By John Q. Hosedrinker 661 terrorists tied to Oct. 7 to get PA ‘pay for slay’ financial stipends
As I read the headline, “661 terrorists tied to Oct. 7 to get PA ‘pay for slay’ financial stipends,” I couldn’t help but reflect deeply on the themes and sentiments surrounding this issue. It’s disheartening to see that the international community questions why Israelis don’t view the Palestinian Authority (PA) as a genuine partner for peace. The PA’s practice of providing financial stipends to terrorists and their families only exacerbates this mistrust.
It’s perplexing to witness the continued funding of terror-enabling institutions like the PA and UNRWA by Western countries. The fact that Saddam Hussein awarded generous sums of money to Palestinians involved in attacks against Israelis sheds light on the soft spot some Palestinians have for him and the Arab Ba’ath party. This raises questions about the values and priorities of certain Palestinian individuals and groups.
The PA’s “pay for slay” policy, which allocates 7% of its annual budget for stipends to Palestinian terrorists and their families, is deeply troubling. The size of these payouts depends on factors such as the number of Israelis killed, the length of incarceration, and family size. This policy not only undermines efforts to achieve peace but also raises doubts about the PA’s commitment to combating terrorism.
It is concerning to think about the terrorists who carried out acts of violence, including the murder of innocent individuals in 2002, receiving stipends from the PA. The fact that these individuals were released in the Shalit exchange and may have been involved in the events of October 7th is particularly distressing. How can Israel be expected to engage in a meaningful peace process when forced to deal with a so-called “moderate” government that supports and rewards terrorists?
The PA’s response to the events of October 7th is indicative of its internal divisions and its inability to adapt to the changing times. The PA’s callousness in simultaneously denying responsibility for the violence while requesting the personal bank details of captured Hamas militants for martyr funds reveals a lack of understanding of the political climate and the desire for formal recognition from countries like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
The question then arises: why is the PA still receiving international recognition and financial support despite its controversial practices? The UN Human Rights Council’s consistent resolutions against Israel seem contradictory and undermine the perception of fairness and objectivity. The PA’s mandated allocation of funds for terrorists raises serious concerns about the priorities of the international community.
As I delve deeper into these issues, I can’t help but feel a lack of sympathy for Palestinians or any Islamic cult of death that prioritizes violence and murder over progressive values. Cultures should bring out the best in us, but in this case, I struggle to see any resemblance of a culture that values life and peace.
The idea that Israel would like to contribute to the “pay for slay” fund sarcastically highlights the absurdity of the situation. It also draws attention to the potential violation of the Genocide Convention by the State of Palestine. Paying individuals for committing acts of genocide is an unimaginable offense and only reinforces the need for accountability and justice.
The comparison made between Israel’s war with Hamas and the events of October 7th in terms of legal arguments is thought-provoking. Israel’s enemies would face far stronger grounds for legal charges of genocide, yet Israel seems to be on the defensive. This raises questions about Israel’s approach to propaganda and its use of legal arguments.
The comment about Mossad’s involvement adds a layer of complexity to the situation. It highlights the deep-rooted issues in the region and the interference and skullduggery that hinder progress towards a free Palestine.
Upon reading these comments, it becomes clear that the PA’s actions and policies are highly controversial and divisive. The question of Palestine’s statehood and the role of terrorism in achieving this goal are complex and require careful examination.
In conclusion, the issue of 661 terrorists receiving financial stipends from the PA demonstrates the challenges and contradictions inherent in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability, and a reformed approach by the PA to regain the trust of the international community. Ultimately, the focus should be on fostering a culture that values peace, coexistence, and the well-being of all people involved, rather than rewarding violence and terrorism.