From EuroNews.net

Senior Palestinian officials say Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has submitted his resignation, frustrated over being blocked in a power struggle with President Yasser Arafat. On Thursday, Abbas called on parliament to either back him or sack him. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat made the announcement.

Erakat seemed to confirm reports that the resignation was an attempt by Abbas to bring matters to a head: " I hope we can the working formula which can get us from this crisis." However, Palestinian sources say Arafat has accepted his premier's resignation.

If Abbas were to quit definitively, it would be another blow for the "road map" peace plan- amid the collapse of a ceasefire declared by Palestinian militants and an Israeli military campaign to assassinate or capture their leaders.

In a speech to legislators, reviewing his first 100 days in office, Abbas admitted rifts with Arafat. He wants to be given control of Palestinian security services so he can tackle groups behind suicide atatcks against Israelis.

And with Arafat making the decisions we will be even farther from peace. :( A shame really since Abbas really tried to go after suicide bombers etc.

Great, back to arafat. Let the mayhem continue.

<font color=cadetblue>Sad news. Abbas really seemed commited to the peace process and now he's gone.</font>

There will never be peace in Palestine while Arafat is alive. He is too jealous of his power, and his power is based on terrorism.
Let us all pray that he dies fast, and in a natural way. Making him a martyr would be a catastrophe.

This is not Arafat's fault. Arafat stayed out of the process - this is Sharon's fault.

In order for Abbas to have credibility amongst the Palestinian people, he had to achieve something, *anything* on the level that Arafat had done. Instead, all that happened was that he appeared to make concessions while receiving nothing in return except more military attacks on the Palestinian street.

And by the way, Arafat's power is not based on terrorism - it is based on democracy. The people voted Arafat there - they never voted for Abbas; Arafat chose and appointed him. If a certain Israeli prime mininister had allowed peaceful elections to take place in Palestine in January of this year, we might have seen a different political makeup to the PA today.

I doubt if there will ever be peace while Sharon is in power - and you may criticise Arafat; but of all of the potential leaders of the Palestinians (those with credibility amongst the populace), he is the least militant of all of them.

Arafat led the frikkin PLO. Back to him? I say assassinate/exterminate his ass!!! Really. He does nothing other than pander to terrorists. Turn Mossad loose on him, I vote.

<font color=cadetblue>Hmm, but how do we know that the elections weren't rigged? In the case of most dictatorships, the elections are meaningless since the rulers will make sure that they remain in power.</font>

They were overseen by both the EU and the UN (and a *host* of NGO's) and declared to be both 'free and fair'.

More from EuroNews.

EU foreign ministers react to Abbas resignation

"Dangerous instability " for some , "very worrying" for others, Mahmoud Abbas's resignation sparked strong reactions on the final day of the EU foreign ministers meeting. Foreign policy head Javier Solana stayed brave, commission head Romano Prodi more circumspect;

Solana said no-one had expected the road to peace to be anything but bumpy, but Prodi said it was regrettable proof that extremiists on both sides were gaining the ascendency. More downbeat than most was the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh, who rounded on US and Israeli policy with the palestinian leadership ; "Mr Arafat is of course responsible, as he has not given the prime minister enough authority, but great responsibilty must be borne by Israel , and the US who gave him the kiss of death", she said.

Britain's Jack Straw hailed the decision to put pressure on Hamas, naming it a terrorist organisation, as proof the EU was making positive contributiions to the peace process.

The Riva del Garda meeting has been dominated by the middle east at a time when EU foreign policy has much other important business and strict timetables to follow , but the middle east crisis is so acute it cannot be ignored.

This is not Arafat's fault. Arafat stayed out of the process - this is Sharon's fault.

