.
OTOH, who actually believes the above paragraph? If we did, we’d be utterly shocked to discover that the person supposedly guaranteeing Israel’s security against terrorism is actually one of the terrorists. It would be like discovering that John Ashcroft is preparing to bomb the Statue of Liberty.
Despite evidence to the contrary, we are unwilling to formally give up our belief in Arafat. This cognitive dissonance produces the classic denial. Look at **Sparc’s comment:
In other words, “Please stop reporting facts about Arafat. They’re making me uncomfortable.”
I just found a lengthy article from Die Zeit documenting Arafat’s support for terrorism. It closes:
No december don’t be silly. This is GD not a news bulletin board. If you must, and I say only if you must insist on feeding us your news; comment it and make some reference as to what the relevance is to the thread. I can’t debate the author of your linked article since the author obviously isn’t here to be debated with.
I might be a little dumber than you are, because you see I don’t know what people think by what they do not say. Therefore I need a little help from you here as to what your opinion is regards the posted link in relation to the thread in question.
As of yet you have only told me what I think and I don’t think so, so think again and this time think for yourself and then please tell me what it is you are thinking, my thoughts you can leave to me as I already know what I think, or at the least I will in about 1.4 seconds. Do you see what I mean?
Why so calm? Well for starters I didn’t know what to say since I didn’t telepathically understand your point and for seconds, it’s been a pretty good day with sunshine and some solid progress in my current project, Sweden won their football group in the World Cup play offs this morning, England qualified as well and Germany did yesterday and yeah well I feel pretty good in general.
What about you? Did they serve barbed wire for breakfast or were you routing for Argentina?
Cool it man, cool it…
Sparc