I also know he was talking up this issue to the Arab League right after the UNSC resolution. It seems workable through a compensation package of a different sort, but again nowadays I’m viewing everything through the “Death to Israel” mantra. I’ve no doubt they understand Israel’s demographic desires, and that the most vocal of them will keep insisting on the right of return.
For decades, Arafat was in charge of an organization which committed hundreds of terrorist attacks. In Lebanon alone, it is estimated that the PLO killed tens of thousands during the civil war times. That is in addition to numerous attacks against Israelis, of which you cannot be totally unaware.
The “martyrs brigades” have launched a couple of hundred seperate terrorist attacks after Arafat publicly renounced terrorism - indeed, they have only existed since the start of the “second Intafadah”.
So, in terms of numbers, Arafat makes Bin Laden look like a piker. Of course, this was over decades, not in one spectacular operation.
To insist that Bin Laden is the more prolific killer is foolish as it is quite contrary to the facts, which are really not in dispute.
Of course, if Bin Laden was lauded by supporters in the West, and protected from reprisal br Western opinion over a matter of decades while still acting as organizer of a terrorist campaign against the US, he could quite possibly top Arafats’ score. But the US has much less patience than Israel for enemies of this sort, and I expect that if they find him, they will just kill him - not attempt to make peace with him, and give him the Nobel Prize for offering to stop blowing up Americans.
Now, if I really thought that Arafat had renounced terrorism and was willing to shepard in a peaceful Palistinian state, I’d give him two Nobel Prizes and a round of applause.
But, he has done all he could to prevent that from happening, and I think his renunciation of terrorism is a sham. So I have no use for him at all, and I am glad to see that, increasingly, neither do the Palistinians - witness his latest defeat in the matter of a Prime Minister.
In fact, the only people to remain fooled by him are his Western supporters, who have invested so heavily in his legitimacy that they find it difficult to realize it never existed.
Malthus, your search would be better if you used the more common spelling ‘al-Asqa’ (I’m not saying al-Aska is incorrect, it’s just a different way from converting it from Arabic) for the al-Asqa matyr’s brigade. The al-Asqa Matyrs brigade were formed near the start of the current al-Asqa initfada and has carried out several suicide bombings. Simlair in someways to Hamas, in that it uses religion to further it’s aims, but different in that it is working for a secular rather than an Islamic state. Several of al-Asqa’s members are also members of PLO affilated groups, including Arafat’s Fatah faction, however they ar not under the command of Arafat and recognize him only as the symbolic leader of the Palestinian struggle.
Arafat would never give up this claim before the Palestinian public until he got a done deal to show for it. Since it will be an extremely unpopular act with the Palestinians. What I’ve heard is that he has been hinting willingness to give it up in negociations. Maybe I’m wrong… Anyone heard anything about this?
Malthus:
Well, once again it comes down to your inclusive definition of “terrorism” and “responsibility”. Osama Bin Ladin is widely believed to have authorized the bombings of the twin towers killing more than 3000 people in what can for obvious reasons be called a “terrorist attack”. Not counting the victims of his other obvious terrorists attacks.
When you say that Arafat is his equal in this respect I believe you should back it up by giving credible, impartial accounts of which deliberate and civilian deaths you think he is responsible for. And then a widely acknowledged (by more observers than Israel/US) link for this terrorist act, between Arafat and the perpetraitors in such a way that they are acting on his orders; or because of his encouragement.
What is the origin of this estimate? Who were the tens of tousands killed? Are you claiming that the PLO killed tens of thousands in terrorist attacks in Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war? Cite, please.
This issue was adressed by MC which i think makes my point of your inclusive definition of “responsibility”. You’re views on this matter seem to be pretty much identical to the IDFs. If terrorist attacks are commited by Palestinians, while Arafat is their leader, then he is personally responsible. This type of reasoning would make the US prez responsible for the actions of Timothy McVei.
But there were terrorist acts with civilian deaths Arafat was responsible for, and I maintain that he in that respect is better compared to Ariel Sharon and his responsibility for the kills of civilians in Lebaneese refugee camps. Or the prime minister of Israel at the time, Menachem Begin, with his history as a member of the terrorist “Etzel” group.
Not sure what else to say about that. “Resistance” is what you do against a foreign or occupying army, “terrorism” is what you do to another country’s civilians. The line blurs there at times. Many in this country dismiss Arafat outright as a terrorist…but I wonder about that and I worry about what his increasing marginalization might mean.
