Arafat diverted $900 million says the IMF - Page 2

GeneralTacticus · September 21, 2003, 07:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen

Before you scream this is the international Jewish conspiracy or "biased media/organization" etc-as EVERY pro-palestinian person seems to scream, THE IMF IS AN ORGANIZATION RUN BY THE U.N. ITSELF(who always seems to side with the arab world in regards to Israel) so dont scream bias and that the article is invented.

I don't know where you got that idea from, but a cursory check of the facts would blow your claim right out of the water. The IMF has no relation to the UN Whatsoever; it runs itself. Take a look at this if you want more detail.

HershOstropoler · September 21, 2003, 10:09

"There is a huge crowd over here that wants to nuke the damn Saudis"

Because of their corruption?

As long as the Saudis play the swing producer for the oil market and are top customers of the US arms industry, they have political protection - velvet goves treatment at worst - in the US even for sponsoring terrorism. The idea that the authoritarian, human rights violating and totally corrupt nature of the regime would bother Washington in any way is ridiculous.

"I am wondering on what basis and with what evidence you are accussing the Israeli Prime Minister of corruption."

Campaign financing and David Appel. Doesn't ring a bell?

Sava · September 21, 2003, 11:10

I guess the big issue that nobody seems to care about is that somehow, these "poor oppressed" people have access to weapons, explosives, and obviously a large backing of money. Once again, the leaders (arafat mainly) have access to lots of money while the people suffer. The Pal's need to rise up and overthrow these militant elements if they ever want to have peace. Israel can't and won't stand by while their citizens keep getting blown up. I don't blame Israel for taking a hardline stance against this terrorism. God knows I'd nuke the West Bank if I were Sharon.

The only solution to this conflict is in the hands of the Palestinian people. They must decide terrorism and violence isn't the way.

Oerdin · September 21, 2003, 12:04

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Campaign financing and David Appel. Doesn't ring a bell?

Last I heard no one had been convicted of any thing.

HershOstropoler · September 21, 2003, 13:21

"Last I heard no one had been convicted of any thing."

Last I heard no one had been convicted of any thing in the PA.

lord of the mark · September 22, 2003, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Last I heard no one had been convicted of any thing."

Last I heard no one had been convicted of any thing in the PA.

No surprise there.

lord of the mark · September 22, 2003, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"There is a huge crowd over here that wants to nuke the damn Saudis"

Because of their corruption?

Because of
1. Their alleged support for Al Qaeeda, or at least winking at private support for AQ.
2. Their support for extremist anti-westrern forms of Islam around the world.
3. Their support for Hamas.
4. Their corrupt, un-democratic domestic system, which is held by some to breed Islamic extremism.

Defenses of the Saudis -
1. It is claimed they have been cooperating on AQ since 9/11, though they have been quiet about it
2. It is fairly widely beleived that they have been cracking down since the May bombing in Riyadh - there are reports of regular gun battles, arrests, etc.
3. They were relatively cooperative on the Iraq war
4. They have been hemming and hawing about Hamas, no worse than some of our European friends.
5. They are talking about doing something about Wahabite incitement
6. It is claimed that if the house of Saud goes, fundie pro AQ types will take over.

So the debate goes on.
6.

lord of the mark · September 22, 2003, 10:58

Of course no one is claiming that Arafat should be removed for corruption alone. The claim is that he should be removed for supporting terrorism. This is the Bush doctrine, ennunciated in regard to Mullah Omar, that those who support and shelter terrorists are the equivalents of those who carry it out. No exception to this doctrine was stated for elected leaders. As long as tolerating Arafat was considered necessary to a viable peace process, that concern trumped the Bush doctrine. Now it is claimed by some that Arafat is in fact an obstacle to any viable peace process, so that concern no longer applies. Corruption just confirms the nature of Arafat, and adds weight to the considerations.

dannubis · September 22, 2003, 11:14

and how is in this whole peace program the current us governement (which is i am sure totally uncorrupt) not an obstacle ?

DinoDoc · September 22, 2003, 11:17

Quote:

Originally posted by dannubis
and how is in this whole peace program the current us governement (which is i am sure totally uncorrupt) not an obstacle ?

