US lawmakers urge PayPal to end ban on Palestinians in Occupied Territories(arabnews.com)
arabnews.com
US lawmakers urge PayPal to end ban on Palestinians in Occupied Territories
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2310186/business-economy
192 comments
The sad reality is that Paypal doesn't serve these territories because they are "high risk" and also low income which means the amount of compliance officers they would have to employ to watch people in these territories and the regulatory penalties for accidentally letting a Hamas transaction slip through (these aren't easy to detect either as the government emphasizes that "terrorist financing" can be as little as a few hundred dollars at a time, in fact most terrorist financing prosecutions involve amounts < $10000) probably does not exceed the amount of fees they would earn.
Funny...PayPal is available to Israeli settlers residing in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. So it seems it is not the region...Western Union seems to be able to manage fine there: https://location.westernunion.com/ps?page=2&country=PS&q=Pal...
This is also why they don't serve Haiti, for example.
It's also not coincidental that this letter was just written, since only a couple months ago Hamas was forced to stop accepting Bitcoin donations because a number of their donators in the US were arrested after their contributions were arrested for sponsoring the terrorist group.
In fact it's such an unlikely coincidence, that some of the 11 US legislators that signed this letter are associated with non-profits who's donations seem to trickle into Hamas bank accounts...
Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/ilhan-omar-ras...
It's also not coincidental that this letter was just written, since only a couple months ago Hamas was forced to stop accepting Bitcoin donations because a number of their donators in the US were arrested after their contributions were arrested for sponsoring the terrorist group.
In fact it's such an unlikely coincidence, that some of the 11 US legislators that signed this letter are associated with non-profits who's donations seem to trickle into Hamas bank accounts...
Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/ilhan-omar-ras...
People forget that just because a payment services is so entrenched and powerful that many people think of it more like a public utility doesn't mean it isn't just as amoral as any other company. Visa has shattered entire industries on a whim by deciding it was simply more profitable not to service certain classes of people or professions. Somehow they're allowed to do that. We need common-carrier rules for payment processors.
Have you considered that regulation is what causes those issues?
stuff like processing sex industry related payments isn't illegal but isn't supported by big payment processors so it's defacto illegal. govt indecision to regulate here allows them to make shots of how economy operates via monopoly power
Does US law have anything to say about private companies supporting human rights abuse in other countries through their policies?
Yes, US law in 35 states does have something to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in...
Namely, if you do not support the human rights abuses of one particular country, action will be taken against you.
Namely, if you do not support the human rights abuses of one particular country, action will be taken against you.
If it did, almost none of the top companies in the US would exists anymore. Of course it doesn't.
the US often doesn't even have to say anything about human right abuse _in_ the US
The U.S. doesn't care about "human rights" if the supposed perpetrator supports U.S. hegemony.
I think it doesn't because it wants to control what is polices, rather than relying on third parties like human rights groups to decide that.
Given the recent seizure of crypto accounts funnelling money to Hamas and Iran[0], this seems pretty sensible, to funnel more financial activity in the region onto platforms that have good AML/ATF processes.
[0]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-seizes-30-crypto-wallet...
[0]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-seizes-30-crypto-wallet...
It might as well be that the only reason why Iran and others are active in Palestine is because it’s blockaded.
Before all this they had legal and fair election where they elected a terrorist org: Hamas.
Stop infantilizing an entire people. They are adults with their own agency. They are responsible for the decisions they make.
The reason a terrorist group runs things there is because they want it to. In fact, if elections were held today, Hamas would lose… to Islamic Jihad because they’re more radical. Support for Hamas has been waning in recent years not because they’re a failed government but because they’ve failed to deliver serious harm to Israelis. The reason Iran is active there is because their interests are aligned (destroy Israel). The reason PayPal doesn’t operate there is because the AML/KYC would be much too expensive for the amount of money they could possibly make on entering that market. The reason these “lawmakers” are agitating for this is because they hate the state of Israel.
Stop infantilizing an entire people. They are adults with their own agency. They are responsible for the decisions they make.
The reason a terrorist group runs things there is because they want it to. In fact, if elections were held today, Hamas would lose… to Islamic Jihad because they’re more radical. Support for Hamas has been waning in recent years not because they’re a failed government but because they’ve failed to deliver serious harm to Israelis. The reason Iran is active there is because their interests are aligned (destroy Israel). The reason PayPal doesn’t operate there is because the AML/KYC would be much too expensive for the amount of money they could possibly make on entering that market. The reason these “lawmakers” are agitating for this is because they hate the state of Israel.
Well, I support neither Islamists, nor Israel. And I can see how Palestinians look like terrorist to someone from Israel. But I can understand that IDF looks like a terrorist organization when they drop bombs on your head. Point is, both sides take extremely violent actions which affect non-combatants, at least from time to time.
It’s hypocritical to take a side. They all suck, but the UN is too dysfunctional to change anything.