On the serious note: I agree on your analysis. Even though I have a huge understanding why Israeli citizens would have those feelings, I have gotten the feeling that Arafat always were a terrorist toward the cause of a palestine state. Of course that can never justify the targetting of civilians. In recent years i think he has tried trading terrorism for diplomacy as a means to that end.
Still it would be better with another Palestinian leader without Arafats history. But it is hard to see how, as I suspect that the sentiments of the Palestinians will be drifting more in the direction of Hamas if the development of these last years continues…
Just as the sentiments of the Israelis seem to be drifting towards the other extreme. Its a sad thing.
As I said, the topic of the debate is narrow - it is not whether Arafat has been a terrorist (he clearly has), but whether hi is one now. Is Arafat, or is he not, in charge of the brigades? Did he have a role in setting them up? Are they an attempt to curry support and inflict damage, while maintaining “plausable deniability”?
In the above links, you will find evidence connecting Arafat directly to the financing of these brigades. It certainly appears that they are controled, or at least facilitated, by him. Intuitively this makes sense - as you point out, the brigades are essentially an offshoot of his own organization (or at least they share members), and Arafats’ dictatorial control of Fatah over a long period of time is legendary.
Naturally, this evidence may be forged. Do you have any links to evidence which demonstrates that they are not under Arafat control (or, more properly, that discredits the existing evidence that they are?).
The issue in my mind boils down to this: has Arafat actually renounced terrorism, or has he only claimed to do so while in fact encouraging it? And is he responsible for the deaths ordered by him? I think the answer to both questions is “yes”.
I have no special insight into Arafat’s rule. I just judge the evidence presented. I will not agree to automatically discard any evidence gathered by Americans or Israelis, as you seem to require. I simply factor in the fact of their nationality as creating a potential for bias.
“Does Arafat control the brigades?
Arafat’s advisers say he does not; Israeli officials say he does; and different leaders of the group tell different stories about whether they take their orders from Arafat. “Our group is an integral part of Fatah,” Maslama Thabet, one of the group’s leaders in the West Bank town of Tulkarm, told USA Today in March 2002. “We receive our instructions from Fatah. Our commander is Yasir Arafat himself.” But another of the group’s leaders, Naser Badawi, told the New York Times days later that while “we respect our leader,” the decision “to carry out attacks remains with the Aqsa Brigades leadership.” Badawi added that Arafat has never approached the group to ask it to stop its suicide bombings, which Arafat has publicly condemned. Palestinian officials have said that most of the group’s members are on the payroll of the Palestinian Authority, often because they serve in both the brigades and in one of Arafat’s 14 formal security services. In April 2002, Israel captured Marwan Barghouti, the West Bank leader of Arafat’s Fatah and a leading figure in the brigades. In June 2002, President Bush decided to call for Arafat’s removal after receiving Israeli intelligence reports showing that Arafat had approved a $20,000 payment to the brigades.”
“But Arafat has also repeatedly released suspected terrorists from prison, extolled “martyrdom” in Arabic broadcasts even as he condemned terrorism in English, and withheld the security cooperation mandated by the Oslo accords. With Arafat’s popularity flagging due to the failure of the peace process and widespread public disaffection with PA authoritarianism and corruption, many experts say his Fatah faction resorted to anti-Israel terrorism to compete with the increasingly popular Hamas. In June 2002, the Bush administration called for the replacement of Arafat’s leadership, concluding that the PA was relying on terrorism.”
Once again, this is published by an American think-tank. But I think it is most likely correct.
On the Lebanon Civil War, and Arafat’s participation:
You must have missed my answer, made a while back. For your convenience, I repost in here:
quote:
Originally posted by antechinus
malthus
That is a very good question.
For me, in no particular order:
my disgust in seeing suffering of people (both sides) for such a long period of time where there could be a solution (I believe), but nothing succesful has been done about it
the immediacy of the situation - it is not history, it is now
a sense of fairness - disgusted with people having land taken off them, when they have had contact with the land for ages, and the huge inbalance of power of one side over the other
the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human
that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy
All these things motivate my interest in the situation. Similarities with South Africa prior to 1990s and Timor prior to 2002.
So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment.
First, I thank everyone who answered my question. I would like to point out that I was not trying to be rhetorical, or to score points for one side or the other.
Rather, my question was intended to involve a certain amount of self-examination - for people on both sides of the debate.
When I get a response like that above, it makes it slightly difficult. Statements of this sort:
"- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human
that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy"
"So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment. "
Seem to call for debate over the assumptions (I believe wrong assumptions) which underline the opinion.