To what? War?

dannubis · September 22, 2003, 11:20

i was just pointing out that in the current situation the us involvement in the middle east is as much an obstacle to peace as the presence of arafat is ...

DinoDoc · September 22, 2003, 11:25

Yeah damn those people coming up with multilateral road maps for peace!

pchang · September 22, 2003, 12:10

Without US interference in the Middle East, there would probably be peace by now. Full out open warfare would have erupted long ago and by now, one side or the other would have completely wiped the other out. Another likely result would be that Israel nukes its neighbors as its army is pushed into the sea. There are plenty of ways to achieve peace:
1 side gets a total victory
both sides kill each other and there is no one left
both sides agree to stop killing

HershOstropoler · September 22, 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Because of
1. Their alleged support for Al Qaeeda, or at least winking at private support for AQ.
2. Their support for extremist anti-westrern forms of Islam around the world.
3. Their support for Hamas.
4. Their corrupt, un-democratic domestic system, which is held by some to breed Islamic extremism.

Defenses of the Saudis -
1. It is claimed they have been cooperating on AQ since 9/11, though they have been quiet about it
2. It is fairly widely beleived that they have been cracking down since the May bombing in Riyadh - there are reports of regular gun battles, arrests, etc.
3. They were relatively cooperative on the Iraq war
4. They have been hemming and hawing about Hamas, no worse than some of our European friends.
5. They are talking about doing something about Wahabite incitement
6. It is claimed that if the house of Saud goes, fundie pro AQ types will take over.

So the debate goes on.
6.

Summary: corruption has never bothered a US administration. Unless the French use it to snap contracts from well connected US companies.

HershOstropoler · September 22, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Of course no one is claiming that Arafat should be removed for corruption alone. The claim is that he should be removed for supporting terrorism. This is the Bush doctrine, ennunciated in regard to Mullah Omar, that those who support and shelter terrorists are the equivalents of those who carry it out.

Yeah it's a nice idea. Leadership vacuum with the palestinians, Arafat in exile as the palestinian hero... what better opportunity than this to expand Israeli settlements?

Sirotnikov · September 23, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Campaign financing and David Appel. Doesn't ring a bell?

Campaign financing is a joke.

It's a silly old law, meant to give equal chances to the big and small parties.

But the truth is, that all the large parties always brake the law. Labor is also investigated. So are other parties. I think Meretz as well, though I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't run a large campaign using the money allotment allowed by law. This is a law that can't be observer and should be done away with.

If a small party really wants to become big, it will have to break that law several folds to reach anything.

As for the Apel case, it is not clear. It is an evidence of a conflict of interests, and possible abuse of political power. And it isn't over yet.

Not to say it isn't a form of corruption, it is however very different from pocketing state funds. It's more like accepting bribe, which is different.

--

As far as Arafat's money goes, I don't really understand the phrase "in public domain" in regards to the Palestinian Assets.

Just because they are in public domain, doesn't mean that they actually belong to the public.

It is known that most of the economic companies in the PA are personally owned by Arafat and his close friends. The gas company, the water company, the cement company and so on.

Sirotnikov · September 23, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

Yeah it's a nice idea. Leadership vacuum with the palestinians, Arafat in exile as the palestinian hero... what better opportunity than this to expand Israeli settlements?

I'm willing to bet you that the leadership vacuum will be very very short.

I'm also willing to bet you that nothing of the scale of a civil war will occur.

HershOstropoler · September 23, 2003, 11:50

"As far as Arafat's money goes, I don't really understand the phrase "in public domain" in regards to the Palestinian Assets."

It means that a fund owned by the PA owns those assets, if I understand the IMF report correctly. Of course you can play all kinds of gmaes by placing your cronies in that fund and the companies etc...

"I'm willing to bet you that the leadership vacuum will be very very short."

I doubt that very much, if "leader" means someone who can sell some unpleasant compromises.

"I'm also willing to bet you that nothing of the scale of a civil war will occur."

Well that depends on other issues.

lord of the mark · September 24, 2003, 10:40

anyone notice that there haven't been any major terrorist attacks on Israel since they threatened to expel Arafat?

Looks like somebody got the message.

Sirotnikov · September 24, 2003, 12:18

hehehe