Israel and the bank hypocrisy

I hate conflicts. I feel there is a resolution to everything if the agenda or purpose is to find a solution. In the wonderful historcal case of Israel-Palestine however, that is not true. Neither Israel nor the Palestinian leadership are really looking for a solution and the world watches people die everyday either from the backstage (USA, and other supporters of Israel) or as audiences (Saudi Arabia, arab/muslim world and non-supporters of Israel). Condemning the act has brought about nothing but casualties for the people of Gaza and muslims in general all around the world. Action requires balls from Costco (as per Russell Peters) to stand up and either fight or take diplomatic decisons by stepping on a nerve or two. Who says that the muslim world is not supporting Hamas and Hezbollah? Of course they are. By providing them with rockets that do nothing but paint the faces of Israel soldiers black.

In the wake of these attacks by Israel on the army of Gaza that has "top-of-the-line weapons and computer systems used and recognized worldwide" some interesting decisions were taken by Barclays bank and Lloyds TSB - both have presence in Dubai. Initially the news was reported in a local newspaper The National that gets published out of Abu Dhabi. No other local newspaper published the news. How do I know all this? Someone I know works for the bank and of course the internet.

The bank put a seal on accounts that had any links to the Palestinian cause or support for Hamas. Most of these accounts for obvious reasons belonged to Muslims or Muslim organizations who would send money to aid the people in Palestine and other countries. No reasons were given. When the news was published, an email was sent out to the staff detailing what "should/should not" be said if customers ask questions reagarding this issue. British Muslims called for boycotting the banks but for obvious reasons nothing happened and everyone got busy with the New Year celebrations.

If that was not enough, a new rule has come forth. Every transaction made to the bank from an account that has a Muslim name (particularly Mohammad or its variants) has to go through the sanctions department before getting approved. There is no start/end limit to the amount. Everything shoud be reported even if the person is not a bank customer. That is correct. So if I have an account in BankA and I sent some money to Barclays and my name resembles a Muslim name (which is very easy to find out nowadays), I should be reported. The staff is asked to get names, passport number, phone number etc whatever possible. They have also been given special instructions through emails sent in FAQ format to handle dissatisfied customers. When asked by the staff that this is not appropriate and whats the rationale behind it, no reason was given. Of course, no reason is needed because it is understood by default that the name is Islamic.

For obvious reasons I was a bit furious. After some thought I figured that the Israeli attack on Gaza started on Dec 27 and the news was published on Dec 28. Obviously the account(s) were closed before Dec 27 unless they were closed the same day as the news was published. The US has done nothing so far to stop the fighting but in return has rejected UNs call for a truce/ceasefire. The Bush administration is leaving and blaming Hamas for starting it whereas the incoming President Obama is not really bothered about what is happening. Oil is at its lowest and no word is coming out of Saudi or other oil rich countries except condemning the attack which goes hand in hand with the no-balls-to-do-anything theory.

I would not be surprised if it all stops as soon as Obama takes the Oval Office. Maybe this is just an opportunity for Israel to "play" a little before the new US president takes over or maybe, Bush just wanted another chapter in his retirement book - something that sounded better then "Muntadir Al-Zaidi taking a shot at the president with his shoes".