I wonder if this strategy has ever worked…
Do you expect the Palestinians to forget about the fact that Israel killed their elected leader?
And your evidence is?
Or do you approve of murdering e.g. Sharon and justifying it by his ‘plotting deaths of refugees in Lebanon’?
I assumed you were arguing that this murder would stop the violence. What positive benefits do you see, then?
Strangely international law does not recognise your ‘opinion’ as a justification for murder. :eek:
I doubt they would be impressed by your ludicrous Internet search tactics either. :smack:
Mother Theresa + terrorism = 5,660 hits
Sharon and murder = 220,000 hits.
Well that wraps it up for Sharon, according to you. :rolleyes:
Nor does the opinion of ‘a few Israelis in power’ count as a guilty verdict. We would call them war criminals, actually.
Or are you are arguing that e.g. ‘a few Nazis in power’ in the 1940s wwere entitled to commit genocide?
Do please finish your definition of terrorism.
Do you include using tanks, bombers and death squads against civilians?
If not, then presumably you would approve of the Palestinians using these weapons themselves?
If you wish to justify murder by a state, please be ready to argue the principle.
This thread is also about euphemisms like ‘removal’ for murder.
Are we not discussing bringing peace to the region?
Well that fear of death should stop the suicide bombers. :rolleyes:
Good grief. Do you not see a parallel?
Following Arafat’s murder, tolerance for such an bunch of murderers as the Israeli cabinet is probably pretty minimal. I’d venture that many ordinary Palestinians would be pretty sympathetic about revenge killings.
So when is this trial?
Or are you saying that the ‘execution’ is the trial?
And if Israel’s President had repeatedly plotted the murder of refugees in Lebanese camps and routinely accomplished it with bombers and tanks…?
Ah yes.
They kill because they are terrorists.
We kill because we hold human life in respect.
Perhaps you could name an example of a country submitting through relentless murdering of its leaders?
Flonks,
The Deputy PM, the Defense Minister. Two powerful members of a Cabinet, I’ll grant you that, but two votes only from a committee of how many?
The Israeli cabinet has no prescribed number, but I believe it is currently a bit more than twelve.
Irrespective, it is not an official government policy that has to be followed by anyone on the Israeli Government payroll, from civil servants to soldiers.
It won’t be a policy until such time as it is declared to be policy by a majority of the cabinet, at which time the Prime Minister himself would be the one to take responsibility for the decision (or resign, if he could not abide by it).
You appear to be having some difficulty in understanding the limitations under which a Prime Minister, Deputy PM or other cabinet member operates (Just one of an occasionally large committee) and a President, who is a committee of one, if he has a high level of power under his political set up.
Even if you have targeted him for assassination, what the fuck is the point of telling everyone?! Does Israel think that this might cause a naturally defiant person to just abdicate his position within the Palestinian community out of fear? Now even if the guy dies of a fucking heart attack they’ll blame the Israelis.
Zenster, while I normally enjoy and agree with the majority of your posts, I’ve got to disagree on this one. I believe that the resulting backlash from his assassination would be far more than temporary, and I believe it would plunge the region even further into chaos, rather than remove an obstacle to peace. As crooked as Arafat appears to be, the situation would get a whole lot uglier if he was killed.
Even if we disregard the consequences, what about the morality of such an action? What about due process of law? Even if Arafat was proven to have personally ordered attacks against Israeli civilians, that does not make him a legitimate target for assassination. Even if proven to be a war criminal beyond a shadow of a doubt, international law stipulates that he gets locked up, not executed.
However, what you are advocating is not even a clean execution after a fair trial, presentation of evidence and according to the due process of law - what you are advocating is the assassination of a head of state because Israel finds him difficult to work with. We’re talking Hellfire air-to-ground missiles fired at his convoy from Apaches here, or possibly a Special Forces hit-squad sent into his compound to fill him full of bullets.
If Israel carry out their threat and kill him, how can they claim to be any better than the murderers they so despise? What does that say about “the only Democracy in the Middle-East?”
No, I do understand these limitations, and repeating your explications will not help. You should read my postings and address the points I said.
The difference between you and me is that I am already shocked by the mere discussion itself. How can they even consider an assassination?
It’s not that they discuss arresting him for a trial for terrorism, including something called “evidence” which is normally necessary. No, they discuss killing him right away.
I’m trying to think how it would go down in the UK if John Prescott or Geoff Hoon started talking about assassinating, say Jacques Chiraq (no comment on the valididity of this idea…). We all know governments news-manage and spin, all the time.
It may not be an official policy, but do you really think this wasn’t said deliberately, Alan Owes Bess?
I was going to post when I was reading down this thread but, sadly for SD, it simply isn’t worth it.
The level of bias in favour of Israel in the US is so overwhelming that “fighting ignorance” doesn’t begin to express the hurdles we have to overcome.
Nice try Glee though!
Sorry if this sounds fatalistic but even using the term “Peace Process” in relation to what has been going on since Camp David makes me want to throw up…
Israel Backs Off of Threat to Kill Arafat
I do agree with Istara’s take on this. I am wondering if the provocation is deliberate though. The pissing each other off, the cycle of violence continues…
One thing Sharon has consistently shown is a sort of reverse notion of the US-Israel vassal state theory. He has tried on many occasions to force America’s hand on Mideast relations. Following the 9-11 attacks he was trying to put one over saying Israel could prove it was the Palestinians and demanding US permission to demolish the PA. I think this shows that he’s got it into his head that he can touch off a general regional war, and since we’re stuck in Iraq we’ll have to come into it on his side. That is very dangerous, because if he does touch of a regional war we will be up to our necks in it and there won’t be an easy way out.