It’s hypocritical to take a side. They all suck, but the UN is too dysfunctional to change anything.
It’s gross moral equivocating to compare the two. The famous line that every Israeli knows is “If the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be peace, if the Israelis laid down their weapons they would all be killed.” This has been shown to be true again and again.
Only one side celebrates and encourages people to walk into a building full of random people and blow it up. Only one side handed out candy in the street when one of their own stabbed an entire family to death (including a 3mo baby). You are very wrong to compare the two and it shows either your ignorance or total disregard for human life.
Only one side celebrates and encourages people to walk into a building full of random people and blow it up. Only one side handed out candy in the street when one of their own stabbed an entire family to death (including a 3mo baby). You are very wrong to compare the two and it shows either your ignorance or total disregard for human life.
> The famous line that every Israeli knows
It’s only relevant if you assume Israelis are superior to their neighbors. Why you don’t see the subjectivity of the statement is beyond me. What you’ve got understand is that both parties look kind of barbaric to an outsider.
It’s only relevant if you assume Israelis are superior to their neighbors. Why you don’t see the subjectivity of the statement is beyond me. What you’ve got understand is that both parties look kind of barbaric to an outsider.
What is a terrorist organisation? By what definition is IDF not one? Or the Israeli state that keeps getting support through elections?
Exactly. Also related to this...
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2023-0...
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2023-0...
it sounds like we need an anti-OFAC law. Instead of only telling companies who they can't transact with, tell them who they can't arbitrarily not transact with.
We need a financial bill of rights. Custody and payment rails should be like public utilities where everyone can use them regardless of your opinions about them.
We need a financial bill of rights. Custody and payment rails should be like public utilities where everyone can use them regardless of your opinions about them.
I think Republicans tried something like this in the aftermath of Choke Point, it didn't go anywhere: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-money-laund....
Isnt this what Bitcoin is for?
Use Bitcoin. There are services that will convert bitcoin to other currencies and vice versa.
We don't need paypal.
Use Bitcoin. There are services that will convert bitcoin to other currencies and vice versa.
We don't need paypal.
Why would people use Bitcoin over sending USDC or other USD stablecoins directly on any other chain?
Because that new boss is same as the old boss
``` /* * @title Blacklistable Token * @dev Allows accounts to be blacklisted by a "blacklister" role */ contract Blacklistable is Ownable {
```
[0] https://etherscan[.]io/address/0xa2327a938febf5fec13bacfb16a...
``` /* * @title Blacklistable Token * @dev Allows accounts to be blacklisted by a "blacklister" role */ contract Blacklistable is Ownable {
```
[0] https://etherscan[.]io/address/0xa2327a938febf5fec13bacfb16a...
I doubt Palestinians are worried about being blacklisted considering the only people that have been blacklisted are hackers and North Korea.
And anyone that is worried can use LUSD/DAI/GRAI or a myriad of other fully decentralized USD stablecoins.
And anyone that is worried can use LUSD/DAI/GRAI or a myriad of other fully decentralized USD stablecoins.
I doubt (choose a figure at this point: Snowden, Assange, Palestinians, OnlyFans) needs to get worried about getting blacklisted financially because (choose a reason how they wouldn’t get financially blacklisted based on precedent, and then were blacklisted). Specific payment rails behavior has never mattered with this, it’s always about the ability existing as people jump across payment options.
>lawmakers urge
Shouldn't lawmakers, um, make laws? Instead of asking nicely?
Shouldn't lawmakers, um, make laws? Instead of asking nicely?
Yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if signing a meaningless letter an aide wrote gives better PR than pushing for a failed bill. And it's hard to imagine a pro-Palestine bill actually passing.
I don't think the U.S. government has the right to force a company to operate in another country.
However they do have the power to end a boycott, either directly or indirectly (see the laws passed by various states regarding refusing to do business with Israel).
The ones that criminalize participating in a boycott? A fourth grader can identity those as flatly unconstitutional.
Yeah the immediately following "public opinion" section is particularly interesting. really makes u think.
I do wonder how Pew got such drastically different results from every other poll.
Just in a quick glance at the source it seems like simply poor or misleading phrasing on wikipedia. Looks like the poll wasn't "support/oppose" with 95% oppose but it was more like "do you support" with 5% yes.
[deleted]
There's already a government office for exactly that: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
However, it does not apply in this case because the U.S. does not recognize Palestine as a country, and if that changes, it seems unlikely that it would be a country friendly to the United States.
However, it does not apply in this case because the U.S. does not recognize Palestine as a country, and if that changes, it seems unlikely that it would be a country friendly to the United States.
Nor do legislators have the right to pursue US foreign policy. That's the executive's job
[deleted]
What would that law look like exactly? It couldn't single or PayPal and likely shouldn't single or Palestine to be sorry all the time and effort to get it passed.
"A company with <revenue/number of users/...> larger than <number> may not freeze your account without giving any reason and without any recourse.
That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use.
