West gives up front against Hamas

[Skybird]

From Dhimmi-Watch:

May 07, 2006
Britain caves in to Hamas, resumes jizya

It was only a matter of time for the dhimmi British government caved. "Britain backs Palestinian trust fund," from Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

A PROPOSED trust fund for donors to pay overdue Palestinian salaries would undercut Hamas, not strengthen it, says a British document meant to increase pressure on the US to drop objections to the plan.
Britain circulated the memo on the proposal, aimed at averting a collapse of basic services provided by the Palestinian Authority, to major donors before tomorrow's meeting of the Quartet of Middle East mediators.

The four-page document argues, in response to US efforts to block creation of such a fund, that it "will not undermine the diplomatic effort" to persuade Hamas to renounce violence, recognise Israel and abide by interim peace accords.

The US is concerned that allowing the international community to pay Palestinians' salaries would take pressure off Hamas, Western diplomats said.

But Britain argues that if Palestinians end up receiving crucial aid through channels other than Hamas, the Islamic militant group stands to lose "a big part of its street credibility and hence have an incentive to come closer to what the international community wants".

Let me get this straight: if we resume paying them after making the payments conditional on their changing, even though they haven't changed, they will be compelled to change in the future?

What utter, stupid, suicidal nonsense.

[Skybird]

And since it is linked to the above:

From Dhimmi-Watch


Saudi Arabia alone takes in nearly $1 billion a day. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and the other seven Muslim or Muslim-ruled states in OPEC -- ten of the eleven fall into that category -- could with a snap of one Al-Saud princeling's finger pay the $55 million monthly that Arabs have already pledged to the Hamas government -- or ten times, or fifty times, that, if they cared to do so. But they don't. They want to make sure that the Infidels keep paying, and that no Infidel gets it into his head that the rich Muslims should pay for the poorer Muslims, especially when those poorer Muslims can only survive on a permanent dole, for they are where they are, in the condition of economic paralysis that they are, because they choose to be. They are encouraged by all the Arabs and Muslims to be nothing more than the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel.
It is madness for Infidels, who are now spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the Muslim world, to continue to pay what is a Jizyah. (The figure for the American taxpayers alone, in Iraq alone, is now close to $400 billion -- if we include as sunk costs that of treatment for wounded veterans and replacement of desert-degraded equipment.) Aid to the “Palestinians” is not sort of, or kind of, a Jizyah. It is a classic Jizyah. It is payment from Infidels to Muslims, who take the money in a spirit not of gratitude, but as of right, and are infuriated that the Infidels would dare not to continue such payments wherever they have been instituted. Just look at the howls of indignation over the past few months from the Hamas government and from other "Palestinians," other Arabs, and from their supporters and collaborators all over Europe -- such people as Alistair Crooke, the former British agent who became such an enthusiastic supporter, cheerleader, praiser and promoter of Hamas.


The West has got to kick the Jizyah habit. It is absurd that hundreds of billions are spent to counteract, however clumsily, the Jihad by attempting to create this impossible dream of Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. It is absurd that the West risks lives all over Afghanistan to make that country safe for non-Taliban Muslims who would, nonetheless, condemn an apostate to death, and who have no love for Infidels at all. And on top of that the entire Western world now must spend gigantic sums, everywhere, and permanently, to secure churches, synagogues, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, airports, metro stations, railroads and railroad stations, sea ports, bridges, government buildings, brave and outspoken political figures (see Geert Wilders, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali), all because of the Muslim presence in those countries.
And yet, on top of it, the long-suffering Western taxpayers are now asked to support the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel -- the so-called "Palestinian people," even though the billions (and where did those billions go? And why does Sura Arafat apparently have hundreds of millions of dollars in her Parisan possession?) that simply disappeared when Arafat died have yet to be recovered? Why are Infidels supporting Muslim states or people anywhere, when those same Muslim states and people by their behavior and clearly expressed attitudes of menace and hate are costing hundreds of billions -- and at the same time, through no effort on their own part, the rich Arabs have been, and continue to be, the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history?