If I were President I would have been on TV promising military retaliation against Israel if they pulled anything. We cannot take massive instability in the region with our troops in Iraq.
Exactly, laigle. First U.S. Presidential candidate who shows a spine on the Israeli question gets my vote.
Because that’s the way the Palestines like it. If you know differently give us a cite.
Any other concern for his legitimacy is, in this case, irrelevant. He is, ipso facto, the Palestine leader.
There are other countries not far from Palestine who are ruled by an unelected royalty and US foreign policy appears to be totally untroubled by the fact. So you really can’t apply democratic scruples as a justification for removing Arafat, far less a back-up argument for killing him.
Alan Owes Bess:
Why this bland acceptance of Arafat’s legitimacy as President.
Frutile Gesture:
Because that’s the way the Palestines like it.
Milum:
So true, Reminds me of how the Germans liked Hitler.
** Bloody YELLOW cowards !**
I was going to comment on this ‘comment’ but it simply isn’t worth fighting the ignorance. :smack:
If the Israelis make a strategic decision that keeping Arafat around in Ramallah is riskier than having the old bastard doing meet and greets from Paris to Pretoria (or far more preferably, him being dead - unfortunately, the fucker keeps himself in decent shape for a 74-year-old), they need to do it right.
Such as…
For god’s sake, dismantle some REAL settlements, and announce an immediate MORATORIUM to building settlements. Don’t do this namby-pamby-destroy-a-small-settlement-without-any-real-people-living-there-for-the-TV-cameras-and-then-build-another-three-more-settlements shit.
If you’re going to put your neck out on the line by exiling Arafat, then at least make it somewhat digestible to the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arabs).
Moderator’s Note: Made minor modification to thread title.
Blake, let’s keep it down to a dull roar. I’ve already said how I do not wish to drag too much of the terrorism parity issue into this thread. While I recognize that it has some pertinence, it has also been done to death in other threads.
You have spent time equating Israeli military actions with Palestinian terrorism. There is one simple and outstanding difference. Israel does not have the declared goal of obliterating Palestine. A majority of Palestinian people willingly serve as a support base for numerous organizations who have openly avowed their intention of destroying Israel through whatever means required, including the slaughtering of innocently assembled civilians. There is a difference, Israel has not made the destruction of any other nation their goal.
The Palestinian people have made extremely poor choices in their leadership. Even if they merely acquiesced to whatever corrupt election was last held, tacit compliance with Arafat’s tainted administration infects the validity of their claim to nationhood. Led by fundamentalist zealots, they have accepted a highly polarized scheme which has little application (or acceptance) in the global community. Arafat is a corrupt dinosaur who is trying to run Palestine like a feudal state. So long as his hand remains upon the tiller, more Palestinian people will be thrown into the teeth of Israel’s potent military machine.
SO now you are arguing that terrorism is not bad because of the killing of innocent civialians, it’s not bad because of the suffering and teror it engenders, it is not bad because of the destruction of property, it is not bad because of social and economic instability it produces. You must be aguing that because all those things occur no matter what the goal of the terrorist is.
You are apparently arguing that killing innocent women and children is bad only or primarly if it is done to destroy another nation. If the goal is to completely subjugate and control another nation, which is clearly Israel’s goal that is OK.
Zenster please explain this to me.
Can I not equally argue that: There is one simple and outstanding difference. Palestine does not have the declared goal of perpetually controlling and subjugating Israel. A majority of Israeli people willingly elect governments that organsise numerous organizations and that has who have openly vowed their intention of subjugating Palestine through whatever means required, including the slaughtering of innocently assembled civilians. There is a difference, Palestine has not made the subjuation of any other nation their goal.
Yes there are differences in the goals underlying the slaughter of innocent civilians by Israel and Palestine. Yes I equate the slaughter of innocent women and children by Israel with the slaughter of innoicent women and children by Plaestine. Of course I do. That’s because the acts are clearly equitable. And it was the act of terrorism that you invoked, not the underlying goal.
I’m afraid that your last post is a complete non-sequitur Zenster. It comes form nowhere and it goes nowhere. Are you suggetsing that a goal of perpetual subjugation justifies terrorism and the slaughter of innocents on Israel’s part, while the goal of destruction of an occupying enemy state does not justify terorr on Palestine’s part? If you are making those arguments could you perhaps expland on your moral position because to date it is not apparent why you consider perpetual subjugation a worthy goal and total destruction unworthy. If you are not making those arguments then you will need to tell us what argument you are making, becuase simply pointing out that there is a difference in goals is not an agument, it is a non sequitur.
Good point, Blake. And while you’re answering that one, Zenster, please let me know why you think Israel’s assassination of a head of state would be justified. I’m not trying to yank your chain here, as I’ve already said I respect you and your posts on this board - I’d just like to know why you 'd consider Arafat’s murder to be an acceptable course of action for a nation that claims to be a Democracy.
Godwin invoked. End of thread.