In order for Abbas to have credibility amongst the Palestinian people, he had to achieve something, *anything* on the level that Arafat had done. Instead, all that happened was that he appeared to make concessions while receiving nothing in return except more military attacks on the Palestinian street. </font>[/QUOTE]

IMO the Israel is at fault, but the Palestinians share a great deal of it: they didn't fulfill their part of the deal as well - disarming the terrorists. And also i recall some 30 civilian dead on a bus which I wouldn't ascribe to the Palestinian will to cooperate... And those were before Israel reactions, when the Raod Map was at its shinest shining glory.

Originally posted by Skunk:

Quote:

And by the way, Arafat's power is not based on terrorism - it is based on democracy. The people voted Arafat there - they never voted for Abbas; Arafat chose and appointed him. If a certain Israeli prime mininister had allowed peaceful elections to take place in Palestine in January of this year, we might have seen a different political makeup to the PA today.

Arafat rose to power as chief of the PLO which was responsible for many terrorist acts in the seventies, including the attack on the Isaraeli olympic team in Munchen (what's the name of that city in English?). Arafat was in charge back then. In the eighties and nineties, for the sake of peace, foreign governments decided to ignore the fact.
Afterwards Arafat started the second intifada, hoping to gain something more than what had been gained in the peace "treaty" of 1992. He lost control of its own brethren, and this is the result.

Originally posted by Skunk

Quote:

I doubt if there will ever be peace while Sharon is in power - and you may criticise Arafat; but of all of the potential leaders of the Palestinians (those with credibility amongst the populace), he is the least militant of all of them.

I strongly doubt there wil be peace while Arafat lives as well. I've already said that. He might be the least militant, but not least enough. His power among his people is based on him fighting. If he negotiates, he loses his power. He would rather kill his mother than lose power. Thus he cannot negotiate and is useless and a hindrance to peace.

Edit: spelling and grammar

[ 09-07-2003, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]

<font color = lightgreen>I can't believe that anyone seriously thought that Arafat would ever surrender any control over Palestinian affairs. :rolleyes:

The answer is simple: one spotter, one shooter, one minute, one shot.</font>

One martyr, multiple retaliatory strikes, multiple civilian deaths.

Please don;t construe this as support for Arafat - all the bad things said about him, I totally agree with. I just am not convinced that assassination is the answer [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh be fair. Abaas *ordered the arrest* of Senior Hamas leaders - but within 6 hours of issuing the warrants, Sharon injured 25 innocent bystanders in a helicopter gunship attack on a Hamas political leader. With that, Abaas's authority was gone - he could no longer sell the arrests to the Palestinian people as a way to end the violence: in fact it made his arrest warrants look like (at best) as those of a stooge - or more uncharitably as those of a collaborator/traitor. This is the reason why abaas fell - how could the Palestinian parliament back him after that?

Nonetheless, *no-one* doubts that both Arafat and Sharon (butcher of the Sabra and Shatila regugee camps) have the blood of many innocents on their hands from the 70/80's - that's unquestioned. But both were elected with the acceptance of foreign governments. If you attack Arafat for his past actions as a terrorist, then you must also attack Sharon for the massacre of 2,000 innocent civilians too. Be fair in your criticism.

What? Even after he surrendered *more than half* of his power as President??? Where have you been for the last 3 months???

The Palestinian Prime Minister has *ultimate* responsibility over the work of *all* public and governmental institutions, including the work of *every* ministry which now report to him rather than the President. The Prime Minister is also responsible for *ALL* internal security apparatus.

Finally, Arafat gave Abaas the *full* authority to negociate the peace with Israel.

So what Security powers does Arafat have left? He's responsible for National security (ie, the army, navy and airforce) - which is the case with every President across the world. What army, navy and airforce do the Palestinians have then? None! The responsibility then, is largely symbolic...

Finally, bear in mind that Arafat does *NOT* control Hamas - it is a political party with a militant wing, and Arafat is not a member. That's not to say that Arafat's word does not carry weight - but in the end Hamas will and frequently does do what it wants despite orders to the contrary from Arafat. Note that Arafat's Fatah movement *has* maintained the cease-fire up till now.

[ 09-08-2003, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

"The Prime Minister is also responsible for *ALL* internal security apparatus".
That's wrong.

