US and EU sanctions

[sanctus]

As the palestinian parlament doesn't recognise the state of Israel the US and the EU sanction (ie. stop all help) Palestine.

The first result is that now Iran is one of the only countries helping palestina, which seeing the hate of the actual iranian political leaders i don't see as a good thing.

 

The second result and my biggest critic is that as always it is the common people (in this case the already poor ones) that have to pay even if they had a votation following the democracy we like so much in the occident (even if I'm ironic I do like the democracy). What will be the result? The condition of the palestinians will get worse something which quickly will generate more hate. So with this sanction instead of makeing something for peace the EU and the US actually make the situation even worse.

 

What do you think?

[Racoon]

Yes.

 

Sanctions For Iran is next! It is our only option besides war, to hurt them for developing Nuclear.

 

Sanctions for Palestine is because Hamas is their Ruling party, a known Terrorist organization.

It hurts the people much more, and not the politicians with whom we disagree.

[Panjandrum]

Its foolish for the west to refuse to deal with Hamas, since it displays a staggering degree of hypocracy. Like them or not, Hamas are a democratically elected party, something the west never tires of telling backward countries to strive for. Only if they attempt to overthrow Palestines democratic strutures would the west be justified in imposing sanctions.

[HydrogenBond]

This is not a popular angle but I usually say it anyway. The Israelie state formed somewhere in the late 1940's. It was essentially an imperilist exploit, that was not condemmed by the rest of the world. Everyone felt bad about WWII and the Nazi concentration camps. But Palestine was not empty space, when it was taken over, but already occupied by a culture that had been there for centuries.

 

The biblical imperative angle, used by Israel, of restoring the Holy Land, has a second verse. There are twelve tribes of Israel only one of which is Judah. The Jewish state is only entitled to a good chunk of land more or less centered on Jerusalem. The Palestians may have connections to one or more of the remaining eleven tribes. They may be entitled to a chunk. The rest also needs to be divied up to forfill the bilbiical imperitive angle.

 

If I am not mistaken the official map was drawup at the time of King Solomon.

[Panjandrum]

I confess that much of that is news to me, tho I have no reason to doubt you. How do religious israeli jews explain the geographic extent of modern Israel, given the existence of this second verse?

 

As for pre-existant arab people of Palestine, I agree with you 100%. It annoys me when apologists for Zionism talk about how the land was just empty desert that the clever (read: westernised) jews made into a garden. It smacks of rascism. Ironically enough, given that arabs are of semitic stock, it is also anti-semitic.

[Zythryn]

...It annoys me when apologists for Zionism talk about how the land was just empty desert that the clever (read: westernised) jews made into a garden. It smacks of rascism. Ironically enough, given that arabs are of semitic stock, it is also anti-semitic.

 

Not sure about elsewhere in the world, but here in the midwest of the US I have never heard the above. I have heard how tense the agreements were, and how it almost didn't happen. But never the comments above.

 

As for the question of the thread (US and EU santions of Palistine), I fully support the idea of any country to decide to give, or stop giving aid to any other country. I don't know that there is a good way out. But if Hamas continues to be a 'terrorist organization', as labeled by Europe and the US at the least, I don't see why they would expect aid from those countries.

 

It would be nice if we could just all get along :) Perhaps we can work towards that goal.

 

I do find it ironic that Bush's crusade to spread democracy resulted in Hamas being elected to power. Funny that he hasn't hailed that as a victory for his vision :naughty:

 

Mark

[Panjandrum]

Its an arguement Ive heard several times from unconnected people here in Euroland. Not that there are many pro-israeli people here, mind you, Euro sentiment seems to be largely in favour of the palestinians.

[sanctus]

Its an arguement Ive heard several times from unconnected people here in Euroland. Not that there are many pro-israeli people here, mind you, Euro sentiment seems to be largely in favour of the palestinians.

I wouldn't say the european opinion is largely in favour of palestine in the strict sense, its more like there is an understanding of both parts (condition of palestinians and a jewish nation) and then a judging of both actions. The actions (including the terroristic ones) of the palestinians is seen more like a result of their standard of living (which explains it, not justifies!) while the repression and the widening of israelian territory is more seen from a bad eye; but many people don't trust to talk much about it because of a sentiment of guilt and/or the risk to seem a anti-semit

[Racoon]

Its foolish for the west to refuse to deal with Hamas, since it displays a staggering degree of hypocracy. Like them or not, Hamas are a democratically elected party, something the west never tires of telling backward countries to strive for. Only if they attempt to overthrow Palestines democratic strutures would the west be justified in imposing sanctions.

 

You make a good point there Panjandum.

Regardless if they are democratically elected, does not mean the US or EU can't sanction them. The US and EU can choose whom they do business with, and who to give aid to.

Hamas will have to prove itself worthy of leading the Palestinians, and hopefully a conflict resolution.

 

The point of the sanctions is to make the conditions unbearable for the people so they will oust the ruling party, or monarch, or head of state. Or at least demand changes.

 

Sanctions for the Palestinians will make things worse. They already have it pretty bad. They will have even less to lose.

