From Betsy's Page: The head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has approved a new law, providing monetary grants to the families of suicide bombers:
Abbas gave his approval just six days ago, a day before a suicide bomber struck the HaSharon Mall in Netanya, killing five Israelis and wounding scores of others. The legislation refers to the suicide terrorists as shahids (martyrs), a term generally applied to a person who dies in an operation fighting against Israel.BETSY: Don't forget that the United States and Europe provide much of the funding for the Palestinian Authority.
Under the new law, the terrorist’s family will be paid a base sum of $250 per month. The law takes into account extended family arrangements commonplace in Arab societies. The families of married terrorists are entitled to an additional $50 per month, and $15 are added for each child, $25 for each parent, and $15 for each brother who lived with the terrorist prior to his death.
From an ASTUTE BLOGER commenter (on another thread), Gandalin:
"...the Abbas "government" has passed a law to pay the families of suicide/homicide bombers a stipend of at least $250 a month. This is ... subsidizing the mass murder of Jews. By the way, remember when President Bush said that those who pay for terror would be treated just as justly as the terrorists themselves? When is he going to apply that principle to the Palestinian Authority?"I agree with Gandalin: Bush has been way too soft on Abbas and the PNA - and we do have a lever other than miltary force (as Betsy points out): we can use the money we give them as a lever.
We MUST hold Bush to his WORD, when he said, in his Setember 21 2001 speech (before a special Joint Session of Congress after 9/11):
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."Obviously. the Abbas Administration - by financially supporting jihadoterrorist familes - EXACTLY LIKE SADDAM DID! - has PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT SUPPORTS TERRORISM AND IS THEREFORE A HOSTILE REGIME.
Mr. President, will you stand by your word?
(More HERE.)
4 comments:
It is clear that the Bush Administration has made a decision to simply let Israel take care of thier own house. I think this is a bad decision. But, you know why I think it has happened? Because the criticism of George Bush has been so relentless, and coming from both sides of the aisle, that he has decided to pick his battles very carefully, and this is not the field he wants to die on.
This policy, in my opinion, is the direct result of the kind of idiocy that I was so angered by the other day in my criticism of Robert Spencer.
I absolutely agree with your criticism of George Bush in this post. And what's more, I agree with the tone of it. It is appropriate. In fact, I think, if you were to talk directly to George Bush, and voice this criticism, he would say, "Thank you very much for telling me that. It would be good if more people supported such a policy. As you note, that was the original intent of the War on Terror."
When people who are on the side of the Bush Admin., turn around and call him a Dhimmi, an idiot, or any other all-encompassing name, then it adds to the hail of rhetoric which rains down on the Bush admin. It becomes an indistinguishable part of the white noise and anger which is the background of american public life these days. It's not perceived by anyone as being a distinctly conservative criticism.
The balance of rhetoric vs. reason has gone way out of control in our society.
I thank you for working to be reasonable. I wish you would join me in my fight against Spencer's rhetoric.
well - I must say I am suprised there is no thread here on the lunatic president of Iran and his frothing at the mouth - but I will inject it here 'cause I believe it fits in with your criticism of GWB.
Some say the Iranian's have taken a positive step by calling to move Israel instead of obliterate it. Be that as it may - the Iranian president has opened the discussion as to what appropriate state should exist for which people.
Perhaps the EU should move Belgium to Iraq - they both are based upon a weakly founded national identity containing a mix of various ethnic/language groups.
But returning to the issue of Bush holding to his declared principals: When is the USA going to stand up for the rights of the Kurds to their own nation? They should have their homelands in Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq consolidated. Why should we adhere to a map drawn up by some bureucrats in London?
I know there will be some realpolitik-seers who will claim this change would release chaotic repercusions... BS. Chaos is good. Shake things up and the situation will find the appropriate order.
Its the right thing to do and the sooner the better.
Thank you for mentioning the Kurds.
Unlike the "Palestinians," the Kurds comprise a real nation, with their own language, history, and culture. Certainly in an ideal world they would enjoy a secure, national, geographic state.
For the time being, they profess themselves, in Iraq, satisfied with the federal Iraqi state that is emerging. If at some time in the future, a Kurdish state becomes possible, I agree that it might very well be a very good thing for the Kurds, the Middle East, and the rest of the world.
Iranian leader denies Holocaust (BBC)
Haman Achmajadine is still frothing at the mouth.
I guess it's easy to deny the existence of atomic weapons, or forged Iraqi ballots...
I think they are getting close to the brink...
the doctor precribes a copious preemtive enema for those assholes.
Post a Comment