Abbas quits

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Ceremonies for the so-called "Road Map" peace plan will be held at 3 pm, 6 pm, and then again at 9 pm EST. Please dress appropriately.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Palestinian PM Submits Resignation in Power Struggle

Reuters
Saturday, September 6, 2003; 7:15 AM

By Wafa Amr and Mohammed Assadi

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas submitted his resignation on Saturday in a power struggle with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian president was considering the offer, a presidential aide said.

The departure of the moderate Abbas could spell the end of a U.S.-backed plan for peace with Israel and plunge the region into a new spasm of violence.

It was not clear whether Arafat would accept the resignation of Abbas, who is widely known as Abu Mazen. Arafat wants to limit Abbas's powers but also wants to avoid provoking Israel into trying to expel him if he ousts his reformist premier.

"President Arafat is still studying Abu Mazen's resignation," Palestinian national security adviser Jibril al-Rajoub told reporters. Palestinian officials had earlier said Arafat had accepted Abbas's resignation letter.

The United States, which backs Abbas and no longer deals with Arafat, said it did not know whether Abbas had quit or Arafat had accepted. "We are not certain that this is true and that this is the end of it," a U.S. official said in Washington.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office said in a statement that Israel would not accept control of the Palestinian Authority being returned to Arafat, whom it has sought to sideline.

The peace plan, known as the "road map," has already been seriously damaged by the collapse of a truce declared by Palestinian militants and a relentless Israeli military campaign to kill or capture their leaders.

Abbas, 68, was appointed by Arafat only four months ago under international pressure for reforms of the Palestinian Authority and an end to almost three years of Palestinian-Israeli bloodshed.

But Arafat has tried to limit Abbas's powers. Their struggle focused on control of the security forces, which is vital to the road map and Palestinian efforts to rein in militants. Arafat and Abbas have resisted a crackdown, fearing a civil war.

INTERNATIONAL CONCERN

The European Union said it was extremely concerned by Abbas's resignation.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told a meeting of EU foreign ministers that the bloc was "deeply worried by the serious risk of dangerous instability at the head of the Palestinian executive."

Abbas had told members of parliament on Thursday to sack him if they would not back him in his bid to obtain more authority from Arafat to carry out democratic reforms and subdue the militant factions hostile to negotiated peace with Israel.

Both steps, along with Israeli withdrawals from occupied territory, are mandated by the road map.

A senior Palestinian official told Reuters: "Abbas's problems (in part stem from) the continuation of Israeli incursions and assassinations. In addition to that the American administration has done little to make Israel comply with the road map."

On Friday, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that the United States would work harder on peace between Israelis and Palestinians and backed Abbas against Arafat.

"Unfortunately Chairman Yasser Arafat has not been playing a helpful role. He has not been an interlocutor for peace over the years. His actions do not move the parties farther down the road to peace," Powell said in a speech.

A senior Palestinian official said an intimidating demonstration against Abbas outside parliament on Thursday by members of a militant faction loyal to Arafat had been one factor in the premier's decision to quit.

Arafat, 74, has led the Palestinian independence movement since the 1960s.

Israel has been demanding Abbas disarm the militant groups and says the cease-fire, which they declared on June 29, disintegrated because of a suicide bombing by Hamas on August 19 that killed 22 people.

Palestinian officials and militants blamed the lurch backward into violence on Israeli army raids on militants. Israel has killed 11 Hamas men and four civilian bystanders in helicopter missile strikes in Gaza since August 21.

Palestinian officials say Arafat's key motive is to stay in power and show the world he is not irrelevant despite U.S. and Israeli attempts to sideline him over accusations, which he denies, that he encourages violence.


© 2003 Reuters

[Abcdxxxx]

Israel botched a strike on the entire upper tier leadership of Hamas.... that would have made a far bigger impact then any of this Abbas/Road Map stuff ever could have.

a) This proves arafat never truly relinquished power. Abbas is no better then Arafat. Abbas was the second in command with the PLO since 1969, and co-founded the majority Fatah party.. Fatah's website calls for the "eradication" of Israel or "inqirad mujtama", in violation of the 1951 post-Nuremburg Genocide Convention treaty.


b) Abbas was more interested in peace with Hamas, then he was with Israel. The Hamas charter states that "Israel, by virtue of it's being Jewish, and of having a jewish population, defies Islam and Muslims". The 1965 international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, states im article 4 (b) that state parties "shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as punishable by law". The PA, including Abaas, are guilty of crimes against humanity, including their own people.

c) The PA never declared a truce, they declared a "hudna". It means two different things. There were over 300 terrorist actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel proper since the beginning of the "cease-fire". The daily mortar bombings, and drive by shootings are rarely reported on.

d) Stipulations such as the release of prisoners was never included in the road map at all. Israel was never required to comply.

e) Europe's concerned because they're the largest funder to the PA. The last thing Europe should want is to look like they're funding another slow burn holocaust. Plus, France funds the "political wing" of hamas.

f) h'bout the free election the palestinians were promised?