This is not what I was after. There is plenty of this sort of debate already, and we all know it tends to go in circles. Naturally, if you (or anyone) thinks that one side is all good, and the other all evil, and the reason you support one side is because you like good and hate evil, the debate is effectively over.
Although I am not sure that it was made in good faith, I will answer the question asked.
In my own moral framework, I believe that people have the right to self-defence. Some of the actions taken by the Israeli government are undertaken to defend the state and the people of that country. Others (such as the settlement policy) are not. The former actions are unfortunate necessities and morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional. The latter are not.
The suicide bombing campaign is not, I believe, undertaken in self-defence. Indeed, there is no conceivable way that such actions benefit or defend the people of Palistine. On the contrary, they are the cause of increased misery for those people. Therefore, they are not justified, and there is no need to debate whether they are perportional or not.
Now, what actions the right of self-defence justifies varies with the extremity of the danger posed. This is where I undoubtably disagree with McDuff. It is an individual issue whether any particular action taken by the Israeli government crosses the line from being justified to being unjustified, based on the extent of the danger and the severity of the response. So far, as a matter of historical fact, their response has been (in my opinion) reasonably restrained. Compare for example their response to suicide bombing (isolating, but not arresting or killing, Arafat) with that of the US and the al-Queda situation. Would the US agree to isolate bin Laden if they knew where he was? Has the US invasion of Afganistan dispossessed, killed or disrupted the lives of “innocents”? I am afraid it has.
Unfortunately, excercising the right of self-defence tends to have that effect. It cannot be otherwise, particularly given an enemy who uses the innocent civilian population as its cover. To claim that never, under any circumstances, may the right of self defence impinge on innocents is to naively hand victory to the aggressors - as it renders that right essentially meaningless, given that those who engage in attacks are highly unlikely to seperate themselves willingly from the general population so as to enable them to be destroyed with impunity.
As for why I am interested, myself: it mostly has to do with the fact that I lived there for almost a year, working on an archaeological dig (Tel Dor, if any are interested) in the days when I considered becoming an archaeologist. This gave me a certain amount of insight into the place and its history.
The length of occupation of the area, and its seeming centrality over long periods of time, I found very interesting.
So was the attitude of Israelis. I can best sum it up by saying that the events of the 20th century have taught the Israelis the absolute importance of both the right and ability to defend themselves. I can hardly disagree.
About sources: I fully agree with you that an Israeli or US source may just as unbiased as any other source. Typo. Should have said “Israel/US administrations”.
Al-aqsa: That a local Al-asqa town leader claims that Arafat gives them orders does * not * make it so. Him authorizing a payment to al-aqsa of 20 K, has the same meaning as him giving 20 K to al-qaida: it doesnt make him Bin Ladin. Assuming that’s verified information.
Lebanon: How about you just cite the place with the estimate of 10 000 terrorist kills instead, and it will spare us both a lot of work?
While making no comments about the posters involved, I don’t especially see the immediate relationship between the two threads.
It is my experience that the “ad hominem” attack is the easiest of all to get drawn into using. Making a claim that holding a view is is racist or anti-semitic or whatever is easy, but if people spend the time flinging these accusations, the result is that X goes away convinced that Y is anti-semitic, and Y is convinced that X is a knee-jerk pro-Israeli-type who responds to every criticism, however justified, with the “anti-semitic” cry. The upshot, of course, being that no matter if one, or both, of these accusations is true, nothing is actually advanced, no opinions are changed or influenced, and no real information is exchanged. Positions are entrenched, rather than opened. As I said before, that type of argument is less than appealing to me.
On the other hand, the last couple of pages have been a joy to read. I’m not yet in a position where I feel able to weigh back in on the thread, having spent the whole weekend in London, but I’m learning a lot from the recent exchange.
If you go through the linked thread and click on the links within, you’ll see what’s involved.
Most critics of Israeli policy (including on occasion, me) discuss the subject without resort to anti-Semitic jibes and innuendo. In the linked thread (in response to the complaint that foes of Israel are falsely charged with anti-Semitism) I pointed out several cases of SDMB posters who’ve been vitriolically anti-Israel and also revealed themselves to be bigots.
Anti-Semitism is one of the ultimate “ad hominem” attacks.
I thought my position, as quoted, was clear enough.
If by “meting punishment after an attack” you mean randomly targeting one Palistinian for execution for each Israeli killed, obviously I am against it. Such an act would not fall within the definition of “self defence” at all. It would not even be sensible vengence - and I don’t approve of vengence for its own sake, anyway.
If you mean hunting down the perpitrators - those who ordered and arranged for an attack, those who made the bombs, those who sheltered the bombers for their one-way mission - I think it entirely sensible and necessary. Don’t you?
The correction is clearly better, but I would still use the same principles regarding information coming from official Israeli and US government sources - the information may in fact only be available from those sources, so I would not automatically discard it. Just factor in the possibility that they reflect the prevailing bias of their governments, and observe their information critically.
However, this talk of examing sources seems somewhat futile, given that you appear to be saying that, even if totally verified, the information still is not sufficient to conclude that Arafat is indeed behind the attacks.
If I am reading the above post correctly, you are saying that even if people in the al-Asqua movement say Arafat ordered them to do it, even if Arafat pays them to do it, Arafat still has no responsibility - the al-Asqua guys could be lying, and financing is not the same as ordering.
Unfortunately, in my opinion this raises the burden of proof so high that it cannot be fulfilled. Unless and until Arafat and his whole organization are arrested, searched, and interrogated, there will never be conclusive and definite proof that Arafat is behind it. Neither, I might add, is there definite and conclusive proof that Bin Laden is behind 9/11. And who would do the arresting and interrogating? The only ones likely to are the Israelis or Americans - whom you don’t trust.
In both cases, the case for responsibility is based on reasonable inferences from the available information. On a balance of probabilities, I contend that both Arafat and Bin Laden are responsible for their followers’ attacks.
On Lebanon, the “tens of thousands” estimate came from the open-source encyclopedia. The other Lebanon links add context and history, including the information that massacres occured attributed to the PLO, but do not seperate out the deaths attributable to the PLO from the general casualties of the civil war. A precise number of those killed in reciprocal massacres of civilians caused by the various factions will never be known; those caused by the PLO certainly amount to many thousands. Only those caused by the Christians, for which Sharon takes ultimate responsibility, recieve publicity and analysis. Many are in fact unaware that similar massacres were committed by the PLO against the Christians, over a period of several years.
A search on the web discloses mainly pro-Christian militia sites, such as this:
Throughout my young years, I was raised in the fear of massacres, as our village's population was butchered in 1920 by Muslims. At the end of 1958, and before the US Marines intervention to put an end to the Islamic uprising, backed by Abdel Nasser of Egypt, I lost my eldest brother, a young Lebanese officer. When Benoit was killed, I was six years old.. In the seventies, the PLO systematically brutalized the youth and elders of Ain Ebel, and other villages, installing terror check points, arresting, kidnapping, and killing some of the villagers. On many occasions graffiti were written on the walls such as "there is no place for Christians in this land."
Since 1977, our village was encircled by PLO and other radical groups. Our world shrunk to less than three square miles. We were in a collective prison, more like a Christian ghetto surrounded by Jibad forces. On new year's eve of 1979, the day my wife gave birth to my older son her two parents were kidnapped by the elements of Abu Nidal for three months. On Christmas day of 1991, my brother-in-law, a middle school teacher, was kidnapped to the Ain El Helweh Camp and tortured for a whole month by the armed elements of Abul Abbas.
In 1984, a new organization, Hizbollah, took over from the PLO. Manipulated by the Iranians, protected by the Syrians, legitimized after 1990 by the current Lebanese regime, the terrorists of Hizbollah were bolder in their designs. They openly called for the establishment of an Islamic republic. For six years, we had to use fishing boats to exit Ain Ebel's region in order to reach Beirut, before it fell to the Syrians in 1990. Children, women, and the elderly were packed like cattle, under Hizbollah's fire. In 1985 a ship carrying 200 Christians sunk off Beirut's shores. I personally was on many of these horror trips. Life was forbidden to us, so was freedom. During the time we were oppressed by the fundamentalists, other Christians suffered as well: the Western and American hostages, held by the same Hizbollah ia Lebanon.
In the wake of the Syrian invasion of the Christian areas of Beirut and Mount Lebanon in October 1990, three civilians from my village were kidnapped by Hizbollah. Marun Nassff Attach was killed and his body was left in the valley of Wadi el-Sluki for fifteen days. The United Nations soldiers found him defaced and maimed. We were able to recognize him with the help of X-rays taken of his leg few weeks prior. Burros Nassif Atmeh died months after his release as a result of severe beating to his head during his kidnapping. The third Christian who is the nephew of a bishop and still alive, was reduced to a living martyr. I cannot bring his name for safety reasons. This environment of extreme violence against my village and the Christians of this area caused us to live m constant fear. We even considered emigrating, emptying the villages; however, we remained on our land.
Since 1979, under Syrian pressures, our wages from the Lebanese Army were suspended by Beirut's government. Furthermore, a great number of us is denied passports. More recently I worked hard to establish a Christian radio station to broadcast to the local community. As I made the first broadcast, Hizbollah threatened to shell the station. Later, Hizbollah's rockets were fired into the area, and we were forced to close it dogma to spare lives.
II - The experience of my community:
The pattern of suppression is an old one. The Christian community in that area was submitted to number of massacres throughout this century. Since the massacre of 1920 incidents occurred frequently.
Mr Chairman, the present speaker of the house m Lebanon, Mr Nabih Berri, who is considered as a moderate Shiite, publicly threatened by reminding us of this 1920 massacre three times. Targeting Christians is not specific to South Lebanon. The Lebanese Christians has been resisting the tide of Islamism since the seventh century. Our ancestors have paid the price for their faith. Lebanon is the only country ia the Middle East, where Christians from all denominations have been able to form a safe haven for over thirteen centuries.
In modern times, attempts were made to create a co-existence between Lebanon's religious communities. The Christians extended their hands to the Muslim leadership. Successful for a short period of time, this peaceful coexistence fell under the terrorism of the PLO, the Syrian occupation, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
For an insight on this history I recommend the comprehensive book of Professor Walid Phares, "Lebanese Christian Nationalism: The Rise and Fall of an Ethnic Resistance." (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995). In Phares' terms, the "Christians of Lebanon were and are still targeted because of their Christian identity and their determination to remain Christian."
Since 1975, about 150,000 Christians were killed during the war. Thousands of Lebanese Muslims died as well. Entire Christian villages were erased and their populations were ethnically cleansed.
In Damur (south of Beirut), for example, a thousand Christian civilians were killed while the armed bands shouted "Allahu Akbar" and "Jihad" (Holy war slogans) Churches were burned down by dozens. An account of the horrors is too long to include in this testimony.
Here are few examples of massacres:
1975: Belt Mellat, Deir Eshash Tall Abbas (north Lebanon), Damur (Mount Lebanon)
1976: Chekka (north Lebanon), Qaa, Terbol (Bekaa valley)
1977: Aishye (south Lebanon), Maaser el-Shuf (Shuf Mountain)
1978: Ras Baalbeck, Shleefa (Bekaa valley)
1983: Major massacres in Aley, and the Shuf mountains. Ia addition to the 241 U.S. Marines and 78 French paratroopers savagely assassinated by Hizbollah
1984: Iqlim el-Kharrub (Mourn Lebanon)
1985: East Sidon (South Lebanon)
1990: Matn district"
But you don’t have to believe the Christians or their sympathizers - the folks at “Indict Sharon” reference these massacres, as well, and they are hardly likely to reference something that never happened and is contrary to their sympathies:
“There is a highly trained group of Phalangist soldiers, known as the Damuri Brigade, which has been in Damur, just south of Beirut, ever since the Israelis took the town. The brigade is made up of many of the sons of Christian families massacred by Palestinians in Damur in February 1976 in retaliation for the Christian massacre of Palestinian civilians at the Tel Zaatar refugee camp. The Damuri Brigade has long vowed to be at the forefront of any effort to rid Lebanon of Palestinians and there are some here who believe that its members may have been the Phalangists who took part, wearing Phalangist uniforms.”
I wonder, where was the pressure to “indict Arafat” for ordering the previous massacre, for which the infamous Sabra massacre was a retaliation - apparently carried out by “…the sons of Christian families massacred by Palestinians in Damur…” (at least according to “indictSharon”, admittedly not the most objective observer)? Or is Arafat also “not responsible” for massacres carried out by the PLO in Lebanon?
No, I am afraid challenging the fact that the PLO carried out massacres in Lebanon is a bit of a non-starter, frankly.
I’m with you on this one. Frankly, I have no complaints about ad hominums being used for a long time in this thread - I may disagree with other posters, but I think the disagreement is honest. why bring the topic up now?
I only got a few minutes now before I have to catch a train and that seems to be nowhere near enough to adress your post, judging by the size of it. I’ll get back to you.
But here’s a preliminary:
Yes, you are quite correct. Usually in a factual debate a claim must be verified andpertinent to your thesis.
F. e. you have claimed that Arafat is responsible for 10 000 terrorist murders during the lebanese civil war. Assume you provide a cite that says that 10 000 killings (note: unspecified if they were civilians or casualties of war) in the lebanese war, at the hands of PLO members.
Then I don’t have to worry about checking if these figures are verified, since they are not pertinent to your claim! Which was 10 000 terrorist murders.