 

I think sanctions for Iran will work better, because there are many Iranians who do not like their Radical and Clerical leadership.

 

But with cases like North Korea, the Government has such firm control and disregard for its citizens, that the ones mostly affected are the villagers and regular everyday Koreans...

 

Its a tricky situation to say the least!

[TheBigDog]

I don't think sanctions have ever toppled a regime, or changed any policies. At least in the past 100 years. First off there are always countries who choose to not honor the sanctions in order to profiteer from the absence of competition. And if a regime is honorable enough to respond to the needs of its citizens when faced with sanctions, they probably don't need sanctions placed against them in the first place.

 

Bill

[Panjandrum]

I agree with both Racoon and TBD. The stated intent of sanctions is certainly to pressure a regime into change, but it is a strategy notable for its conspicuous and repeated faliures. Its kinda depressing to think our leaders have so little imagination that they persist in applying failed strategies time after time. It makes me think they do it more to placate domestic opinion than for its purported aim.

[sanctus]

I don't think sanctions have ever toppled a regime, or changed any policies. At least in the past 100 years. First off there are always countries who choose to not honor the sanctions in order to profiteer from the absence of competition. And if a regime is honorable enough to respond to the needs of its citizens when faced with sanctions, they probably don't need sanctions placed against them in the first place.

 

Bill

How many years was there an embargo on Irak? I don't know but many, so you are absolutely right. I would even go to say that it is thanks (at least partly) to that embargo that the situation doesn't calm down there: the common people preferred to blame the occident for their situation instead of the regime, which is understandable because less dangerous.

[Tormod]

I do find it ironic that Bush's crusade to spread democracy resulted in Hamas being elected to power. Funny that he hasn't hailed that as a victory for his vision

 

Wasn't the Hamas elected only after Yassir Arafat died? What role did the US play?

[Zythryn]

Wasn't the Hamas elected only after Yassir Arafat died? What role did the US play?

 

Yes, that is when Hamas came to power. In the US, Bush had been really pushing the idea that spreading democracy in the world is a good thing and claimed credit for the new democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq and the fact that Palistine was moving toward demacracy.

 

I am not certain if he ever implied direct responsibility for democratic elections in Palistine, although he has in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

If anyone has more solid information that may be a good topic for another thread, I don't want to get too far off topic.

 

Mark

[Qfwfq]

I agree that the election of Hamas was partly a consequence of Bush and Sharon but it was also due to the many shortcomings of Fatah. When people have few and bad options, they will often choose one despite its problems and risks, if they find it necessary. I wouldn't say Arafat had been governing them better than who comes next.

 

I don't think sanctions have ever toppled a regime, or changed any policies. At least in the past 100 years.

How about South Africa?

 

I wouldn't say that sanctions often topple a regime but there are cases in which they make sense, and there are cases in which they don't. They made absolutely no sense in Iraq, because they were only causing deaths among poor people and their children, and I think they are a mistake about Hamas, despite the fact that the people chose the party. IMHO our leaders shouldn't be such mules about Hamas.

 

Sanctions should be designed to hinder the ruling class, aid should be designed and carried out so as to help the people in need.

[Cedars]

As the palestinian parlament doesn't recognise the state of Israel the US and the EU sanction (ie. stop all help) Palestine.

The first result is that now Iran is one of the only countries helping palestina, which seeing the hate of the actual iranian political leaders i don't see as a good thing.

 

The second result and my biggest critic is that as always it is the common people (in this case the already poor ones) that have to pay even if they had a votation following the democracy we like so much in the occident (even if I'm ironic I do like the democracy). What will be the result? The condition of the palestinians will get worse something which quickly will generate more hate. So with this sanction instead of makeing something for peace the EU and the US actually make the situation even worse.

 

What do you think?

 

As I understand it, the US and possibly the EU has no choice in regards to santions against Hamas. It doesnt matter that they have been elected. There were santions in place before the election against Hamas, and legally the USA has no choice but to follow its own laws regarding support for terrorist organizations.

 

The people of Palestine are free to and did freely elect these persons as leaders to represent them, just as Irans citizens elected who they wanted to. But elections in other countries do not change laws in the rest of the world. If Hamas wants to have the santions lifted, there are methods in place which allows them to do this. One requirement is to reject terrorism and as I understand it, it is these elected officials who are refusing to do this.

 

As I understand the reasoning behind this, I have to support sanctions against this newly elected body in Palestine. It will be the future actions of this governing body which will allow them to receive support or require the continued denial of support by the US and the EU.

 

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/

[Michaelangelica]

How many years was there an embargo on Irak? I don't know but many, so you are absolutely right. I would even go to say that it is thanks (at least partly) to that embargo that the situation doesn't calm down there: the common people preferred to blame the occident for their situation instead of the regime, which is understandable because less dangerous.

 

Did the Iraq embargo work?

Seems a lot of nations ignored it.

Shoudn't we be supporting grass roots democracy even if we don't agree with the policies?

 

I don't believe in god, but I do believe in what others call utopies.

What are "utopies" ?