Defining what those limits are is entirely arbitrary, how do we pick a number that makes sense universally? Is that number adjusted for inflation, population size, business market share, etc? Does this only apply to financial service businesses, regulated financial institutions, or any business? What's the legal definition here for freezing an account?
Writing clear laws isn't an easy or fast process, especially when you're talking about a government regulation 300M+ citizens spread across 50 different states with their own laws.
Defining what those limits are is entirely arbitrary, how do we pick a number that makes sense universally? Is that number adjusted for inflation, population size, business market share, etc? Does this only apply to financial service businesses, regulated financial institutions, or any business? What's the legal definition here for freezing an account?
Writing clear laws isn't an easy or fast process, especially when you're talking about a government regulation 300M+ citizens spread across 50 different states with their own laws.
> That's a pretty serious step with the federal government directly limiting what every business can do. I'm not actually sure if that would even be constitutional given that it severely limits how potentially privately owned businesses set their own terms of use.
See: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-ac...
See: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-ac...
I never said there isn't precedent for the government seeing some limits on what companies can do. It's important to note, though, that this is a constitutional amendment rather than a law and had a much higher requirement to pass.
This precedent would also be equating the civil rights protections within American borders with the rights of non-US citizens to use a company's payment service in a foreign territory. Not sure that is be comfortable comparing those two issues.
This precedent would also be equating the civil rights protections within American borders with the rights of non-US citizens to use a company's payment service in a foreign territory. Not sure that is be comfortable comparing those two issues.
Because this is a minority opinion speaking.
This[1] interview gave me more of a nuanced understanding of the whole situation. Highly recommend it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv8F4NLr4E0&t=194s
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv8F4NLr4E0&t=194s
I wish lawmakers would urge (or force?) PayPal to actually give you a detailed reason when they freeze your account and effectively confiscate your money. I still have hundreds of dollars tied up in the limbo of "your account is frozen but we won't tell you why."
> your account is frozen but we won't tell you why
If they suspect fraud, they aren't allowed to tell you about it. They also aren't allowed to give you your money back (incase the money is laundered).
The only way to get your money back is to get a court to order them to give it back. The process is fairly simple - go to a small claims court, and ask the court to order them to give the money back. They won't contest it, they will just return your money and close the account.
That way, if it turns out that it wasn't your money, or you are a terrorist, paypal is no longer liable - they were just doing what the court ordered.
If they suspect fraud, they aren't allowed to tell you about it. They also aren't allowed to give you your money back (incase the money is laundered).
The only way to get your money back is to get a court to order them to give it back. The process is fairly simple - go to a small claims court, and ask the court to order them to give the money back. They won't contest it, they will just return your money and close the account.
That way, if it turns out that it wasn't your money, or you are a terrorist, paypal is no longer liable - they were just doing what the court ordered.
> If they suspect fraud, they aren't allowed to tell you about it.
That sounds like bullshit. Why would a mere suspicion of fraud, in the absence of a subpoena or court/gag order, mean that they aren't allowed to tell the account holder that they are suspecting fraud?
That sounds like bullshit. Why would a mere suspicion of fraud, in the absence of a subpoena or court/gag order, mean that they aren't allowed to tell the account holder that they are suspecting fraud?
Correct. Look up the laws on suspicious activity reporting.
If they came back and said "oh, we banned you because you made multiple, small transaction to high risk countries", well then you could just not do it next time.
If they came back and said "oh, we banned you because you made multiple, small transaction to high risk countries", well then you could just not do it next time.
Monzo have a very informative article about it, explains what this looks like from the side of the bank. They are literally not allowed to tell you, and also the other interesting thing is that they see how skilled fraudsters are at social engineering - the kind of posts that sometime surface here on HN "my bank/google/paypal blocked my account and they won't help me!" - it's not that every one of them is a scam, but fraudsters are incredibly good at writing those across social media and putting pressure on companies to unblock them.
https://monzo.com/blog/2019/04/04/why-we-block-freeze-close-...
https://monzo.com/blog/2019/04/04/why-we-block-freeze-close-...
> well then you could just not do it next time.
Isn't that what they want?
Isn't that what they want?
Anti money laundering checks are typically very primitive. Things like "Made at least 3 payments in a week to accounts recently created".
If they told you what the checks were, you could easily come up with a scheme to not be flagged.
What they miss is that all serious criminals know someone who works for a bank and can just tell the criminals what the checks are at that bank.
If they told you what the checks were, you could easily come up with a scheme to not be flagged.
What they miss is that all serious criminals know someone who works for a bank and can just tell the criminals what the checks are at that bank.
No, because if you know enough rules you can still launder money but not set of the alerts.
They want you to not commit fraud, they also want to catch you if you do
[deleted]
Pretty amazing how nonchalant you’re talking about theft. I guess the approved strategy for legal theft is as follows.