As you said Arafat has given up all power, but he has retained control of national security. And National security in Palestine means Al Fatah and Al Aqsa Marthyr brigades, its armed extremist wing. Those report to Arafat only and are the only militia/police/order force in Palestine. Internal security cannot be dealt with without commanding Al Fatah.

Abbas ordered the arrest of Hamas senior activists? who would he send to take them in custody? Arafat's Al Fatah militiaì
Why do you think Abbas had to wait for 3 months to issue arrest orders? because Arafat wouldn't approve, and without his go ahead, Al FAtah wouldn't move a finger.
Why do you think Abbas resigned? because the parliament, faithful to Arafat, didn't give him the only significant power he absolutely needed to carry on his duties, that of public security, that which Arafat wouldn't concede.

So, you see, Arafat did not give Abbas what he needed to fulfill his peace mission, and kept it for himself, to retain an unwritten, unsanctioned but nevertheless effective absolute veto power. And he availed himself of that power constantly hindering the peace process by wilfully choosing not to allow any action against Hamas.


As to Sharon, I don't like him, and I am saying he is as guilty as Arafat. But the topic started about Palestine government, not Israeli government, and moved in the direction of the Arafat guilty or not theme.


Also, would you mind not erasing the "Originally posted by" line in your quotes, please?

[ 09-08-2003, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]

Well first of all the Al-Fatah and Aqsa Marthry Brigates are the armed wing of the political parties of the same name They are *not* part of the Palestian Authority nor do they report to it.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Sinn Fein handed over control of the Ira and Real Ira to the British Prime Minister? Because that is effectively what you are suggesting that Arafat does. What a wonderful concept! Unfortunately in the real world life isn't quite so utopian :(

Likewise, Arafat lacks the power and authority to hand over those Brigades (assuming that the members would agree to serve) to the Palestinian Authority. Remember that they are unpaid politicaly movitivated militant groups. This might help you to understand their relationship with Arafat a little bit more.

And finally of course, you do realise that both Brigades are considered to be terrorist organisations by both Washington and Israel??? How would it look if the Palestinian Prime Minister was suddenly the head of two 'terrorist' organisations? Sure would give Sharon an excuse for any breakdown in talks wouldn't it - "That Abaas is the head of *two* terrorist organisations! Of course he never wanted peace!" :D Sometimes you have to laugh! :D

No - he would (and did) send both the police and the intelligence service to pick them up. Also, as head of the judiciary and prisons, he would have been responsible for their detention.

Any move to arrest members of *the highly popular* Hamas movement would have to be a cautious one. Even in the relative peace of the opening moves of the negociations, it would be a heavy gamble. Remember that the people of Palestine have long viewed this group as the only thing standing between them and a holocaust. Abaas had to wait to build up a case against them - and he failed at the eleventh hour because some fool sent in a helicopter gunship...

Parliament is far from faithful to Arafat. The appointment of Abaas was really parliament's choice not Arafat - indeed Arafat fought parliament tooth and nail against having the position of Prime Minister in the first place. Secondly, once parliament had decided to appoint a PM, Arafat attempted to weaken the powers of the PM - but again parliament over-ruled him. In the nicest possible way, you need to read the newspapers - the power struggle was widely reported at the time.

An 'unwritten veto power' is no veto power at all!

That is not my fault - if you simply use the 'quote' tag, then the "originally posted by" bit does not appear. Some forum boards have instigated a little bit of code to help out in this scenario using the tag 'quote="B_part"' to get around this - but alas Ironworks has no such code.

Obviously I wouldn't want to engage in the bad practice of quoting the entire item in full, as this makes it difficult to note which parts I am referring to with my arguments ;)

[ 09-08-2003, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I agree with the partial quoting part, if everybody quoted full posts we would have 2 posts per page. Maybe you should manually write, at least in the first quote bit, where the qoute comes from.