Our goal, the Infidel goal, should be to diminish that Arab and Muslim "money" weapon that helps fund the Jihad. One way is to reduce the sums received. Another way is to make sure that claims to part of that money is made, and made noisily, by the poor Arabs and Muslims. Let the rich Muslims share their wealth with fellow members of that supposed umma al-islamiyya. Let them pay for the "Palestinian" Arabs. Psychologically it is important to break the notion that we Infidels owe them, owe any Muslims, a thing. We don't. And if we can cause a little internecine rancor, as usually happens when the donor does not give the donee what he think he deserves, being never quite satisfied, and the donor in turn becomes more and more enraged at the seeming ingratitude of the donee, with his hand perennially out, and if both donor and donee are Arab Muslims, won't the ensuing and permanent bad feeling (Arafat, to extract money from rich Arabs, made all kinds of threats) isn't that a good thing for Infidels? Don't Infidels need to buy time, and don't they wish for dissension and division in the camp of Islam? Or are they convinced, in the Bush manner, that they are still merely fighting a "war on terror" that has little to do with the tenets or promptings or attitudes that Islam contains or fosters?

No Jizya. Not to Hamas, and not to the "Palestinians" who may not prefer to the Fast Jihad of Hamas the Slow Jihad of Abbas. Not to any Muslim state or people. The Saudis (and the Arabs in the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, and many other Muslim oil states, including Iran) can take care of them. They have plenty of money.

Let the "Palestinians" ask the Saudis. Let all the poor Muslims ask the Saudis and other rich Arabs. And whether the answer is a Yes or a No, Infidels will be the winners. That's it.

[TteFAboB]

It's our fault.

We should have found a replacement immediately after the donations first ceased.

We shouldn't have allowed for demagogue, naive and malevolent politicians to have enough time to figure another way to start sponsoring the Hamas again.

We should have frozen all those resources into the research for the cure of Malaria, or given it all to Spanish Apes to help them buy or rent their own home out of the Zoo, to live as proper Spanish citizens.

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4756407.stm

Wonderful, those queer european absurdists have had their way. I wonder why Muslims countries are unwilling to come up for supporting their fellow brothgers completely. Why must we pay for what must be considered as their obligation? they pay a bit here, and a bit there - it would be easy for them to come up for the complete support. Morally, their oh so holy ideology even demands them to do so.

Interesting message being sent, anyway. "If we should do this or that, we demand that you meet this or that precondition. And if you don't meet it, we will do our part anyway and beg you to change your mind sometime later." As an ex-psychologist why at university also had to learn the basics of conditioning, positive and negative sanctioning, and the basic principles of learning processes both in a humaistic and a behavioristic understanding, I can only laugh out loud about the dilletancy and stupidity being displays by our "diplomats" here. Think they have made everything wrong in this that can be done wrong.

And Annan again bows into Muslim direction, of course. UN: Unlimited Naivety.

[bradclark1]

But Britain argues that if Palestinians end up receiving crucial aid through channels other than Hamas, the Islamic militant group stands to lose "a big part of its street credibility and hence have an incentive to come closer to what the international community wants".

BS. What they'll say is "Look at these idiots give us money for explosives and suicide bombers". Will they never learn?

[Skybird]

from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060511-082823-9702r.htm

Text:

" Financing terror
By Diana West
May 12, 2006

If democracy makes leaders accountable to the people who elect them, it works the other way as well: People are also accountable for their elected leaders. Which is why the United States, in agreeing to provide a $10 million care package to the Palestinian Authority, is so dangerously wrong in failing to hold the people of the PA accountable for the democratically-elected terror chieftains of Hamas.
Here's what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week when she announced the U.S. would provide medical and other supplies to the PA, which, after two months of no American or European Union aid, has run desperately low on such necessities: "The Hamas-run Palestinian Authority government bears sole responsibility for the hardships facing the Palestinian people and the international isolation that the PA is now experiencing due to its refusal to recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements and obligations."
That's a lot of refusal, but never mind. The real here question is, Why does the Hamas-run government bear "sole" responsibility? What about its supporters, i.e. the Palestinian voters who gave that Hamas-run government a landslide victory? In the world according to the Bush administration, they remain voiceless victims even after exercising their political will at the ballot box, voting into power an outlaw organization whose charter unfolds under a statement by Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." Regardless of whether this heinous call to jihad leaves any peace for the so-called "Quartet" to process, Ms. Ricecontinued: "Hamas' policies and actions should not deprive the Palestinian people of their legitimate humanitarian needs."
Why ever not? Why shouldn't Hamas' "policies and actions," driven by a Hitlerian plan to "obliterate" Israel, deprive Hamas constituents of their "needs," humanitarian or otherwise — particularly when it comes to support from civilized nation-states spilling blood and treasure to fend off Islamic jihad in the so-called "war on terror"? There is a strategic and moral senselessness to the administration's willful disconnect. After all, the U.S. and the EU cut off aid to the PA two months ago in order to extract concessions — like, for instance, on Israel's right to exist. Hamas' response? No concessions. The U.S. and EU are now cranking aid back up, in humanitarian dribs and drabs, but this is probably just the beginning and still no concessions. This doesn't sound like successful statecraft.
On the other hand, it seems that statecraft is no longer the craft of our state. After predictions of cash and gas shortages, and a couple of stories about sick Palestinian babies made the papers — youngsters languishing "because funds have been withheld from the West" (oil-rich Islam is never to blame) — the U.S. blinked. Or, rather, we teared up. Acting like an emotional individual rather than the leader of the Free World, the U.S. traded its goals and principles (pressuring Hamas, not supporting terrorists) for a big wet hanky. But notice Hamas didn't get weepy over its own young and decide to "save the children" by simply recognizing Israel's right to exist. Nor did any of Hamas' oil-rich Muslim brethren feel moved to come to the rescue, either. No. Hamas remained true to its creed (Kill the Jews), the Arab-Muslim world sat tight, and the U.S. gave in on its anti-terrorist stance and agreed to airlift necessities, which is a disgrace.
Of course, the administration would probably emphasize that it's "only" $10 million worth of Band-Aids and such; and it's not going to Hamas officials, it's going to Hamas constituents or maybe even Fatah constituents, whose outlook on life and Israel is so different from Hamas that they support the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.) But there is more to this incident than $10 million, Band-Aids or Hamas. What we are witnessing is the stumbling behavior of a superpower that doesn't know how to act either super or powerful.
Maybe waging a nebulous "war on terror" has hopelessly confused us. Maybe finding ourselves in the costly business of making the world safe for sharia has muddled our objectives. But if we cannot retrieve the simple, precious principle that took us into war — you're either with us or you're against us — not only will we never achieve victory, we won't even know what it looks like. "


Strange opinions from strange American people Skybird recently finds himself agreeing with! :-j

[Ishmael]

Let's call it what it is. Tribute. Something the US paid to the
Barbary Pirates 200 years ago.

[August]

Let's call it what it is. Tribute. Something the US paid to the
Barbary Pirates 200 years ago.

Even after we kicked their butts. Go figure.

[The Avon Lady]

Let's call it what it is. Tribute. Something the US paid to the
Barbary Pirates 200 years ago.
Even after we kicked their butts. Go figure.
My husband and I both just finished reading Victory in Tripoli : How America's War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471444154/sr=8-1/qid=1148028481/ref=sr_1_1/002-5860147-0288848?%5Fencoding=UTF8), by Joshua E. London. Highly recommended.

History repeats itself in a most frightening manner.

[Sixpack]

You guys should watch CNN's 'inside the Middle East' more often.

Such a wonderful region

:88)

[The Avon Lady]

You guys should watch CNN's 'inside the Middle East' more often.
Watch it?! I'm sitting in it!!!!! :doh: