I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Sep 13th, 2003 04:16 PM

Abcdxxxx

No. I understood you completely. That was my response.

Israel isn't going to kill, or remove Arafat while Hamas or the like are around. They're going to put the heat on him and hope he seeks refuge in Tunisia of his own accord. The scenario you're expecting is just a sensationalist viewpoint that suggests keeping Israel tangled is better for it's well being. Silly. You can't treat criminals and dictators as if they're untouchable.

The PA's have been planning an escalation of violence for years. They're not stockpiling katyusha rockets for fun. They're hungering for an event to tie it to, but it's going to happen regardless. Removing the leaders who manage, coordinate, and produce violence like it's a photo shoot, will change everything. Including Israel's need for a clamp down response.

I'd prefer to see him arrested, and put to trial. I'd love to see him put in front of the world, while a list of all the crimes he's responsible for is read.

If he was killed I'd be real, real happy about it though. Think about it, even if he died of natural causes in his sleep tommorow, he's going to become a martyr figure to some, and people will always blame Israel for the death. I think it's Shimon Peres who's holding on to the whole "he'll become a martyr" theory. You can thank that clown for allowing the return of Arafat to begin with. That theory is the reason Arafat's still alive, and by default, it gives him living matyr status. Palestinian's don't love him...they love what he can get away with.

Sep 13th, 2003 03:20 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

You're missing my point. I believe that an assault on Arafat, or any further assaults on Hamas, will create a backlash from within the Palestinian community. I think Israel is well aware of this. So, this thus confuses me. If your own actions are almost certain to create more violence, are you then counting on being in a perpetual state of war....?

Quote:

What would be cooperating? Nothing short of laying down for genocide will be viewed as cooperation in the eyes of the PA.

I think an Israeli minister of, uh, something said it best today. To kill Arafat would make him a martyr, and to exile him would make him a celebrity amongst the nations he'd surely visit. Is this preferable to keeping him in the Middle East and trying to work through him...?

Quote:

What do you mean by escalation? When infants are being shot dead in their sleep, things have escalated. Sure there will be an increase of clashes, at first, but once the people who are organizing these "uprisings" are gone, and the billions of aid dollars Arafat steals finally makes it's way to the people, I think things will mellow. He will not help the long term well being of his adopted people.

This is a wonderful story book ending, but I find it unlikely. Arafat is not the head of the serpent, he's it's representative. Taking him out would create a hydra, IMO.

Quote:

I believe Arafat is a filthy genocidal maniac. His power must be restrained, and he should be brought to justice for his crimes.

So you agree with either exile, or more preferably assasination...?

Quote:

Also - did you mean Subjugation? I had to look that one up. None of this indicates Israel is making moves to enslave or make Palestinians subserviant to them. Arabs enjoy greater freedom within Israel proper then they would in any other Middle Eastern nation. Arafat's presence has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, my bad spelling.

You're again missing my point. I feel that actions against Arafat, and further actions against Hamas will create a violent reciprocity against Israel. It will not end. You seem to think that with Arafat dead, and all of Hamas hypothetically gone, that peace will finally be achieved. I find this to be incredibly naive, and my question of subjugation comes into play regarding Israel's response to the outrage and the backlash. If riots and assaults result from Arafat's death, is Israel prepared or preparing to subjugate and fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank.....?

Sep 12th, 2003 09:23 PM

Abcdxxxx

Sep 12th, 2003 09:16 PM

Abcdxxxx

Kevin - "Don't you see it rather as a step towards subjegation, rather than cooperation...? Is Israel's solution a full-on assault on the Palestinian people if such actions incited a more severe intifada....? "

How is this a full-on assualt on the Palestinian people? They're not all terrorists. Israel's targetting the upper tier of the PLO union.

What would be cooperating? Nothing short of laying down for genocide will be viewed as cooperation in the eyes of the PA.

Arafat was hiding in Tunisia before Oslo. Only Israeli peaceniks brought him back.

What do you mean by escalation? When infants are being shot dead in their sleep, things have escalated. Sure there will be an increase of clashes, at first, but once the people who are organizing these "uprisings" are gone, and the billions of aid dollars Arafat steals finally makes it's way to the people, I think things will mellow. He will not help the long term well being of his adopted people.

The intifada wasn't created because of Oslo, or Sharon, it was created because Israel was seen as week when it remained passive during the first Gulf War. Legitimizing the PLO, and granting diplomacy only elevated their support within the Arab world. That is the real reason why we have reached this boiling point now.