That's because whenever I see partial quotes I tend to go back and read the whole post to check whether the quotes really reflect the sense of the post or are misleading bits. If the post is mine, as has been the case so far, I know what I have written. But if it's someone else's, one needs to skim every post to find where the quotes come from, and that's not so fun in heated, lengthy debates. It's not that I want to see my name after the originally posted by bit, just that I prefer to know who has posted.

Fair comment - I'll try to mention the name of the poster in future - just don't complain if I forget every now and again...

Of course I will! I will not forgive you once [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The replacement PM has arrived:

Arafat nominee to be PM
Palestinian parliament speaker Ahmed Qurei has confirmed he will take over as prime minister following the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas during a crisis in the leadership.
"President Yasser Arafat asked me to be the prime minister and I have accepted," he told journalists in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Wednesday.

Mr Qurei, who helped negotiate the Oslo peace accords with Israel 10 years ago, was nominated as prime minister at the weekend after the resignation of Mr Abbas...

...Both the US and Israel have said the priority for the new Palestinian prime minister must be to "fight terrorism".

Secretary of State Colin Powell said the US hoped the new appointee would be given "the political authority of the security forces and financial assets needed".

Mr Qurei, a leading member of Mr Arafat's mainstream Fatah faction who is also known as Abu Ala, said he would form an emergency government of six to eight members.

He said he hopes to call the Palestinian Legislative Council into session on Thursday to endorse it.

Israeli officials have expressed concern about Mr Qurei's close relations with Mr Arafat, whom they accuse of thwarting Mr Abbas's efforts to halt the violence and implement the roadmap.

In Washington, Mr Powell said earlier he was waiting to see how much power Ahmed Qurei would be given by Mr Arafat to "deal with the terror that's kept us from moving forward".

Mr Qurei has also been seeking European Union guarantees of support and an EU spokeswoman praised him as "a man who believes in peace with Israel and has done a lot for that".

<font color = lightgreen>Why should they bother? Mr. Qurei won't make any difference in the supposed "peace process", because no one really wants peace. I'll be surprised if he lasts 6 months. :rolleyes: </font>

I have been quite busy, and couldn't answer before. However, here I am.

[quote]Originally posted by Skunk:
[QB] Maybe I omitted a passage.
Al Fatah members are the backbone of the palestinian security force. Al Fatah is something different from the Palestinian police in name, but its penetration in the latter organisation is far too great to really make a distinction between the two. And Al Fatah regards Arafat as a leader. Thus if Arafat says no, the police won't move.

Maybe you get a point there. Yet he could have never arrested them. See below

Arafat conceded to have a PM, the parliament elected a PM. Arafat said the road map was dead, the parliament disgraced the PM. It's just a pantomime: Arafat wanted and managed to show his people that there is no alternative to him. Conceding to have a PM was a way to show his power. And the parliament followed like a pet dog.

The Pope and the church have no written power at all, yet lawmakers tend to follow what they say... and it happens in old democracies like the US, nevermind in the Palestinian democracy


Besides, Abu Abbas itself conditioned his stay as PM to getting true power over internal security matters. If he really had the power, why whould he have asked for it?

Oh, and one other, from Al Jazeera: Comic

They portrayed Arafat as stone heavy with Authority in his hands because it was him who had the power all along.

Don't be so optiimistic. Either he does nothing or he stays less than one month.

No - you're missing the point of the cartoon: you are seeing it from the US point of view.

In the cartoon, Abaas is being dropped from the hands of the US/Israel on the the Palestinian Authority. In other words, Abaas is being depicted as the stooge/collaborator of the US/Isreal polices and as such, he lacks any authority with the people in comparison to Arafat - who has the Palestinian interests in mind.

Oh and as for the BBC, it is *very* partisan and often gets the facts wrong esp. on middle eastern affairs:

"Internal security and public order (including preventive security, civil defense and police forces) are a Cabinet function (currently under the Ministry of Interior) and therefore, ultimately under the authority of the Prime Minister. Responsibility over national security resides with the President.
Palestinian National Authority

I agree with the US/Israel puppet part.

But I see that in the comic Arafat's authority literally outweighs Abu Abbas', and Arafat is keeping in his hands Palestinian Authority, not only authority in an abstract sense. That's what I have been saying all along: it has always been Arafat in charge.

[quote]Orginally posted by Skunk
[qb]"Internal security and public order (including preventive security, civil defense and police forces) are a Cabinet function (currently under the Ministry of Interior) and therefore, ultimately under the authority of the Prime Minister. Responsibility over national security resides with the President.[quote][qb]

You are particularly obsessed with what is written down in laws and constitution. I have seen countless violation of constitutional spirit in "true" (or at least old) democracies. I don't expect a fake democracy like the Palestinian Authority to respect its constitution.

Coming from the home of political corruption, that statement really takes the biscuit...Just because Italy is famous for political corruption, it does not mean that every other country partakes in a similar cake contest.

I think that you've lived in Milan for too much and the resultant cynicsim of seeing your government permanently with its hands in someone elses pocket has permanently damaged your objectivity. Either that or living under a Prime Minister who recently said: "Mussolini never killed anyone. Mussolini used to send people on vacation in internal exile," [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img] has caused you to believe that all heads of state are either corrupt or insane...

You have no grounds to support this claim in relation to the PA.

[ 09-13-2003, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Coming from the home of political corruption, that statement really takes the biscuit...Just because Italy is famous for political corruption, it does not mean that every other country partakes in a similar cake contest.

I think that you've lived in Milan for too much and the resultant cynicsim of seeing your government permanently with its hands in someone elses pocket has permanently damaged your objectivity.

You have no grounds to support this claim in relation to the PA. </font>[/QUOTE]I hope you realize how stupid and racist your remark is. If you don't, well, I won't waste my time trying to show you.

However when I said old democracies I wasn't talking about Italy, which isn't an old democracy. I was talking about the US (remember Vietnam? remember how ole Lyndon Johnson merrily played around his congressional mandate?) or France - they had to tear down at least 4 republics because of "murky" procedures.

Also, I never mentioned corruption in relation to the PA. I simply stated that power and influence do not always reside where the constitution says they should be, especially when bloody wars are being fought or have been fought recently. I am basing my evaluation on historical events similar to that in question.

For instance, in 1946 the italian government was ad interim in the king's hands, before free elections could be held. Yet a sizable part of the country, mostly in the North and North East was de facto under the influence of the communist partizans, whose prestige came from "liberating" Italy They obeyed Palmiro Togliatti, who in turn was very close to Stalin. In the end they let go, but Italy was on the edge of another civil war for a couple of years.


Another example: Greece, 1944 - 1945.
26th september 1944: right before the Nazis retired, the main figures of the resistance sign a treaty in Caserta where they agree to turn both partizan factions, ELAS (communist) and EDES (the others) into regular armed forces, to be comanded by the central government in the person of general Scobie. They agree also to disarm them after the war. Once the Germans retire, ELAS partizans ignore the disarming order and try to capture the capital and overturn the government they agreed to be commanded by. In the end British troops along with the EDES quell the revolt.

Afghanistan, 2003: Hamid Karzai is head of the government. warlords control the country outside Kabul.

These examples have in common one thing: an agreement clearly stating where power should be, and a situation which shows power doesn't reside there, but is held by those whose prestige comes from fighting, or at least claiming to have done, against the former enemy, be it Germany, the Talibans or, in Arafat's case, Israel

[ 09-14-2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]

Another stupid statement. That's like saying all US citizens agreed with the war in Iraq just because Bush did.

I don't condone what Berlusconi is saying, and never said anything about it.

It would be anti-Italian if the claims were unfounded - but do I really need to to post links to someone whose own city (Milan) was labeled by the Italian populace as Tangentopolis?? ( 'Tangenti' for those not in the know are bribes).

Or should we go on to talk about the 'Clean Hands' enquiry of '95 that implicated more than 80 MPs of high-level corruption? Or perhaps the resignation of Rome's police chief (what was that for again? Something to do with $200 million in gold perhaps?),or talk about how many judges were indited for accepting bribes?


Or perhaps just a couple of links will do?
Corruption and Political Financing in Italy
Italy plagued by Mafia-style universities
Italy's worst case of corruption
Corruption probe of Italy docs, drug firms growing

Of course you don't and I never suggested that you did - in fact I inferred the opposite, that I assumed that you would find such remarks/people to be 'insane'...


And finally, you gave three examples of unelected/imposed officials/groups who didn't follow the presribed constitution/rules. What does that prove?

Arafat and the Palestinian Authority were elected by universal suffrage. The PA is a democratic institution and Arfat won 85% of the votes in an election that saw voter turnout at between 85-90% and this was despite the harrassment of voters by Israeli forces:
"I don't think there is any doubt they [the Israelis] are doing everything they can to intimidate the voters," said former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, head of a team of election observers.

No other elected leader, before or after him, has won such a strong mandate from the people. There is a big difference between democratic institutions like the PA and undemocratic insitutions like the Afghan parliament. The former obeys the rules as it has no need to circumvent them, given the strength of support it has, while the latter, devoid of support, circumvents any rules that it has to in order to survive.

[ 09-14-2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

It would be anti-Italian if the claims were unfounded - but do I really need to to post links to someone whose own city (Milan) was labeled by the Italian populace as Tangentopolis?? ( 'Tangenti' for those not in the know are bribes).
Or should we go on to talk about the 'Clean Hands' enquiry of '95 that implicated more than 80 MPs of high-level corruption? Or perhaps the resignation of Rome's police chief (what was that for again? Something to do with $200 million in gold perhaps?),or talk about how many judges were indited for accepting bribes?
</font>[/QUOTE]

Just to be precise:

1)Tangentopoli (=Bribesville) was the name given to the complex of inquiries. The "ville" in question is not Milan as you imply, and in fact is no other city in Italy. saying XYZpoli in Italy is just like saying XYZgate in the US. No reference to any city or gate.

2)The inquiries you are talking about started on 27th september 1992 and raged in 93 until mid 94. After that, there were really no more inquiries, just trial completion, with the notable exception of the trials against Berlusconi, which kept popping up in later times.

3)Of the 3607 billion liras (1,863 mln €) in total bribes ascertained in the inquiries, most went under the heading "finanziamento illecito ai partiti" (=illicit funding of parties). That is, in order to get something from a politician, you paid his party a bribe. In the US it's called lobbying and campaign funding. The only difference is that in Italy it was and still is illegal. But no party could (and can) survive with the meager state-granted funds, so the illegal lobbying was in fact a need to allow things to work. Only a minor part of the money were spent on "true" bribes asked or given to the single politician.


Apart form that, following your line of resoning (there has been a clean hands inquiry for corruption => all italians are corrupted) one should:

[I don't mean any of the things I say below]

a)call the US the heaven of corruption as well, since the grandtotal bucks spent on lobbying on any given year is perhaps more than what was ascertained in all Tangentopoli.

b)call the US a country of killers given their daily homicide casualty toll

c)call germany the home of Nazism. After all it was only 50some years ago they killed 6+ million Jews

d)call palestine sanctuary of terrorists, given the number of terrorist acts perpetrated by palestinians

e)I hope you got it

I call that reasoning by stereotypes. If it's your way of reasoning, well, I cannot do anything about that, sorry.

__________________________________________________ __________________________

With regard to the examples I stated in previous posts, Italian and Greek government were not imposed but were the rightful representatives of the factions who fought against the Nazis AND the exiled government. If you don't like Hamid Karzai example, the same conflict would have happened if in his place there was Ahmad Massud, the old and people-chosen leader of the northern alliance.

