US lawmakers urge PayPal to end ban on Palestinians in Occupied Territories
arabnews.com
arabnews.com
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...
Namely, if you do not support the human rights abuses of one particular country, action will be taken against you.
[0]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-seizes-30-crypto-wallet...
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.
It’s hypocritical to take a side. They all suck, but the UN is too dysfunctional to change anything.
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.
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.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2023-0...
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.
Use Bitcoin. There are services that will convert bitcoin to other currencies and vice versa.
We don't need paypal.
``` /* * @title Blacklistable Token * @dev Allows accounts to be blacklisted by a "blacklister" role */ contract Blacklistable is Ownable {
```
[0] https://etherscan[.]io/address/0xa2327a938febf5fec13bacfb16a...
And anyone that is worried can use LUSD/DAI/GRAI or a myriad of other fully decentralized USD stablecoins.
Shouldn't lawmakers, um, make laws? Instead of asking nicely?
...and it was the very vocal anti-Israeli ones, such as Rashida Tlaib
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.
See: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-ac...
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.
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.
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.
Edit: wow, downvotes for just plainly stating what actually happens? Thanks HN /s
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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?
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.
https://monzo.com/blog/2019/04/04/why-we-block-freeze-close-...
Isn't that what they want?
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.
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.
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.
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-fought-the-paypal-and-i...
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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?
They are legally required to be vague and/or lie to you if they think you might be laundering money.
PayPal does not uniquely solve any problem.
Targeting only the people in charge?
Targeting everyone is a good recipe of uniting them all behind the bad ones.
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.
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.
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?
The argument you have made also implies that USA should be disconnected from PayPal.
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.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apart...
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?
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 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.
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.
That's how many explosive rockets Palestine fired at civilian targets in Israel in 2022.
Sorry but that isn't remotely equivalent.
Because it's also > 0, then by this logic we must ban all Israeli from accessing financial services.
Palestine has dropped more rockets on their own people than Israel has even sent their direction.
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...
In short, they don't want to appear to be funding terror.
Please note, that isn't my personal opinion on the Palestinians.