[El Blanco]

That flushing sound youy here? Oh, thats just the MidEast peace hopes.

We fucking needed Abbas. We really did.

[Abcdxxxx]

Blanco - Why did we need Abbas?

[El Blanco]

He was the closest thing to a moderate that was in power over the Palestinians.

[Abcdxxxx]

Blaco - That's what Abbas was supposed to be, and that was how the media described him. In reality he is Arafat's partner in crime of 40 years, and he did nothing with this opportunity besides act as a mouth piece for the concerns of Hamas. You really don't believe he was a puppet? What positive effect did Abbas have on the living conditions of the Palestinians? There is little to nothing in the way of a legacy we can credit him with, because he was powerless. You obviously didn't read my first post in this thread, or understand it.

[El Blanco]

I read it and understood it. You do know other people have looked into this, developed different opinions, and wrote articles, reports and such?

Maybe it because most of the things I have read dealing with this were left wing, but they put Abbas in a favorable light.

[The_Rorschach]

I'm with Abby on this one Blanco, Abbas wasn't any better than Arafat. Placing him in charge of the Road Map to Peace would have been just as great a mistake as the US made in making Hussein the Vice President of Iraq after the coup of '68.

Personally, if you are interested in my political prediction of the year, I see all of this as moot. With American soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have easy launching points into Iran, Syria and Pakistan which silently scream the ramifications of continued compounded wide-scale engagements in the ME by those hostile to an Israeli presence. I think that will go further towards seeing peace in the ME than any mere road map and the accompanied political pleasantries. Considering the ease with which the US took out the fourth largest world military, even a silent threat carries great weight in this volatile region.

[mburbank]

I don't know enough about Abbas to have an opinion on him, but UI have to ask; Why would a puppet resign?

Abdcdzzzr; Am I correct in thinking your opinion is the roadmap could not be described as failing now since it never existed at all in practice?

I'd agree with that, and thought it was chin music all along.

I would say that no peace plan is currently practicable because

A.) A large number of Palestinians want Israel to cease to exist.

B.) The current government of Israel desires a Palestinian civil war.

Both sides ,work amazingly well together, and it seems a shme they can't collaborate on peace. Sharon demands an end to all terrorist activity, thus giving very small groups the power to disrupt the peace process, which they do with a will. All they ask in return is a small amount of overkill and assasination from israel to increase their public support and justify further terrorist activity, and Israel is happy to comply. Certainly no one either side actually believes that the Palestinian Authority, even if it wanted to (and it doesn't) could get a handel on Hammas without civil war.

and

C.) The U.S.A. would actually like peace, but not if it means actually doing anything at all beyond paying for diplomats airline tickets nd issuing statements. There are only two ways we could affect the situation.

One would be to come down hard on the Palestinians, which we can't afford due to the precarious political dynamic we are currently enaged in with the Muslim world, not to mention how stretched thin we are by our unnecesary war with Iraq and how badly we may need our forces to counter actual real threats from N. Korea, Iran and Al Qaeda.

The other would be to out real financial and diplomatic pressure on Israel. We are the only people in a position to do this and we absolutely won't. It would completely undermine our current stand on what we ourselves have a right to do.


This is a hideous, bloody stalemate that will never be ended by governments. The only hope at all, slim to non existant, is populist non-violent movements on both sides. Why is it so much eaiser to willingly die for vengance than it is to risk your life for peace?

[Abcdxxxx]

Blanco - Abbas' 40 year resume of violence isn't an opinion. He was the head of the Fatah party, an organization claiming responsibility for more terrorist acts worldwide then any other Palestinian organization.

[mburbank]

Perhaps, but that doesn't make him a puppet. I ask again, why would a puppet resign?

I also think that while A terrorist might not ever be able to reform, a terrorist might well renounce terror if he thought that other methods might now yield better results.

Didn't Menachem Begin used to be something of a bomb chucker?

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I don't know enough about Abbas to have an opinion on him, but UI have to ask; Why would a puppet resign?

Arafat had already declared the road map dead 3 days prior, with the insinuation that this justified him. By making a big show over his resignation, it was supposed to add support for Arafat's methods.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Abdcdzzzr; Am I correct in thinking your opinion is the roadmap could not be described as failing now since it never existed at all in practice?

Well...It *was* the closet thing to a cease fire we've had since the start of the Intifada but....

In 88 days since the June 6 Aqqaba summit with Abbas, 64 israelis were murdered by terrorist, and over 1,000 were wounded, equaling about ten casualties a day. So, you tell me.

Originally Posted by mburbank

B.) The current government of Israel desires a Palestinian civil war.

I think you mean this as a negative thing. Israel would love to see the palestinian people rise up against Hamas and the PA and hold their own government liable for their mistreatment. Or the feuds between the various terror factions reach a boil point. There isn't enough dissention to even lend itself to those types of high hopes.... and if you're suggesting Israel wants to see palestinians eat each other alive, as a method to do away with the "problem", then you're confused. Israel recently set up an investment to establish natural gas resources in Gaza that the Palestinians will provide to neighboring countries including Israel. There's no reason to invest in creating an infrastructure when you're counting on a civil war.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Both sides ,work amazingly well together, and it seems a shme they can't collaborate on peace. Sharon demands an end to all terrorist activity, thus giving very small groups the power to disrupt the peace process, which they do with a will. All they ask in return is a small amount of overkill and assasination from israel to increase their public support and justify further terrorist activity, and Israel is happy to comply.

Oh shit, it's the conspiracy theory of the month club. Israel controls Hammas, Israel leaves Arafat in power because he gives them the excuse to attack palestinians. Yawn. You really believe this or did you just read something that sounded convincing. It's a seriously hateful theory put out there by people too ignorant to understand the situation beyond the "two school children fighting" metaphors. Save it for the idiots that think Mossad blew up the Twin Towers.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Certainly no one either side actually believes that the Palestinian Authority, even if it wanted to (and it doesn't) could get a handel on Hammas without civil war.

The Hammas charter refers to the PLO as their fathers. The recent hudna declaration proves that Hammas is under some control by the PA. I do think Arafat realizes he created a monster, but Israel is under the firm belief that Hammas is just another extension of Arafat and co. There is little to no opposition to engage in a civil war with Hammas, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by mburbank

The other would be to out real financial and diplomatic pressure on Israel. We are the only people in a position to do this and we absolutely won't. It would completely undermine our current stand on what we ourselves have a right to do.

Cutting US funds would result in a loss of the only English/Arab speaking support the US has in the region. Not smart at this time. . A good portion of US funding to Israel is really just paying itself back debt owed from loans in the 70's. Israel would just partner up with China instead.

Originally Posted by mburbank

non-violent movements on both sides. Why is it so much eaiser to willingly die for vengance than it is to risk your life for peace?

You already said you think a huge number of Palestinians want Israel to cease it's existance. There is a non-violent movement in Israel, and it's been inaffective without a legit partner on the opposition palestinian side. [/quote]

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Perhaps, but that doesn't make him a puppet. I ask again, why would a puppet resign?

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

Originally Posted by mburbank

I also think that while A terrorist might not ever be able to reform, a terrorist might well renounce terror if he thought that other methods might now yield better results.

Actions speak louder then words. What he did was legitamize Hammas. Suddenly Hammas was at the bargaining table and making demands that Israel was responding to. He granted the illusion that Hammas, and not Arafat hold the key to peace, and shifted a great amount of power to the extremist in the region. It was a brilliant plan that worked.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Didn't Menachem Begin used to be something of a bomb chucker?

Yup, but he never targeted civilians. If Hamas stuck to military targets, it would be acts of war, not terrorism... but they prefer to target children, women, and the elderly. No comparison, and no moral equivalent.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Perhaps, but that doesn't make him a puppet. I ask again, why would a puppet resign?

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

Originally Posted by mburbank

I also think that while A terrorist might not ever be able to reform, a terrorist might well renounce terror if he thought that other methods might now yield better results.

Actions speak louder then words. What he did was legitamize Hammas. Suddenly Hammas was at the bargaining table and making demands that Israel was responding to. He granted the illusion that Hammas, and not Arafat hold the key to peace, and shifted a great amount of power to the extremist in the region. It was a brilliant plan that worked.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Didn't Menachem Begin used to be something of a bomb chucker?

Yup, but he never targeted civilians. If Hamas stuck to military targets, it would be acts of war, not terrorism... but they prefer to target children, women, and the elderly. No comparison, and no moral equivalent.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[The_Rorschach]

"B.) Forced removal"


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

[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!)

[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.

[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.

[Abcdxxxx]

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.