I believe Arafat is a filthy genocidal maniac. His power must be restrained, and he should be brought to justice for his crimes.

Sep 12th, 2003 04:40 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Now, ABC, it's funny you'd make the dancing comment, because I have a question for you. Actually, first an editorial from the Jerusalem Post, and then a question or two:

Jerusalem Post Editorial: Kill Arafat
Thu Sep 11 2003 22:11:57 ET

The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative.

No one seriously argues with the fact that Arafat was preventing Mahmoud Abbas, the prime minister he appointed, from combating terrorism, to the extent that was willing to do so. Almost no one seriously disputes that Abbas on whom Israel, the US, and Europe had placed all their bets failed primarily because Arafat retained control of much of the security apparatus, and that Arafat wanted him to fail.

The new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, clearly will fare no better, since he, if anything, has been trying to garner more power for Arafat, not less. Under these circumstances, the idea of exiling Arafat is gaining currency, but the standard objection is that he will be as much or more of a problem when free to travel the world than he is locked up in Ramallah.

If only three countries Britain, France, and Germany joined the US in a total boycott of Arafat this would not be the case. If these countries did not speak with Arafat, it would not matter much who did, and however much a local Palestinian leader would claim to consult with Arafat, his power would be gone.

But such a boycott will not happen. Only now, after more than 800 Israelis have died in three years of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, has Europe finally decided that Hamas is a terrorist organization. How much longer will it take before it cuts off Arafat? Yet Israel cannot accept a situation in which Arafat blocks any Palestinian break with terrorism, whether from here or in exile. Therefore, we are at another point in our history at which the diplomatic risks of defending ourselves are exceeded by the risks of not doing so.

Such was the case in the Six Day War, when Israel was forced to launch a preemptive attack or accept destruction. And when Menachem Begin decided to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And when Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in Palestinian cities after the Passover Massacre of 2002. In each case, Israel tried every fashion of restraint, every plea to the international community to take action that would avoid the need for "extreme" measures, all to no avail. When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right.

Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself.

Arafat's survival and power are a test of the proposition that it is possible to pursue a cause through terror and not have that cause rejected by the international community. Killing Arafat, more than any other act, would demonstrate that the tool of terror is unacceptable, even against Israel, even in the name of a Palestinian state. Arafat does not just stand for terror, he stands for the refusal to make peace with Israel under any circumstances and within any borders.

In this respect, there is no distinction, beyond the tactical, between him and Hamas. Europe's refusal to utterly reject him condemns Palestinians, no less than Israelis, to endless war and dooms the possibility of the two-state solution the world claims to seek.

While the prospect of a Palestinian power vacuum is feared by some, the worst of all worlds is what exists now: Terrorists attack Israel at will under the umbrella of legitimacy provided by Arafat. Hamas would not be able to fill a post-Arafat vacuum; on the contrary, Hamas would lose the cover it has today.

A word must be said here about the most common claim made by those who would not isolate Arafat, let alone kill him: that he is the elected leader of the Palestinian people. Even if Arafat was chosen in a truly free election (when does his term end?), which we would dispute, this does not close the question of his legitimacy.

Whom the Palestinians choose to lead them is none of our business, provided it is a free choice, and provided they do not opt for leaders who choose terror and aggression. So long as the Palestinians choose such a leadership, it should be held no more immune to counterattack by Israel than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were by the United States.

We complain that a double standard is applied to us, and it is. But we cannot complain when we apply that double standard to ourselves. Arafat's survival, under our watchful eyes, is living testimony to our tolerance of that double standard. If we want another standard to be applied, we must begin by applying it ourselves.
###

"Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself."

I have serious problems with this argument. I think it's quite clear to every Palestinian, and every Arab, that Israel has been, and will in the future, be MORE than willing to defend herself. I think an attempt on Arafat's life would cause violent reciprocity against innocent Israeli people, either at the hands of Hamas, or some other group.

Now, I don't agree with such an assasination, because I tend to see violence as cyclical and reproductive. Do you, ABC, see an assault on Arafat, AND members of Hamas, as a productive method towards peace in the Middle East? Don't you see it rather as a step towards subjegation, rather than cooperation...? Is Israel's solution a full-on assault on the Palestinian people if such actions incited a more severe intifada....?

Just curious.

Sep 11th, 2003 08:20 PM

Abcdxxxx

Not yet. I'm thinking this was more of a stunt to shift focus back on Arafat, and show that he is indeed in control with the support of "his people".

From interview with Katie Couric on "Today" show:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/944490....a01&cp1=1#BODY
Couric: Does [Palestinian President Yasir] Arafat have to approve the actions that you take?
Abbas:Â* Â*Â*All the actions, all the actions. He is the leader of the Palestinian people.

Timing it on 9/11 right after a replacement for Abbas was named, isn't an accident. i doubt they're planning on removing him just yet.

"D.) Group activities such as paper flower making and square dance"

I don't mind this idea. I'm great at DanceDance Revolution, and I'll gladly dance for peace (right on Arafat's grave!)

Sep 11th, 2003 07:09 PM

The_Rorschach

"B.) Forced removal"

Well it appears this is the route Israel will be taking, Arafat was officially expelled today with extreme prejudice.

Sep 9th, 2003 06:47 PM

The_Rorschach

". . . pussyfooting. What do you mean by that? The whole problem with the US's involvement to date has been just this, we refuse to make a coherent statement, or we make statements that appear to be substantive but we don't put anything on the line.

"Are you advocating
A.) Permanent, active, military occupation."

Of course I must object to this as there is no power in existance which could properly represent the concerns of both sides. The majority of current nations and organizations are simply disinterested by truth and justice, up to and including the EU, the UN, the Russians, and the US. Of these, the US is split between a pro-Israeli congress and an anti-Israeli state department which can only exude even more 'pussyfooting.' All that come of occupation by such coalitions would be further hostilities and an overabundance of new targets.

"B.) Forced removal"
Certainly the forced removal of major Levantine Arab terrorists such as Arafat, Barghouti, Abdel-Shafi, Erekat, Ashrawi, and Said. This list can grow to include any other grown men whom prove themselves incapable of playing nicely with their nieghbours.

"C.) Genocide"
You would have to give me a definition of the terms which would construe Genocide in this situation before I can answer this one.

"D.) Group activities such as paper flower making and square dance"
I was always partial to the Macaroni Masques and the Hokey Pokey, but regardless of the activities agreed upon, it would not be a bad idea. In Ireland they group Protistants coming out of seminary with Catholics in the hopes that through coexistance, some measure of peace and tolerance can be forged, if not outright friendship It is fairly effective in the Emerald Isle, though it has quite a ways to travel before it can be called a success. Why not in Israel also?

Sep 9th, 2003 05:27 PM

Abcdxxxx

There is absolutely no undercurrent of state sponsored genocide being commited by Israelis against palestinian arabs. None. Israel has already stated it has no desire for permenant "occupation", forced removal or sqaure dancing... but they sure do love folk dancing there.

Cutting US aid will have little to no effect on Israel's military. If anything, the US military and it's relationships will suffer greatly a a result. The US does not fund Israel's war machine, nor does it have the right to limit the ability of a soveriegn nation from using their military in self defense, including preventative strikes.

Coming down on them because they're the only party of the two that you have any control over will NOT stop the daily attacks against Israel.

You say "neither side wants a cease fire"...what's that based on? Has Israel had the oppurtunity to prove they will adhere to a cease fire when there's nobody within the PA who can or wants to deliver the same?

Sep 9th, 2003 04:20 PM

mburbank

In Question A, you miss my point. I mean, if Arafat called for, and actively meant to call for a ceasefire.

It's moot, because you do see the rest of my point which is that no one in any position of power on either side wants a ceasefire, or a roadmap or anything of the kind.

"leave the Israeli's to work things out with the Palestinians as they see fit."
Is pussyfooting. What do you mean by that? The whole problem with the US's involvement to date has been just this, we refuse to make a coherent statement, or we make statements that appear to be substantive but we don't put anything on the line.

Are you advocating
A.) Permanent, active, military occupation.
B.) Forced removal
C.) Genocide
D.) Group activities such as paper flower making and square dance

In the absence of a Palestinian power capable of making and enforcing a political peace with NO EXCEPTIONS, ie. erradicating terrorism, something that we, a superpower can't do, Israel, an actual state with an actual, functioning government is the only player capable of delivering anything.

Other Arab countries need to step up to the plate and deny aid and money to the Palestinians until some form of reliable authority is established, but they will have zero incentive to do this until we do the ame with Israel. We are there principal benefactor, we fund their war machine or their security machine dpeneding on how you look at it. We cannot stop them from fighting but we can work toward making it more difficult for each side to fight.

We need to find partners in a 'coalition of the willing' to first acknowledge and then step away from participation in this conflict.

Sep 9th, 2003 04:05 PM

Abcdxxxx

Ok sorry this is long.

There's a lot of speculation about Abbas. What we know for sure is that they created an image of two opposing idealogies, and bickered in public, when we know they're two peas in a pod. We know Arafat appointed him, and we know Arafat was meant to hold elections instead. We know Abbas was ineffectual, and we know that the nightly news began to speak about Hammas as the power chip. We know that by proxy, Sharon and the US began negotiating with Hamas, which they said they would never do. The importance of this can not be downplayed. It's a huge feather in Arafat's cap. We know that the Road Map was a pretty doomed plan, and neither side was sincere about it. The explanations for how and why are ornate...and speculative.... but that's partly because I'm not explaining it in simple terms or being articulate today.

I believe there are people within the PA with the authority to stop the violence. It's controlled chaos. When you're talking about people such as Arafat or even Abbas....really any of the high ups... and anyone running the various parties (hamas, fatah, plfp, etc. ) they are all the ones who drafted the original plans to drive Jews into the sea. They're the ones directly involved with murdering an American diplomat, etc. etc. Arafat says one thing to the western press, and another to his own people in Arabic. The violence is very well planned, and timed. I do think Arafat could be killed by his own people if he relents on "the dream", and this is why he must keep a harcore profile for his people while sending others to do the diplomatic tap dance. He loves living the fidel life with a bank full of cash.

I'm not aware of anyone with the ability to organize a coup. Unlike Iranians who feel misrepresented by their government, I think the palestinians have been brainwashed that Arafat is taking them somewhere. The only hope is if some young Palestinian, who has spent time in America, or a Westernized school, can actually take responsiblity and fight Arafat. The problem is that this has taken the PLO 40 years, with state sponsored support, to reach this momentum.... and they're murdering any palestinian arab who doesn't agree with it.

The right course of action? I agree with Rorschach. The US should step out of it. I personally think the PA and the UNRWA should pay for crimes against humanity and the misappropriation of funds meant to serve the palestinian people. Gaza should be returned to Egypt, and the West Bank, (excluding the holy sites), should return to Jordan, giving control back to nations with pre-existing peace treaties. There should be free elections as promised. Egypt, and Jordan could then facilitate in creating the first Palestinian State, with it's first appointed leader, and everything else that comes along with it. They must have a financial infrastructure independent from war, and they must take Israel as their closest allies if they plan to survive in the region (because Israel controls the water, and it's not like the Arab population as a whole have treated Palestinians with much respect). The reality is Palestinian Arabs love living in Israel. They love working in Israel... and if they don't... they should look into other options that don't involve detroying Israel.

Sep 9th, 2003 02:16 PM

The_Rorschach

Well. . .These questions aren't mine to answer, but I'm feeling chatty so I'm going to take a swing.

"A.) Do you believe that if Arafat said 'ceasefire, we follow the roadmap' it would happen or there would be civil war?"

Arafat has said that he does not support Suicide Bombers in the past, only to be contradicted by his wife, who said she would be proud to bear a son who's life was given in such a manner. There has always been a rather generous expanse seperating Arafat's words from his actions. If he said there will be a ceasefire, nothing would change one way or another I would think.

"B.) If no, do you believe there is any person who has the power and credability to bring about an actual ceasefire."

No, there is noone with enough influence whom actually desires one currently living in the region.

"C.) If no, what do you see as the correct course of action?"

If we are judging what is correct on the merit of its effectiveness, then we should begin a blitzkrieg throughout the entire ME, reestablish an acceptable infrastructure under the aupsices of the UN and shell Mecca with enough DU artillery to ensure that noone can even survive a journey to the remaning rubble. If we are judging it on the merit of its cost efficiency, we should withdraw altogether and leave the Israeli's to work things out with the Palestinians as they see fit.

I favour the latter option myself.

Sep 9th, 2003 11:35 AM

mburbank

"To prove even a "moderate" couldn't negotiate peace."

Okay, I'm just trying to work out your position here. You believe Abbas himself never intended to keep his post. You believe he was put there for one purpose only, to legitimize Hammas and then step down, thus cementing the Hammas takeover by failing. That seems a little ornate to me personally, but I'm not an expert and I'm certainly willing to accept it for the sake of argument.

A few questions.

A.) Do you believe that if Arafat said 'ceasefire, we follow the roadmap' i would happen or there would be civil war?

B.) If no, do you believe there is any person who has the power and credability to bring about an actual ceasefire. I'm not asking if you think any Palestinian with power currently wants the roadmap, I'm asking if you think any Palestinian has the kind of authority needed to bring about complete adherence to the road map without starting a civil war.

C.) If no, what do you see as the correct course of action?

Sep 8th, 2003 07:09 PM

Abcdxxxx

Quote: