view the rest of the comments
World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
Yep. Reasoning out why its getting framed that way is an exercise I'll leave up to the readers, but those same sources have confirmed the facts even if they are getting framed differently - the goods are taxed when they get imported into Israel, and the tax is paid by people in Israel. If those good are then exported from Israel to Gaza or the West Bank, then the governments of those places would be within their rights to tax it again. However, the 1994 deal kept that tax burden off the Palestinians while maintaining their access to Israeli logistics and infrastructure as opposed to importing goods from Egypt or Jordan, or shipping them into Gaza directly from the Mediterranean. The governments of Gaza and the West Bank became dependent on the free money, and that gave Israel leverage which it is now choosing to use.
Edit: Just to make sure I was doing my homework, I actually found a copy of the relevant agreement. Read Annex V point 1 (1st page) and Appendix V point 4 (2nd page). Both make it clear that Israel is collecting Palestinian taxes from Palestinians and on purchases made wholly in Palestine with a final destination inside Palestine. Given the very specific language of the agreement, I'm even more sure your assertion that it's Israeli-sourced money is incorrect.
Your word alone is not enough, and in the absence of requested evidence I'm going to disregard it. I have found MANY sources going back years that state that Israel is collecting Palestinian taxes, as in money that Palestine would be collecting if it wasn't occupied/was a self-governing nation. Israel also frequently withholds these taxes as a political bludgeon even though they are bound by their own signed agreements to pass that money along to Palestinian authorities. Israel even charges a 3% fee to do this for Palestine. I cannot find a single source that backs up your assertion that it's actually Israel's money transferred as an act of charity. Moreover, the idea that Israel is being unnecessarily kind clashes with decades of evidence about how Israel views, controls, and abuses Palestinians.
Well, you see, if you steal something you sort of own it, and then give it back, that's an act of charity. It' makes perfect sense if you frame it that way.
You don't need to take my word for it. Its spelled out in the agreement that you've provided a link to, in Annex V.1.a.
The companies importing the goods into Israel pay the tax - that's how excise taxes work. Israel agreed to give an amount of that tax revenue to the governments of Gaza and the West Bank, and that amount was calculated based on how much of those goods would later be exported from Israel to Gaza and the West Bank. Without the agreement, the governments of Gaza and the West Bank would be underfunded unless they levied their own import and excise taxes, which would have the effect of increasing prices for Palestinians.
Israel agreed to the deal that kept prices low for Palestinians and provided funding for the governments of Gaza and the West Bank at Israel's expense. A cynic might believe they did so, at least in part, to cause dependency and to gain leverage rather than exclusively out of a spirit of humanitarianism, nevertheless they did agree to the deal and it did materially help the Palestinians and the governments of Gaza and the West Bank.
Those are some mental gymnastics, to try to tell me that when a Palestinian purchases fuel or other products in Palestine and the tax money goes to Israel that it's not Palestinian taxes. That it's Israeli money and is only returned (or sometimes not) because Israel is kind to Palestine. Or that when Israel collects the taxes on a Palestinian's job located in the OPT, i.e. all work is done outside Israeli borders, that it's not Israel collecting Palestinian taxes.