Isreal has in the past engaged in state sanctioned assassination. The name of the group escapes me now, but it sprang out of the terrorism of the 1970(?) Olympics where the Israeli team was taken hostage and eventually killed. So this option is nothing new to Israel.
What Arafat says to his people, and then turns around and says to the world are too completely different things. The Palestinians lead a miserable life, but not because of Israel. The main catalyst of terrorism is poverty and lack of hope for the future. Adding religion into the mix helps to inflame the situation. The victims’ families do get compensated from different funds set up by different Middle Eastern countries.
So both sides are guilty, but I believe that Palestine is the cause and Israel is the effect. It is easy for us to sit here as armchair negotiators, but I don’t feel guilty for working hard in a free society to better the world. Maybe our third party accumulated cries of, “We’ve had enough!” will eventually not fall on deaf ears.
We can only hope he dies in the most ignominious fashion, by Arab standards, as in suffering a heart attack brought on by cocaine use while being serviced by a male prostitute covered in bacon grease.
Ah, a discussion where one single man is suggested as the primary scapegoat of the current problem. That’s really quite … simple. And clean. One doesn’t have to hold too many thoughts in one’s head to get a grasp of such a summation, so I can see why it would be popular.
Fighting ignorance indeed. And by promoting assassination too. How would you respond if the elected leader of your country lived, for whatever reason, under direct threat of assassination 24/7 from an official government that has a strong track record in such termination? Whose leader was convicted of war crimes against your people? Whose advancing settlements and political maneuverings chew away at the little land left to a people stricken with poverty? I think you’d react strongly too.
The Israel Palestine problem is a product of history and tribalism on both sides, sadly complicated by religious differences, and perpetuated by the mother of all vicious cycles. There will always be idiots who insist on blaming one side or the other for everything, but on these boards I would hope more realistic and pertinent points of view would be promoted.
If anything, Arafat ought to be lauded for actually asserting leadership over the various unruly Palestinian factions, and thereby presenting a relatively united front that made talks with Israel and other nations possible. We know his leadership was never quite complete and often lacking, but the problem has been discussed often enough on these boards to suggest to a few of the posters here to abandon the diet of propaganda already. Arafat is no saint by any definition, but he’s the best and the only leader Palestinians have right now, and have had for years (the recently appointed prime minister seemed well-intentioned, but didn’t enjoy a fraction of the support Arafat has worked for over the years). There is no one else in sight who can unite Palestinian support meaningfully, and without him I would expect a severe fragmentation of Palestinian politics – as well as a dramatic increase in violent action from militant organizations.
On the other hand, is Sharon the best choice for Israelis or Palestinians, or even the outside world? Is he in any way necessary? Not really, if anything Sharon has systematically aggravated the situation since before he even rose to head of the government – and, indeed, he used his anti-Palestinian record and tactics as a political platform, having been accused of provoking the response known as the Intifada during his campaigning. Yet assassinating Sharon would be an idea justly greeted with howls of indignant outrage, since he is the elected leader of a country. So why not drop the cheap demagoguery and double standards for a while, and, rather than masturbate to juvenile assassinaton or death fantasies, why not make the effort to approach the problem in a manner suitable to posters who are no doubt significantly older than 13 years?
do SDMB threads ever spontaneously splice themselves to entirely different threads in such a way that the OP can’t read what has happened?
MC MASTER’s post of 9-28 seems to be addressed to someone who is ADVOCATING Arafat’s assassination, whereas I’m clearly and definitely saying: Hey, what’s the issue here, why not let him die a natural death? In fact I listed a number of reasons CONTRA the removal of Arafat by Israel!
And everyone thereafter is writing as if this were a thread about whether Arafat is a good guy, or the cause of all woes, or whatever. That’s not the point here. The pont is: good or bad, naughty or nice, WHY NOT LET HIM DIE A NATURAL DEATH!?!
I suggest that y’all, starting with MC, take a look at the topic before plunging in.
Well, isn’t it better to try and end the conflict sooner rather than later?
Assuming his death will actually bring about positive change – I’m not saying that it will, and that’s probably another discussion altogether – wouldn’t it make sense to try and bring it as soon as possible? Why wait it out if you can end it sooner and save lives on both sides?
5 years would be a lot of time for more suicide bombings and retaliation killings… won’t more people die the longer you wait? Unless you’re suggesting that by leaving Arafat alone, the region would become peaceful…
When Israel trained and funded Hamas in the past it was specifically because Hamas was a rival outside Fatah/PLO control and doing so would split and weaken the Palestinian resistance which was then dominated by Fatah. Arafat didn’t control Hamas in the past and doesn’t control them now. Kill him, dont kill him, it doesnt matter, the bombers will still come. He’s just a man not the root cause of the conflict. He cant just magically announce the conflict over even if he wanted to, and killing him would be nothing more then a pointless kneejerk reaction that plays into the hands of extremists on both sides.
American and Israeli policy in relation to Arafat ie mainly to ignore him, reminds me of that old poem
Yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there, He wasn’t there again today, Oh how I wish he’d go away!
My heretical idea is that since he is the foremost Palestinian leader that we just accept reality and negotiate with him. Better reality then the peekaboo “I can’t see you” fantasy that we currently engage in.
What sort of argument is that? You might just as well say assuming George Bush’s death will bring about positive change, and I’m not saying it will and have no evidence for the proposition, wouldn’t it make sense to kill him as soon as possible just in case? Ariel Sharon? Chirac? Britney Spears?
Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. What I meant to express was this:
In some people’s minds, killing/removing Arafat would lessen conflicts and bring more peace to the region.
Following that train of thought (meaning assuming they are right), getting rid of him sooner rather than later means the conflict ends sooner rather than later. Why go through an additional 5 or more years of it if it can be stopped sooner?
HOWEVER, from my perspective, I don’t know if those people are right. I don’t know enough about the Middle East to know what removing Arafat would do. My point was just in reply to the original post, and what I was trying to say is that the sooner the conflict ends, the better, and it makes no sense to drag it out if it can be shortened.
Eolbo, this is not an attempt to be contentious in any way. I have often heard of Israel’s involvement in the founding of Hamas. Please help me to better understand what culpability Israel also bears in sowing the seeds of unrest in this beleaguered corner of the world.
I would really appreciate some documentation or cites about this subject. I have always seen it mentioned but not in any major print. I freely invite other posters to please connect me with some data on this. Again, this is not to be argumentative, only to clarify upon my part. Driving wedges is a common form of divisive politics that is all too befitting in this situation. I only seek the truth of the matter.
One simple thing that distinguishes the Israeli and Palestinian camps is the “suicide” or (as I prefer to call them), homicide bombers. Intentionally programming the flower of your youth to kill themselves in a single military action goes beyond the pale of humanity. To be sure, both sides have blood on their hands. I have yets to see waves of Israeli youth flood into Gaza or the West Bank detonating themselves like so many human grenades. There is a difference. I can see nothing at all laudable in a man who would encourage his people’s youth to assuredly die.
One reason why bringing about Arafat’s death through killing him might be bad EVEN IF one concludes that his absence will further the interests of peace and resolution:
Murder is morally wrong, no matter how many people are expected to benefit from it.
Call me a sentimentalist.
And–NOBODY wants to take a shot at why my “obvious natural approach” just doesn’t get mentioned in the press AT ALL?