1. Create a payments company that accepts deposits and holds balances (a bank — but don’t call it that)
2. Create a broken AML algorithm that flags X% of deposits as fraud
3. Force the falsely accused to take you to court to get their money back
4. Keep the rest. Most people won’t contest
What a great “business” model.
1. Create a payments company that accepts deposits and holds balances (a bank — but don’t call it that)
2. Create a broken AML algorithm that flags X% of deposits as fraud
3. Force the falsely accused to take you to court to get their money back
4. Keep the rest. Most people won’t contest
What a great “business” model.
You assume malice. It's not. They're just covering their asses. They earn magnitudes more on the transaction fees of legitimate purchases than they could ever get from stealing money through that scheme. Not even considering that the frozen money isn't even theirs to use but a liability in their accounting.
Amazing how my bank never had this issue. I’ve sent ACH, wires, checks, and Zelles left and right with my major bank for years and years. No issues.
Yet my PayPal account that I used twice and had a $6 balance got closed permanently. Along with millions of others.
>You assume malice. It’s not.
Yes it is. Like many tech companies, they’ve “algorithm’d” something that used to take human investigation work. And their algorithm sucks. Their support sucks. This is all intentional so they can save money on labor. So they’re not stealing my money directly. So what? They’re freezing my funds and forcing me to take them to court so they can operate with lower labor costs. That’s theft — it doesn’t matter if they don’t use my money. If I rob you of some cash and then burn it, is it not still robbery?
Yet my PayPal account that I used twice and had a $6 balance got closed permanently. Along with millions of others.
>You assume malice. It’s not.
Yes it is. Like many tech companies, they’ve “algorithm’d” something that used to take human investigation work. And their algorithm sucks. Their support sucks. This is all intentional so they can save money on labor. So they’re not stealing my money directly. So what? They’re freezing my funds and forcing me to take them to court so they can operate with lower labor costs. That’s theft — it doesn’t matter if they don’t use my money. If I rob you of some cash and then burn it, is it not still robbery?
You don't get to keep the money yourself. It sits on your balance sheet as a liability for 7 years, and eventually gets classed as a dormant account and gets paid to the state treasury.
This isn't my wheelhouse but couldn't one put the money in a money market account and keep the interest?
I think they are required by law to do so. At least in the US.
What law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
"A financial institution is not allowed to inform a business or consumer that a SAR [suspicious activity report] is being filed."
Laws like this exist in many countries (including my own) that turn banks into agents spying their customers on behalf of the government. Calling it even a "bank secrecy act" is downright cynical.
I understand that law enforcement agencies need to be able to go after criminals but I think the balance between freedom and security has been way off for a long time already.
That's exactly the reason why Switzerland used to have the strictest bank secrecy laws world wide. It was not to become a safe haven for criminals but to maintain the financial freedom of its citizens.
"A financial institution is not allowed to inform a business or consumer that a SAR [suspicious activity report] is being filed."
Laws like this exist in many countries (including my own) that turn banks into agents spying their customers on behalf of the government. Calling it even a "bank secrecy act" is downright cynical.
I understand that law enforcement agencies need to be able to go after criminals but I think the balance between freedom and security has been way off for a long time already.
That's exactly the reason why Switzerland used to have the strictest bank secrecy laws world wide. It was not to become a safe haven for criminals but to maintain the financial freedom of its citizens.
(1) would not be legal without an enormous amount of work.
Your comment is ironic considering PayPal does exactly that and is in fact not a bank. They are licensed as a money transmitter.
Sure. I didn't say it was impossible or that they needed to be a bank. Getting licensed as a money transmitter is really challenging.
The process is fairly simple - go to a small claims court, and ask the court to order them to give the money back.
Where I'm from you gotta file in person and there's a fee for filing and you pay someone to serve the defendant. Then you gotta show up at the court date. That's a bunch of fees and two days off from work before you even get a decision. I understand that this is the process, but it's not so simple for a lot of people to take days off from work, come up with money for fees (especially if their paypal is frozen), etc. It just doesn't serve the regular Joe all that well.
Where I'm from you gotta file in person and there's a fee for filing and you pay someone to serve the defendant. Then you gotta show up at the court date. That's a bunch of fees and two days off from work before you even get a decision. I understand that this is the process, but it's not so simple for a lot of people to take days off from work, come up with money for fees (especially if their paypal is frozen), etc. It just doesn't serve the regular Joe all that well.
It's the other way around. If you're flagged for AML investigation, telling you it would be tipping off and explicitely illegal.
If you are engaged in money laundering then the very fact that your funds were frozen is enough of the tip-off. If you’re not then they might as well tell you about their suspicions. If you were mixed up in some money laundering scheme involuntarily you might even be willing to help the investigation
If the only confirm cases where the user isn’t suspected of money laundering, the non-confirmation becomes equivalent to confirmation that the user is suspected of money laundering.
Maybe, but not legally.