Anyway there's no keeping up the argument. Our positions on the PA are in contrast and cannot be conciled. I have stated mine, you have stated yours. Debate closed.

But plenty of additional cases of corruption after the inquiry finished its last prosecution in 1995 - as you well know - and not just against Berlusconi.

And in any event, why did the Clean Hands inquiry end?
Since then the Prime Minister has ordered his Justice Ministry to investigate the Clean Hands investigators themselves. Milan chief prosecutor Francesco Saverio Borrelli was so outraged that he wrote a letter to the President of the Republic, Luigi Scalfaro, complaining that "even in Fascist times, such things were not allowed."
http://www.time.com/time/europe/time.../it941219.html
The head of the inquiry quit under intense pressure to ease up while his own investigators came under scruitiny for corruption themselves!!! You have to laugh or else you'll cry, huh?

Oh really? What happened below is certainly *not* called lobbying and campaign funding in the US - it most certainly *IS* called CORRUPTION:

"The awarding of public contracts was often meaningless. The winner was chosen before the assessment of requirements, through agreements between the company and the public official. The award was apparently above board but the public official had given the company prior information so allowing it to make the most appropriate tender. Sometimes clauses were inserted in the call for tenders to favour this company.
c) Sometimes the competing companies agreed on how a contract was to be awarded by arranging which company would propose the best tender. A sum of money was paid to the excluded companies. Public officials and politicians ensured that everything went according to plan.
d) Very often, and most certainly for the important contracts, the businesses and politicians agreed on the deal rather than the public officials. The latter were completely under the politicians' thumb, receiving personal benefits both in financial and career terms. We uncovered many deals fixed between a number of political parties to arrange and share kickbacks. One politician would be delegated by the others to negotiate with businesses even for kickbacks intended for another party. He collected the whole sum and shared it between the parties concerned.
e) It was the public institutions and not the businesses which bore the cost of the bribes as the latter transferred it to the former using a variety of systems. For example, by renegotiating prices or altering the project whilst work was in progress the firm was able to bump up the costs of the tender. Some firms also recovered the bribe by carrying out less costly work than had actually been agreed on.
f) The sum total of the bribes went in part to the personal feathering of nests and in part to cover expenses for day-to-day party management and elections. The annual sum total, at present, amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars.
g) Our investigations frequently uncovered international middle-men who were responsible for creating the funds from which the bribe was taken and for paying the bribe. They supplied their clients with a complete service of fund creation, financial transactions, the concealment of both by false invoicing and other devices, masking bank relationships through the use of transit and trust accounts as well as trust companies. We got the impression that some of these international middle-men acted like a decompression chamber interposing themselves in many transactions deriving from different illicit markets.

Gherardo Colombo, Milan Deputy Prosecutor
As you say, such practices are in Italy were and still are illegal - strangely enough, that is also the case in most countries too, inlcding the US. Funny that, huh? I can't think why...

That's your line of reasoning - not mine. I never once said that all Italiens are corrupt, so feel free to apologise for that insinuation whenever you feel like it.

But all based their power on the fact that they were backed up by force of arms - and certainly *not* by universal sufferage.

Fair enough - now we'll close this off-topic part and be done with it.

[ 09-15-2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

By saying "home of political corruption" you are implying that all or at least a sizeable part of the Italian politicians are corruptors and/or corrupted, and that voters who choose them agree with them, e.g. they are at least accomplices in corruption.
That's what you said, and it's you who should apologize.

About clean hands, it was my fault I didn't state my arguments well because of lack of time and will. Complex issues cannot be boiled down to simple ones, and there has been a misunderstanding. This is not the thread where we should discuss these things, however, so let it be over.
__________________________________________________ ____________



With the notable exception of Afghanistan, the governments we are talking about were legitimate, so legitimate that history scholars have been into studying why those who revolted did so, and not why the vast majority of the citizens followed the aforementioned governments. In Italy the government was so legitimate that the universal suffrage indicted to ask whether to change it or not was rigged to allow the "yes" to win.