Exactly. I spent 11+ years in a Fortune 500 financial services company, and my annual anti-money laundering training always stressed (and included one quiz question) that if you saw something fishy, escalate to Compliance, and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES share suspicions with clients. Even if some aspect of the regulation doesn't make much sense, you do not cross the regulators.
It does kinda seem like if it's flagged for investigation... like, eventually an investigation should happen, right? And then you either get your money back or are charged with a crime?
I get that that's not what actually happens, but it's pretty weird that it doesn't. They can't tell you about it because it's flagged for investigation. When's the investigation? Never.
I get that that's not what actually happens, but it's pretty weird that it doesn't. They can't tell you about it because it's flagged for investigation. When's the investigation? Never.
The AML should really be update to something like...
Freeze the account, refer immediately to law enforcement, if LE doesn't take action within XX days, unfreeze the account.
AMLs exist for a reason. It's the "freeze the account with no end in sight" that's the real problem. It's not like freezing the account isn't going to tip off any actual money laundering operation, so the freeze is only partially doing what we want.
AMLs exist for a reason. It's the "freeze the account with no end in sight" that's the real problem. It's not like freezing the account isn't going to tip off any actual money laundering operation, so the freeze is only partially doing what we want.
They have specific laws that BAN them from giving detailed reasons for why they froze your accounts. Giving you a reason, or sometimes even hinting that there might be a problem, would be classified as "tipping off", which is a federal crime and can land even the lowliest finance worker in jail.
People need to read up on AML (anti-money laundering) laws. They are a bit insane.
Know them because I've worked in regulated financial companies for years and have had to do the mandatory training about a dozen times.
People need to read up on AML (anti-money laundering) laws. They are a bit insane.
Know them because I've worked in regulated financial companies for years and have had to do the mandatory training about a dozen times.
So even if there are no suspicions of money-laundering, they can't tell you why the account is frozen? Because otherwise, if they won't tell you why, it must be AML?
Try withdrawing again. They unblock it without any notification while keeping the account limited.
Actually, PayPal's action are definitely not just hostile customer support but something about their risk protection (which includes US government data) has tripped off and they can't legally tell you (the legal term is "tipping-off"). PayPal has many questionable decisions but this one is not even PayPal's fault (or more alternatively the US government forces every financial institution to act hostile "in the name of [US national] security").
Edit: wow, downvotes for just plainly stating what actually happens? Thanks HN /s
Edit: wow, downvotes for just plainly stating what actually happens? Thanks HN /s
Not just the US. Most, if not all, developed economies have similar laws.
I don’t understand why people keep their money inside these platforms. Surely if you are getting a lot of money, you should be depositing it in your bank regularly?
He said he had hundreds of dollars tied up. That is a fairly small balance for someone who does (did) a lot of business with paypal and is transferring it out regularly.
They want to earn interest on your money.
Not sure if this is relevant to your situation, but I found this blog post interesting:
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-fought-the-paypal-and-i...
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-fought-the-paypal-and-i...
I've had absolutely terrible experiences with Palpal. Lawmakers should be urging everyone to use a better service, forget worrying about PayPal's ban.
The last straw for me was when they blocked a transaction of a few hundred dollars without any explaination. I was talking to a support rep for well over an hour, repeatedly being told that there is no security team at PayPal that can see why a transaction was blocked override the block. I was told the security system was a black box, they wouldn't transferred me to a supervisor, and the end result was a recommendation to try a different payment system like bank transfer.
This happened to be on the day we were selling our house. The buyer came in with a cash offer and a 7-day close. The inspection results came back after the paperwork was already drawn up, when they asked for a few hundred for electrical repairs it should have been easier to do that as an addendum rather that completely redoing the closing settlement sheet. I guess PayPal had better ideas.
The last straw for me was when they blocked a transaction of a few hundred dollars without any explaination. I was talking to a support rep for well over an hour, repeatedly being told that there is no security team at PayPal that can see why a transaction was blocked override the block. I was told the security system was a black box, they wouldn't transferred me to a supervisor, and the end result was a recommendation to try a different payment system like bank transfer.
This happened to be on the day we were selling our house. The buyer came in with a cash offer and a 7-day close. The inspection results came back after the paperwork was already drawn up, when they asked for a few hundred for electrical repairs it should have been easier to do that as an addendum rather that completely redoing the closing settlement sheet. I guess PayPal had better ideas.
> I've had absolutely terrible experiences with Palpal. Lawmakers should be urging everyone to use a better service, forget worrying about PayPal's ban.
I'd rather have the government enforce something like user-friendly free globally available instant payment and settlement system. Then none of these shady services would be required.
Fox example, a version of SWIFT, but instant, free and distributed.
I'd rather have the government enforce something like user-friendly free globally available instant payment and settlement system. Then none of these shady services would be required.
Fox example, a version of SWIFT, but instant, free and distributed.
This is available today and already used by millions. It's USDC/LUSD on Ethereum/Polygon/Tron (pick your chain based on desired cost and security requirements).
The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out".
The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out".
> This is available today and already used by millions.
> The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out".
If I can't use it for bank to bank transfers or paying for things in a supermarket or another person, that means it is not available today.
> The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out".
If I can't use it for bank to bank transfers or paying for things in a supermarket or another person, that means it is not available today.
Do you use Paypal for paying for things in a supermarket?
You can transfer USDC to anywhere you need to spend it. I use it all the time for transferring between my Australian and USA bank accounts.
You said you were looking for a SWIFT replacement, this is it.
You can transfer USDC to anywhere you need to spend it. I use it all the time for transferring between my Australian and USA bank accounts.
You said you were looking for a SWIFT replacement, this is it.
I'd be happy for that system to exist in the private sector. Can't say I'd be too happy to see the federal government have a monopoly of all transaction data and censorship powers though.
That's not going to be possible, alone because there are countries like Iran or North Korea or maybe-countries like Palestine which are sanctioned for good reasons.
What good reasons? Kim Jung Un can send boats with gold bars. Meanwhile I can't send money without the bank asking me 'what ya gonna do with "your" money little friend?'
Just have the money in escrow for 30 days or whatever if fraud is a concern.
It is all about messing with us and showing who is in charge.
Just have the money in escrow for 30 days or whatever if fraud is a concern.
It is all about messing with us and showing who is in charge.
> Kim Jung Un can send boats with gold bars.
Which is orders of magnitude more complex than running a SWIFT transfer, which is the entire goal of the sanctions: make it as hard as possible for the sanctioned country to do anything. Everyone knows and we've seen it over the last years that it is possible to evade any sanction - hell, even over many decades like Cuba - but it is a serious incentive for any government to do as told.
> Meanwhile I can't send money without the bank asking me 'what ya gonna do with "your" money little friend?'
Most of that bullshit comes from the "war on drugs" and "war on sex work" which are completely different beasts than international sanctions, and I think we can agree on both of these being ripe for the scrap heap.
Which is orders of magnitude more complex than running a SWIFT transfer, which is the entire goal of the sanctions: make it as hard as possible for the sanctioned country to do anything. Everyone knows and we've seen it over the last years that it is possible to evade any sanction - hell, even over many decades like Cuba - but it is a serious incentive for any government to do as told.
> Meanwhile I can't send money without the bank asking me 'what ya gonna do with "your" money little friend?'
Most of that bullshit comes from the "war on drugs" and "war on sex work" which are completely different beasts than international sanctions, and I think we can agree on both of these being ripe for the scrap heap.
SWIFT ain't the only game in town, you should know that.
Plus, gold is redeemeable just about anywhere and easy/fast to exchange without need to identify yourself.
You are right for reduced complexity when transferring small amounts, the situation completely inverses once you transfer +6 digits. Gold is fairly portable and simple by comparison to carry across a borders.
Plus, gold is redeemeable just about anywhere and easy/fast to exchange without need to identify yourself.
You are right for reduced complexity when transferring small amounts, the situation completely inverses once you transfer +6 digits. Gold is fairly portable and simple by comparison to carry across a borders.
NK might be a bad example on my part as it is such a strange state. I.e. I can't buy kimshi from some NK farmer. However, I believe the right to trade is more benifitial in the long term for mutual peace love and understanding etc. The states can circumvent the restrictions by being states and it hurts mainly the populace.
It's a legally mandated black box. Anti-money-laundering laws in the US make it explicitly illegal to even tell you that they suspect money laundering if they think you might be laundering money. (Source: 11+ years of anti-money-laundering training and quizzes in a Fortune 500 financial services company.)
They are legally required to be vague and/or lie to you if they think you might be laundering money.
They are legally required to be vague and/or lie to you if they think you might be laundering money.
So is there any viable alternative to PayPal at present (for individuals and small businesses)?
That doesn't have onerous documentation requirements (like submitting all your PII to some untrustworthy entity) and is not subject to the same arbitrary seizures and stonewalling?
That doesn't have onerous documentation requirements (like submitting all your PII to some untrustworthy entity) and is not subject to the same arbitrary seizures and stonewalling?
Jokingly, I'm surprised they didn't just send you a poop emoji.
propogandist(1)
Or just don't use PayPal. There is nothing necessary about PayPal.
The only thing this will result in is even more funding for Hamas, and possibly even money laundering for Iran.
You do not believe that there are any Palestinians who might have legitimate uses for PayPal?
But they made the misstake of being born at the wrong place.
Unlike the Russians facing issues due to the actions of their government? Do you think they are all guilty, all deserving of sanction and economic hardship? Of course not, but what's the alternative?
"Of course not, but what's the alternative?"
Targeting only the people in charge?
Targeting everyone is a good recipe of uniting them all behind the bad ones.
Targeting only the people in charge?
Targeting everyone is a good recipe of uniting them all behind the bad ones.
OK, so your ministers are targeted, but everyday citizens are not. It's now trivial to work around sanctions and they don't matter at all. When your sanctions are symbolic, that's fine. When they're meant to actually have an economic impact, that doesn't work. There's an argument for fomenting dissent against the government causing the sanctions, too. If there were good, easy solutions, it wouldn't be the conflict that it is.
"It's now trivial to work around sanctions and they don't matter at all."
Putin did not dare to travel to south africa. The Oligarchs cannot use their Yachts anymore and their international assets are frozen(and they are not happy about it). That sounds like pretty effective targeted sanctions to me.
Putin did not dare to travel to south africa. The Oligarchs cannot use their Yachts anymore and their international assets are frozen(and they are not happy about it). That sounds like pretty effective targeted sanctions to me.
I thought the point of sanctions was to discourage whatever behavior caused the sanction to be implemented in the first place.
No one claimed that sanctions alone will stop the war.
And ALL of the russians are under sanctions since 2014 btw. and that clearly did not prevented the big war, or made Putin less powerful. So if anything, this refutes that sanctions against a whole population are helping.
And ALL of the russians are under sanctions since 2014 btw. and that clearly did not prevented the big war, or made Putin less powerful. So if anything, this refutes that sanctions against a whole population are helping.
No, it doesn't, because you don't know what the world would have looked like if there were no sanctions. If the impact of the sanctions delayed the war or forced Russia to go in with fewer supplies then the sanctions absolutely had a measurable impact. Just because Putin has strong authority now doesn't mean he wouldn't have been stronger without sanctions. Your arguments have no basis in reality.
"If the impact of the sanctions delayed the war or forced Russia to go in with fewer supplies then the sanctions absolutely had a measurable impact."
If is key here. You claim there is no alternative to broad sanctions, yet they have been shown to not work (preventing war). And that they delayed the war, you show no proof or indications. If Putins plan was all out war from the beginning, then why would he have waited at all? And sanctions targeting special military supplies are a different thing from sanctioning the civilian population.
So what exactly is your argument based in reality?
If is key here. You claim there is no alternative to broad sanctions, yet they have been shown to not work (preventing war). And that they delayed the war, you show no proof or indications. If Putins plan was all out war from the beginning, then why would he have waited at all? And sanctions targeting special military supplies are a different thing from sanctioning the civilian population.
So what exactly is your argument based in reality?
Hamas is their democratically elected government. They have no excuse. Is there no way to leave Palestine if you don't support Hamas?
It's hard to call either Hamas or Fatah democratically elected - there haven't been elections since 2006, and Hamas actually ran a coup the following year to seize power after they lost in the parliamentary elections.
Even if there are some who would benefit from this (and they have plenty of others methods), should we make it easier for terrorists to transfer money through Paypal?
Literally do a web search for any first world country and domestic terrorism and you'll find an instance of it.
The argument you have made also implies that USA should be disconnected from PayPal.
The argument you have made also implies that USA should be disconnected from PayPal.
Is it really domestic when the effective governing body in Gaza and some of the West Bank is Hamas? Should we not sanction countries ruled by terrorist organizations?
I'm fine with that as long as the definition of terrorism is objective and not ideological/political. What objective definition of state terrorism applies to Palestine but not the state of Israel?
You're comparing apples and oranges. The counterparts to the government of Israel would be the PA and Hamas, not "Palestine".
There is no objective measure of terrorism since that designation is a political one. You can look at the objectivity of the criteria but the choosing of the criteria is unavoidably political. The question is not whether or not the definition is objective, but whether or not it is fairly applied. How would you describe a government that pays the families of "martyrs" who blow themselves up in coffee shops and restaurants, not despite but for their actions?
There is no objective measure of terrorism since that designation is a political one. You can look at the objectivity of the criteria but the choosing of the criteria is unavoidably political. The question is not whether or not the definition is objective, but whether or not it is fairly applied. How would you describe a government that pays the families of "martyrs" who blow themselves up in coffee shops and restaurants, not despite but for their actions?
Hamas keeps sending Qassam and other rockets towards Israel, indiscriminately targeting everything while using human shields to defend launch and command sites in a clear violation of international law. On top of that come suicide bombers targeting civilians, which is clearly and indisputably terrorism, and on top of that they pay off the families of martyrs and terrorists, thereby creating a massive financial incentive.
Israel isn't free from blame - particularly the actions of Ben Gvir and friends or the expansions of settlement activity are reprehensible and completely unnecessary provocations - but nothing they do is even remotely as bad as what comes out of Palestine.
Israel isn't free from blame - particularly the actions of Ben Gvir and friends or the expansions of settlement activity are reprehensible and completely unnecessary provocations - but nothing they do is even remotely as bad as what comes out of Palestine.
I'll just drop this here, and say nothing more:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
> Should we not sanction countries ruled by terrorist organizations?
Correct.
The punishment should fit the crime. Being born in a location run by a terrorist organization is not a crime.
This idea of group punishment is a very slippery slope and I believe you've already slide down it. As I pointed out in the previous comment, there are domestic terrorists in the US. And I'll go even further, members of the US current government have argued that other members of that government attempted a coup. Can't get much stronger claims of being ran by a terrorist organization than that.
A good example of sanctions is the recent US ones vs Russia. It's almost entirely targeted towards individuals and property/companies associated with those individuals who promote/support invading Ukraine. (War being the crime, sanctions being the punishment).
w.r.t. PayPal, afaik they're not the only payments organization so I'm fine with them not providing service as it's not like the Palestinian's have no alternative. (As opposed to say the only grocery store in a region refusing to sell food to a homosexual).
Correct.
The punishment should fit the crime. Being born in a location run by a terrorist organization is not a crime.
This idea of group punishment is a very slippery slope and I believe you've already slide down it. As I pointed out in the previous comment, there are domestic terrorists in the US. And I'll go even further, members of the US current government have argued that other members of that government attempted a coup. Can't get much stronger claims of being ran by a terrorist organization than that.
A good example of sanctions is the recent US ones vs Russia. It's almost entirely targeted towards individuals and property/companies associated with those individuals who promote/support invading Ukraine. (War being the crime, sanctions being the punishment).
w.r.t. PayPal, afaik they're not the only payments organization so I'm fine with them not providing service as it's not like the Palestinian's have no alternative. (As opposed to say the only grocery store in a region refusing to sell food to a homosexual).
> The punishment should fit the crime. Being born in a location run by a terrorist organization is not a crime.
The problem is, as soon as you remove the sanctions, Hamas will use that to collect funds to buy more weapons to send off to Israel.
The only way to achieve actual, lasting peace in Israel and Palestine is to get an Arab country as a guarantor that Israel won't be attacked - but Hamas is so deeply connected with Iran whom everyone else in the region intensely dislikes that no one will take on that role.
The problem is, as soon as you remove the sanctions, Hamas will use that to collect funds to buy more weapons to send off to Israel.
The only way to achieve actual, lasting peace in Israel and Palestine is to get an Arab country as a guarantor that Israel won't be attacked - but Hamas is so deeply connected with Iran whom everyone else in the region intensely dislikes that no one will take on that role.
Why would an Arab country guarantee Israel won't get attack? They literally want that land for themselves and went to war over that.
Actual people are the ones giving money to Hamas. Those people can and should be sanctioned. The people that aren't shouldn't be. It's a simple concept.
Actual people are the ones giving money to Hamas. Those people can and should be sanctioned. The people that aren't shouldn't be. It's a simple concept.
As long as the one deciding that is the US, the one that conveniently ignores the deeds of their allies in the region when they're not busy themselves destabilizing it and toppling their heads of state, no.
PayPal's withdrawal from Palestine isn't required by the US.
PayPal isn't sanctioning any state, they do not have the power to do that. The comment I'm responding to is talking about sanctions.
1,100
That's how many explosive rockets Palestine fired at civilian targets in Israel in 2022.
Sorry but that isn't remotely equivalent.
That's how many explosive rockets Palestine fired at civilian targets in Israel in 2022.
Sorry but that isn't remotely equivalent.
Now please count how many rockets, bombs and other munitions Israel fired at civilian targets in Palestine.
Because it's also > 0, then by this logic we must ban all Israeli from accessing financial services.
Because it's also > 0, then by this logic we must ban all Israeli from accessing financial services.
Israel actually does multiple levels of warning before issuing strikes against shared civilian/terrorist infrastructure including leaflets, audible warnings and so on, and only then fires a payload.
Palestine has dropped more rockets on their own people than Israel has even sent their direction.
Palestine has dropped more rockets on their own people than Israel has even sent their direction.
What should ordinary people in the territories do?
I mean per the article, Palastine has banks with corresponding US banks to handle transfers. So, ordinary people of those territories can use their banks.
What kind of hurdles does someone need to overcome to transfer money to a Palestinian through the bank? Banks deal with the same OFAC requirements that PayPal does.
Get rid of Hamas instead of shooting rockets at Israel?
I'm curious why PayPal bans Palestinians. It's not like they want to limit their addressable market.
Seems likely related to OFAC, which is tough to google casually
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...
Nothing specific to Palestine on the country programs, but OFAC explains further that our sanctions are much more complicated than country-by-country here:
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...
Seems likely related to OFAC, which is tough to google casually
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...
Nothing specific to Palestine on the country programs, but OFAC explains further that our sanctions are much more complicated than country-by-country here:
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...
My guess is they don't want to piss off the Israeli government—or the elements in the US government who see blindly supporting Israel as an axiomatic good.
Optics.
In short, they don't want to appear to be funding terror.
Please note, that isn't my personal opinion on the Palestinians.
In short, they don't want to appear to be funding terror.
Please note, that isn't my personal opinion on the Palestinians.
bushbaba(1)